Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Robrob]

Why then would it invent such a convoluted account concerning the 'Lost Bird' if it already had a laser in place?

Why is it all CT require the most complex of routes to what (for the rest of us accepting reality) is a relatively simple answer?

 

[332nd]

Why is it all CT require the most complex of routes to what (for the rest of us accepting reality) is a relatively simple answer?

For the same reason I tell the kids at BRF* that I'm blue because to grow our warrior tusks, highland trolls have to chew sapphires & they tint our skin.** Telling them I was painted with an airbrush is boring & screws up the fantasy.***

* Bristol Ren Faire.
** Waaaaaay short version.
*** Personally, I find the make-up process far more fascinating.

 

[Patrick1000]

Of RATS AND ACTORS

Sometimes I like to try and figure out who the rats were, the guys "in the know" as far as the fraud goes. Well maybe I shouldn't call them rats because for all I know, they saved my life from the Ruskies or something with the bogus Apollo thing. So better to say "perps" than rats.

I tend to think Charles Berry was probably in on it, a rat, I mean perp, because he doesn't act like a real doctor. You know, Borman poops all over the spaceship, and Berry doesn't tell Lovell to clean it up.

I think Jack Garman and/or Steve Bales were probably in on it, rats, I mean perps, because the 1202 alarm business was not a "real decision point". Since they were going to go ahead with a fake mission no matter what, the 1202 isn't a place where someone could actually say, "NO GO", and have this lead to a genuine abort. So Bales/Garman, one or both, rats, I mean perps, probably. I think I already mentioned Nixon awarded the academy award, errrrrrrrhhhhhh, I mean the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bales which he accepted on behalf of the Mission Control Flight Officer Crew.

Then last night and today I read some on Emil Schiesser, the math whiz and deep tracking specialist, the guy that solved Apollo 11's "landing problem" and made it possible for Bean and Conrad to intentionally land, albeit fantasy style, right next to Surveyor 3 where star phobic Bean could point his tv camera right at the sun so there would be no chance of not videoing lasers unlike Surveyor VII's camera which did. I think Emil Schiesser was more than likely in on the fraud. I am looking at all of this tracking data from Apollo 11 and his landing site/landing coordinate assessment, and then after reading H. David Reed's account of the events occurring at Mission Control, boy oh boy boy boy, hard to imagine how this gifted math whiz wasn't also a halfway decent actor. Armstrong once said Schiesser was the most important rat, I mean perp, of the entire Apollo 11 Behind the Scenes Actors' Guild. I guess he must have been if he was in on this telemetry fraud at such a ground level.

I'll read up some more and report back, but as of now, I am thinking,"RAT ACTOR!". Whoops! Meant, "perp".

 

[332nd]

Sometimes I like to try and figure out who the rats were, the guys "in the know" as far as the fraud goes. Well maybe I shouldn't call them rats because for all I know, they saved my life from the Ruskies or something with the bogus Apollo thing. So better to say "perps" than rats.

I tend to think Charles Berry was probably in on it, a rat, I mean perp, because he doesn't act like a real doctor. You know, Borman poops all over the spaceship and Berry doesn't tell Lovell to clean it up.

I think Jack Garman and/or Steve Bales were probably in on it, rats, I mean perps, because the 1202 alarm business was not a "real decision point". Since they were going to go ahead with a fake mission no matter what, the 1202 isn't a place where someone could actually say, "NO GO", and have this lead to a genuine abort. So Bales/Garman, one or both, rats, I mean perps, probably. I think I already mentioned Nixon awarded the academy award, errrrrrrrhhhhhh, I mean the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bales which he accepted on behalf of the Mission Control Flight Officer Crew.

