JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Closed Thread
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:15 AM   #1081
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
I believe I do get to say what I wish if properly referenced

Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
...and as we keep telling you, the Apollo missions are ESTABLISHED FACT. If you disagree, the onus is on you to prove yourself right.

You simple do not get to arbitrarily decide that we have to prove you wrong....until you get this simple fact through your fat head, this discussion is pointless.
I welcome you to this splendid fray RAF, good to see you back. I encourage you to take your best shot.

As always, please support your claims for the official narrative with references please. I have supported mine with official narrative referncing as you can well see. As we both are citing the same set of "facts", it would seem we are "telling the same story", just spinning it differently.

Pat

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 10:16 AM. Reason: citeing>citing, woudl>would
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:15 AM   #1082
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
Astronauts periodically used a sextant to sight on stars
Patrick...will you NOW admit your error regarding this?...or will you ignorantly continue making unreasoned claims?
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:18 AM   #1083
ApolloGnomon
Aluminum Tripod
 
ApolloGnomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chillin' with C-Rock
Posts: 4,146
This is a generalized description of the difference between coherent light and diffuse light.

This does not state that a human being on the moon could actually SEE the light.

Nor does it state that a human being could actually see a laser pulse who's duration is measured in NANOseconds.

Your inability to understand what you read is quite frustrating.
__________________
Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal


"I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. "
JayUtah
ApolloGnomon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:19 AM   #1084
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Asked and answered.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Do you actualy think that the laser used on the LLLR can be seen by anyone one the moon?

Do you think that the lasers are bright shafts of light as seen in Sci Fi movies, James Bond etc?
Asked and answered Captain_Swoop.

Yes.

If you are unappreciative of nature's own answer, I suggest you contact professors Alley and Townes and ask them if they might request mother nature to change the world so as it would be more to your liking.

Pat

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 10:20 AM. Reason: added "Yes". changed spacing
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:21 AM   #1085
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,167
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The Lick Observatory laser Captain_Swoop was infinitely more powerful than the one watt laser that outshown the entire citry of LA.
Infinitely more powerful?

It is to laugh.
drewid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:22 AM   #1086
ApolloGnomon
Aluminum Tripod
 
ApolloGnomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chillin' with C-Rock
Posts: 4,146
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Asked and answered Captain_Swoop.

Yes.

If you are unappreciative of nature's own answer, I suggest you contact professors Alley and Townes and ask them if they might request mother nature to change the world so as it would be more to your liking.

Pat
zwr
__________________
Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal


"I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. "
JayUtah
ApolloGnomon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:22 AM   #1087
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,204
Patrick, please respond to post 1082
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:28 AM   #1088
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
AOT is the way to go go go when in the LM

Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
Patrick...will you NOW admit your error regarding this?...or will you ignorantly continue making unreasoned claims?
The astronauts employed the AOT and not a sextant aboard the LM. The AOT was primarily used to realign the platform, though coordinate determinations were made with the aid of this device, such as in the context of running a P68, just after landing.

The astronauts claimed to not see stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space for the most part RAF. Not infrequently, they said that they had difficulty sighting stars through both the AOT and the CSM optics.

With regard to claims made by the astronauts, I find that the claims of not seeing stars from the surface of the moon and not seeing stars for most of the journey through cislunar space to be ludicrous, and in a very real and meaningful sense, contemptuous. How dare they play us for such fools?

I suggest you write to Neil Armstrong if you object to his claims. I did once and he never wrote me back. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Pat.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 10:31 AM. Reason: added comma X 2, suoich>such
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:48 AM   #1089
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: People's Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
A final point before I conclude for the day. There is the famous visor down photograph of Armstrong "walking across the surface of the moon". We are all very familiar with this image. This cannot be an authentic moonscape shot. They would not allow Armstrong to do this and of course Armstrong would not do such a fool hardy thing in the context of genuine potential for exposure to laser light of that intensity. There must not be any authentic risk of exposure to ruby red light in the "context" of this famous photo, and so one may conclude Neil Armstrong is not on the surface of the moon on July 20 1969. Pat
If it was too dangerous to open the visor, why is there a visor on the suit?

There are MANY pictures of astronauts with the visors open.
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:49 AM   #1090
ApolloGnomon
Aluminum Tripod
 
ApolloGnomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chillin' with C-Rock
Posts: 4,146
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The astronauts employed the AOT and not a sextant aboard the LM. The AOT was primarily used to realign the platform, though coordinate determinations were made with the aid of this device, such as in the context of running a P68, just after landing.
So what?

Quote:
The astronauts claimed to not see stars from the surface of the moon or from cislunar space for the most part RAF. Not infrequently, they said that they had difficulty sighting stars through both the AOT and the CSM optics.
Shifting the goalposts again? Above you claimed
"for over 200,000 miles of coasting out to mother earth's closest luminary, for the most part, the astronauts say they saw no stars? "

Quote:
With regard to claims made by the astronauts, I find that the claims of not seeing stars from the surface of the moon and not seeing stars for most of the journey through cislunar space to be ludicrous, and in a very real and meaningful sense, contemptuous.
Didn't you just move the goalposts AWAY from this mistake? Kicking the ball into your own net is amusing but not very productive.

Quote:
How dare they play us for such fools?
You're doing that part all by yourself.

Quote:
I suggest you write to Neil Armstrong if you object to his claims. I did once and he never wrote me back. Perhaps you will have better luck.

Pat.
"Mr. Armstrong: I'm an uneducated high school kid pretending to be a Doctor on the Internet, and I've made up a completely stupid theory about the moon landings....."