Then last night and today I read some on Emil Schiesser the math whiz and deep tracking specialist that solved Apollo 11's "landing problem" and made it possible for Bean and Conrad to intentionally land, albeit fantasy style, right next to Surveyor 3 where star phobic Bean could point his tv camera right at the sun so there would be no chance of videoing lasers like Surveyor VII's camera did. I think Emil Schiesser was more than likely in on the fraud. I am looking at all of this tracking data from Apollo 11 and his landing site/landing coordinate assessment, and then after reading H. David Reed's account of the events occurring at Mission Control, boy oh boy boy boy, hard to imagine how this gifted math whiz wasn't also a halfway decent actor. Armstrong once said Schiesser was the most important rat, I mean perp, of the entire Apollo 11 Behind the Scenes Actors' Guild. I guess he must have been if he was in on this telemetry fraud at such a ground level.

I'll read up some more and report back, but as of now, I am thinking,"RAT ACTOR!". Whoops! Meant, "perp".

Careful pat. You're straying into my area of expertise. I may not be the only actor on JREF, but afaict, I'm the only one in this thread &you are making the same mistake in the above post that my novice students tend to make. Namely, you are assuming all human beings will react to a situation the same way you would.

BTW: "SCREEN Actors Guild"

 

[nomuse]

Sometimes I like to try and figure out who the rats were, the guys "in the know" as far as the fraud goes. Well maybe I shouldn't call them rats because for all I know, they saved my life from the Ruskies or something with the bogus Apollo thing. So better to say "perps" than rats.

I tend to think Charles Berry was probably in on it, a rat, I mean perp, because he doesn't act like a real doctor. You know, Borman poops all over the spaceship, and Berry doesn't tell Lovell to clean it up.

I think Jack Garman and/or Steve Bales were probably in on it, rats, I mean perps, because the 1202 alarm business was not a "real decision point". Since they were going to go ahead with a fake mission no matter what, the 1202 isn't a place where someone could actually say, "NO GO", and have this lead to a genuine abort. So Bales/Garman, one or both, rats, I mean perps, probably. I think I already mentioned Nixon awarded the academy award, errrrrrrrhhhhhh, I mean the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bales which he accepted on behalf of the Mission Control Flight Officer Crew.

Then last night and today I read some on Emil Schiesser, the math whiz and deep tracking specialist, that solved Apollo 11's "landing problem" and made it possible for Bean and Conrad to intentionally land, albeit fantasy style, right next to Surveyor 3 where star phobic Bean could point his tv camera right at the sun so there would be no chance of not videoing lasers unlike Surveyor VII's camera which did. I think Emil Schiesser was more than likely in on the fraud. I am looking at all of this tracking data from Apollo 11 and his landing site/landing coordinate assessment, and then after reading H. David Reed's account of the events occurring at Mission Control, boy oh boy boy boy, hard to imagine how this gifted math whiz wasn't also a halfway decent actor. Armstrong once said Schiesser was the most important rat, I mean perp, of the entire Apollo 11 Behind the Scenes Actors' Guild. I guess he must have been if he was in on this telemetry fraud at such a ground level.

I'll read up some more and report back, but as of now, I am thinking,"RAT ACTOR!". Whoops! Meant, "perp".

So....Steve was in on it because he didn't know he could have called an abort but didn't?

Your "logic" frequently escapes me.

 

[nomuse]

Energizer called. They want you to bring their drum back.

 

[Patrick1000]

Thanks Red tail

Careful pat. You're straying into my area of expertise. I may not be the only actor on JREF, but afaict, I'm the only one in this thread &you are making the same mistake in the above post that my novice students tend to make. Namely, you are assuming all human beings will react to a situation the same way you would.

BTW: "SCREEN Actors Guild"

Thanks Redtail, my jokes are terrible are they not? I should stick with the narrative analysis. The point, intentional, with "scene" instead of "screen" was to emphasize the boys were working "behind the scenes", occult. Well not so occult now were they? If I can spot this fraud any fat headed numbskull can. By the way, I love it when RAF tells me I have a "fat head". Where the heck has he been anyway?

 

[Patrick1000]

The GO is a non decision

So....Steve was in on it because he didn't know he could have called an abort but didn't?

Your "logic" frequently escapes me.

If you see your buddy RAF nomuse, tell him to chalk up another one for the "FAT HEAD", as he endearingly calls me, DrPat.

It's a stroke of genius nomuse. Every place where there is a major decision point, a crisis, poop in the cockpit, 1202 alarm. These are not real decision points, the script has no flexibility. Apollo 8 is going to the moon, Berry will not call Borman back to search his stool for Salmonella, nor will Bales say, "CUT!!!!!!!!!". They are committed in these scenes if you will, to move forward.

So the people that make the apparent decisions, they are the RAT ACTORS from the APOLLO BEHIND THE SCENES ACTORS' GUILD.

In 5 years you'll read all about this when the tables have turned, Apollo is recognized as masquerade, and the other HBs and myself proceed to write about this stuff ad nauseam, a veritable Apollo believer's hell if you will.

 

[nomuse]

But...if the conspiracy is only a select few, then by that very requirement most of the people at Mission Control do not know they are participating in a fake mission. Each of them is being given, in fact, data that looks good to them. Data that was concocted to match the script, but still data good enough to fool them.

So the script requires the AGC to throw up a scripted event. One of the behind-the-scenes geniuses looks through the AGC documentation to find a suitably non-fatal error. The 1202 executive overflow error was a perfect find; it looked scary at first glance but was essentially benign because of the task priority design of the AGC.

The glory of this was, even if Steve were to ask for an abort he, just like the flight surgeon for Apollo 8, could be overruled by one of the few men in the big room who WAS in on the hoax -- the Flight Director himself.

 

[dafydd]

In 5 years you'll read all about this when the tables have turned, Apollo is recognized as masquerade, and the other HBs and myself proceed to write about this stuff ad nauseam, a veritable Apollo believer's hell if you will.

No we won't. I'll bet you we won't. Any amount you like.

 

[nomuse]

If you see your buddy RAF nomuse, tell him to chalk up another one for the "FAT HEAD", as he endearingly calls me, DrPat.

It's a stroke of genius nomuse. Every place where there is a major decision point, a crisis, poop in the cockpit, 1202 alarm. These are not real decision points, the script has no flexibility. Apollo 8 is going to the moon, Berry will not call Borman back to search his stool for Salmonella, nor will Bales say, "CUT!!!!!!!!!". They are committed in these scenes if you will, to move forward.

So the people that make the apparent decisions, they are the RAT ACTORS from the APOLLO BEHIND THE SCENES ACTORS' GUILD.

In 5 years you'll read all about this when the tables have turned, Apollo is recognized as masquerade, and the other HBs and myself proceed to write about this stuff ad nauseam, a veritable Apollo believer's hell if you will.

The trouble with conspiracy believers is they think everything must be mirrored. They can only conceive of a mindset that matches their own, yet happens to have picked a different belief.

If good and solid evidence showed up detailing how Apollo was hoaxed I'd be the last to turn from it. In fact, I'd be fascinated by the details. And by the human stories of the daring geniuses who carried it out. It would be a story greater than Operation Crossbow, an undertaking to dwarf any Potemkin Village, a daring trial that would make the escape from Alcatraz seem like a brisk morning swim.

See, that's the essential difference. Very few hoax believers ever change their minds. They are not influenced by evidence; they make up their minds first, then find evidence to fit. As one piece of evidence fails, they turn to another, and another.

It is natural and human to fall into such patterns of thought. The method of science is in no small part a method to detect when one has fallen into said trap. If they are at all good at being skeptics, then, those who understand the Apollo story in detail will be able to embrace a different but equally detailed story.

 

[Patrick1000]

Oh yes we will, we are closing' in brother dafydd

No we won't. I'll bet you we won't. Any amount you like.

From 1178, we have fraudulent telemetry and so Apollo 11 is Certified USDA BOGUS. We just continue to fill in the details, takes time, but not much. My prediction is 5 years give or take a couple. The thing could cave quickly too. I am planning a post to help others crunch the numbers like I did. Betcha' that one's gonna' give ya' an ulcer. Tell me your address dafydd, I'll shoot you a script for protonix. That way, you'll be premedicated when my next big bomb hits ya'. With much love, DrPat!

 

[drewid]

How desperate can you be drewid? If this was true, they'd have the guy's name. If this were true AND were it true the guy put the video on a plane that takes 6 hours to get to NYC the video would be fact checked, vetted, especially because no one else has the story. The net work would call Lick Observatory to verify the thing. One call. Also, with respect to a ruby red laser blasting pulses out that last billionths of a second, one might get flash blinded, but you are not going to "SEE" flashing light in a conventional sense.

Much more likely, the video was fabricated and given to the studio along with the implication that it was authentic. For the reason above(billionths' of a second pulses etc.) it is realized the thing will be spotted as a phony almost immediately by anyone with half a brain, so right there that excludes 50% of the NASA staff. But one of the other 50% will pick up on it. One of the NASA guys with 3/4s of a brain will see this as patently phony and say, "hey everyone, we're being DUPED! this space mission we're running is FAKE!" So the same guys that actually passed the bogus video to the net work ultimately cover its patent fraudulence with this ridiculous story about the over zealous reporter.

AND the fact that your side, has to cling to these idiotic cover stories, does all the more to emphasize this thing is 10 plus fake.

AND, as I wrote to Kiwi9, my point about the Capcom mentioning the LRRR being successfully targeted to Collins, has nothing to do whether the targeting was or was not successful, whether or not there was or was not a reporter. The point is, if the capcom THINKS it was real for a moment, along with the supposedly reasonably intelligent people sitting around him AND Donald Beattie and the other lunar science boys were available to discuss this very type of thing live on the air. Here's Beattie;

"Four nights after the launch, in anticipation of the landing, the Voice of America (VOA) had assembled a team to report on this once in a lifetime adventure for its worldwide audience. Several NASA colleagues, Merle Waugh, John Hammersmith, William Land, and I, were in the Washington studios as "color commentators" to back up the VOA reporters led by Rhett Turner, who would be reporting from the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. We listened anxiously, just like millions of others around the globe, to the exchange between the capsule communicator (CapCom) Charlie Duke and Armstrong and Aldrin in the Eagle as they went through the final maneuvers to land the LM. The excitement of those last few minutes, heightened by the crew's difficulties in selecting their landing site with alarms ringing in their ears and their fuel supply nearing exhaustion, made Armstrong's announcement "Houston, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed," almost anticlimactic. We could hear the cheering in the Mission Control Room through Rhett's microphone, and we in VOAs Washington studio were yelling and pounding each other on the back too. Although we had worked for years to help achieve this moment, it seemed incredible that we were successful on the first try."



Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (ebook Locations 2806-2813).

So Kiwi9 stepped in the Borman poop when he pressed this point with me because first of all it is immaterial to my argument. My point had to do with the FACT IN THE TRANSCRIPT that the CapCom SAID WHICH HE DID that the LRRR had been successfully targeted. My point plays out the same way, regardless of the story's authenticity, or how its inauthenticity may be accounted for. AND if one looks at this thing with a critical eye, one can see any reasonable person wouldn't buy this bull for the few billionths' of a nanosecond duration of a Lick Observatory ruby red laser pulse.


Give it up drewid. The thing is a bogus story and even if it were true, I could almost not care less. I suggest you spend your time in an effort attempting to debunk 1178 and my demonstration of telemetry fraudulence.

So to summarize, you've got nothing.

 

[Patrick1000]

I think you need to try to debunk 1178 nomuse

The trouble with conspiracy believers is they think everything must be mirrored. They can only conceive of a mindset that matches their own, yet happens to have picked a different belief.

If good and solid evidence showed up detailing how Apollo was hoaxed I'd be the last to turn from it. In fact, I'd be fascinated by the details. And by the human stories of the daring geniuses who carried it out. It would be a story greater than Operation Crossbow, an undertaking to dwarf any Potemkin Village, a daring trial that would make the escape from Alcatraz seem like a brisk morning swim.

See, that's the essential difference. Very few hoax believers ever change their minds. They are not influenced by evidence; they make up their minds first, then find evidence to fit. As one piece of evidence fails, they turn to another, and another.

It is natural and human to fall into such patterns of thought. The method of science is in no small part a method to detect when one has fallen into said trap. If they are at all good at being skeptics, then, those who understand the Apollo story in detail will be able to embrace a different but equally detailed story.

Mirror nothing. I busted the telemetry scam and that is a fact. My numbers are also supported by NASA's OWN!!! Trajectory analysis report from March 1970 and I'll post that data which corroborates my Mission Report analysis in my next post.

It's not in my head nomuse, IT IS IN NASA'S NUMBERS. I suggest you take a look at them. Mission Report , table 5-IV. NASA Apollo 11 Trajectory Analysis 16 March 1970. Better get a copy of the Trenches book too, I have another big fat bomb to drop on you from that one too.

Debunk my Reed vs Mission Report analysis nomuse. I triple space dog dare you to try. In the parlance of your colleagues, all I see is "ARM WAVING" from you my friend.

 

[Patrick1000]

You have nothing

So to summarize, you've got nothing.

Reporter's name for starters and then we might consider this for a few nanoseconds, which by the way is the time of the ruby red laser pulse.

Am I right or am I right about the pulse duration nomuse? Can you straighten your friend out here, PM him or something and tell him you already brought up the point about the laser's visibility being questionable, if that, given the pulse duration.

drewid, read nomuse's posts from just after the time I brought the lasers up. He agrees with me here. Give it up.

 

[Patrick1000]

Where is Kiwi?

So to summarize, you've got nothing.

I might be wrong, as I haven't looked at every post, but I think Kiwi has given up on this too. Or has he? Anyway, I think he has. You should too drewid. As I said, it is not even material to the point being argued which was the CAPCOM SAID THE LRRR HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY TARGETED. EEE GADDS! Let's move on. Ciao!

 

[Patrick1000]

No one knew where we were!

The trouble with conspiracy believers is they think everything must be mirrored. They can only conceive of a mindset that matches their own, yet happens to have picked a different belief.

If good and solid evidence showed up detailing how Apollo was hoaxed I'd be the last to turn from it. In fact, I'd be fascinated by the details. And by the human stories of the daring geniuses who carried it out. It would be a story greater than Operation Crossbow, an undertaking to dwarf any Potemkin Village, a daring trial that would make the escape from Alcatraz seem like a brisk morning swim.

See, that's the essential difference. Very few hoax believers ever change their minds. They are not influenced by evidence; they make up their minds first, then find evidence to fit. As one piece of evidence fails, they turn to another, and another.



It is natural and human to fall into such patterns of thought. The method of science is in no small part a method to detect when one has fallen into said trap. If they are at all good at being skeptics, then, those who understand the Apollo story in detail will be able to embrace a different but equally detailed story.

Here's some good evidence nomuse, also very funny. From the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. See Aldrin's last line there, "nobody knew where we were", the EDITOR was the one who added "(exactly)". Now why in the world would an editor want to change Buzz Aldrin's perfectly clear, "nobody knew where we were" to an incredibly ambiguous and marvelously manipulative, "nobody knew (exactly) where we were"?

My oh my , how these boys do lie! How is that for EVIDENCE nomuse?!

Please check the journal for yourself, but if you are trying to sleep now, I'd suggest avoiding it. Will keep you tossing and turning all night.

Gotta' run.

til' my next monstrous wall of text,

Give my love to RAF,

DrPat

"102:19:19 Aldrin: Roger. AGS residuals: (X) minus 0.1, (Y) minus 0.2, (Z) minus 0.7 (feet per second). And we used the PGNS Noun 86 for Delta-VZ which was 9.5, versus yours which was 9.1, and I believe that may explain the difference (between the minus 0.7 residual in AGS versus minus 0.1 for the PGNS). Apogee 57.2, perilune 9.1; Sun check to three marks; Noun 20 minus Noun 22, plus 0.19, plus 0.16, plus 0.11. Over.
102:19:54 Duke: Rog. Copy. Looks great.

[Comm Break, with static during most of the last minute.]
[The LM computer takes actions designated as Verbs, while Nouns are data. The PGNS and AGS both integrate accelerations to estimate the spacecraft velocities. The PGNS uses data from the inertial platform and the AGS uses less accurate data from body-mounted accelerometers.]

[Aldrin - "Somewhere, we had a state vector (three-axis position and velocity) update because of the tracking data that Houston got once we came around. But, how that happened and whether we were aware of it, I don't remember. I know that a lot of people got credit for developing the tracking filter that allowed them to do that. That neat capability contributed to the accuracy of our touchdown, even though nobody knew (exactly) where we were.""

 

[abaddon]

Mirror nothing. I busted the telemetry scam and that is a fact.

No you didn't, as was ably demonstrated by several posters in this very thread.
You can't just claim victory in the teeth of utter defeat and expect to get away with it.

My numbers are also supported by NASA's OWN!!! Trajectory analysis report from March 1970

Wait, what? NASA lies, yet puts out valid data?
Which is it?

and I'll post that data which corroborates my Mission Report analysis in my next post.

But you didn't. Surprise, surprise.

It's not in my head nomuse, IT IS IN NASA'S NUMBERS.

But according to you NASA's numbers are fake, which is it?

I suggest you take a look at them. Mission Report , table 5-IV. NASA Apollo 11 Trajectory Analysis 16 March 1970. Better get a copy of the Trenches book too, I have another big fat bomb to drop on you from that one too.

All you have is vapid, unsupported claims.

Debunk my Reed vs Mission Report analysis nomuse. I triple space dog dare you to try. In the parlance of your colleagues, all I see is "ARM WAVING" from you my friend.

It has been done several times in this very thread. Don't you read?

 

[Patrick1000]

Oh abaddon, but surely you jest?

No you didn't, as was ably demonstrated by several posters in this very thread.
You can't just claim victory in the teeth of utter defeat and expect to get away with it.

Wait, what? NASA lies, yet puts out valid data?
Which is it?

But you didn't. Surprise, surprise.



But according to you NASA's numbers are fake, which is it?


All you have is vapid, unsupported claims.


It has been done several times in this very thread. Don't you read?

Call that debunking, my, you boys got to do better than that. Anyway. I am a man of my word. You may down load the trajectory analysis yourself and begin to peruse the numbers, and NASA's own analysis(March 16 1970) , which supports mine. No bluffing here, take a look. Will take me some time, another wall to write it up, but I will. Also want to show my HB colleagues how to work with the numbers so you clowns don't pull a fast one when I leave this thread for a while. Ciao! Better start reading abaddon, same to you though, assuming it is night where you are at, I would wait until morning. It really is quite hard to hide a big lunar module like that you know.

 

[abaddon]

Call that debunking, my, you boys got to do better than that.

<snigger> You have nothing.

Anyway. I am a man of my word.

Those are weasel words.

You may down load the trajectory analysis yourself and begin to peruse the numbers, and NASA's own analysis(March 16 1970) , which supports mine.

Once again NASA lies, except when it doesn't.

No bluffing here, take a look.

Looked, walked away from the lies.

Will take me some time, another wall to write it up, but I will. Also want to show my HB colleagues how to work with the numbers so you clowns don't pull a fast one when I leave this thread for a while. Ciao!

Yeah another wall of text will work.

Better start reading abaddon, same to you though, assuming it is night where you are at, I would wait until morning. It really is quite hard to hide a big lunar module like that you know.

Been there, done that, recognised the evidence. Reading for comprehension is clearly not your friend.

Nevertheless, you do provide light comedic entertainment.