Yeah, I'm sure that one went straight to the top of the pile.
__________________
Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal


"I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. "
JayUtah
ApolloGnomon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:54 AM   #1091
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: People's Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
This explains one of Apollo's deep mysteries drewid. At the post Apollo 11 flight press conference, Armsrtong says that at no time did any of the astronauts("WE" he says) see stars from the surface of the moon or the sunlit side of the moon when travleing in the CM. Ever wonder why he says this? Why say something so off the wall unless of course your contrived story demands it? This is a risky risky lie because it is so out there. As such, it reveals one of the fraud's crucial aspects, difficulty in dealing with the laser/LRRR. On the one hand, the LRRR's successful targeting will "prove" they really were up there, on the other hand, they can't let anyone know where the LRRR is while they have cameras running and while they are vulnerable to being asked questions about it. (Actually Aldrin claims to see it once, the laser, and is asked about it fairly late in the trip. But this is staged, contrived, inauthentic.) The laser is a hot hot problem given the astronauts are not in fact anywhere near it and wouldn't begin to really know how to describe it. Aldrin says it is white I believe. Were they really on the moon, it would all be different.

Ever wonder how Armstrong gets away with saying that for the vast majority of the cislunar excursion to the moon, for over 200,000 miles of coasting out to mother earth's closest luminary, for the most part, the astronauts say they saw no stars? Not a credible statement at all, a very risky lie. Must be covering for something very big to take that risk, sonmething like an inability to deal with the laser issue. Best to deny it by way of saying one cannot see anything.

Haven't you ever wondered drewid why it is that Armstrong makes such a preposterous claim? Well here it is, one of the deep and great Apollo 11 Mission mysteries now before us open to read like a child's space adventure book, so very simple now to see wouldn't you say?

To see stars is to see the laser, an ever so complicated problem with which to deal for so many reasons if the journey is fraud and not science.

This is critical stuff drewid, critical.

Pat
WHICH IS WHAT? Can you PLEASE learn to write a complete thought, instead of these long pointless rambles?

WHY is the "hoax" forced to claim that seeing stars from the surface of the Moon is impossible (which they do not, you fracking incompetent liar, but anyhow...!) WHY!? WHY is this important?

PLEASE stop with the walls of text and learn to write!
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 01:57 PM   #1092
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Is and isn't possible.

Thanks for the comment Travis. Brevity is and is not possible under these circumstances.

If I wish to convey a relatively complex idea such as , "The Apollo 11 Mission official narrative is internally incoherent". Sure I can state that, matter of fact, I did right there. But such a stand alone statement means little in this context. One needs to support one's position in many ways, and this requires not an insignificant amount of writing.

On the other hand, once I've said something fairly "big" and have supported it as best I can in the context of its presentation, then I can shoot off fairly brief answers to questions.

I do try as funny as that sounds.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 02:10 PM. Reason: consistent>incoherent, removed "I", added comma x 3, context . One >
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 05:04 PM   #1093
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
WHICH IS WHAT? Can you PLEASE learn to write a complete thought, instead of these long pointless rambles?

WHY is the "hoax" forced to claim that seeing stars from the surface of the Moon is impossible (which they do not, you fracking incompetent liar, but anyhow...!) WHY!? WHY is this important?

PLEASE stop with the walls of text and learn to write!
The questions are rhetorical nomuse, or in your parlance, "rhetorical rambles". When Neil says that the only thing one is able to see in cislunar space is the earth and the sun, ya' gotta' ask yourself, "does this guy really believe I am buyin' this line?" Of course the answer is, "No!" But that's an of course, of course. So the question, the "rhetorical ramble", well that takes it to the next level, takes you to the next level deep, or not so deep, of metaphor, depending on how badly your mom feels about doling out all those, even in 1960s bucks, worthless greenbacks.

I wonder if they couldn't mix those worthless tax dollar greenbacks with John Borman's imaginary space poopies to make a nitrogen rich rocket fuel for NASA's imaginary Apollo 11? Maybe they did! Wonder if that is what gave that phony Saturn 5 trailing blaze that nice nice orange glow? Remember in freshman chemistry class nomuse how you'd test for "sodium" "Borman, poopies" or what not, by subjecting this , that, or the other flaming substance of interest to some type of colorimetric assay? I remember that stuff. I was always one of the smartest kids in the class, even in college and grad school.

Oh well, guess I should go back to researching this, that and the other thing for my next fabulous iteration of an interminably eloquent DrPat master stroke.

And by the way nomuse, thanks a CSM space capsule full of John Borman poopie load for your incredibly relevant post. The folks at the forum here seem to be able to produce one ripe non sequitur after another, like veritable hot cakes, like they're going out of style.

Best to you good buddie while I drink my way back on topic.

Much love from somewhere NOT in cislunar space, your favorite doc, DrPat.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 05:10 PM. Reason: added, "well that", added commas x 3, changed position of an "of", added "next"
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 05:19 PM   #1094
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tuolumne City, CA
Posts: 20,273
Okay....let's focus. Why do you still feel that Borman didn't poop in space?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 06:26 PM   #1095
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Okay....let's focus. Why do you still feel that Borman didn't poop in space?
Yes,enough merry bandinage. What proof does Pat have of this unlikely scenario?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 07:27 PM   #1096
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 15,370
Mod WarningTwenty-six posts have been sent to AAH. Do not attack the individual, do not behave with incivility.
Posted By:Loss Leader
__________________
"I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba


Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 07:58 PM   #1097
ApolloGnomon
Aluminum Tripod
 
ApolloGnomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chillin' with C-Rock
Posts: 4,146
Quote:
When Neil says that the only thing one is able to see in cislunar space is the earth and the sun,
When did he say this? Or are you just making stuff up again?
__________________
Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal


"I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. "
JayUtah
ApolloGnomon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 08:01 PM   #1098
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
What about the proof of Borman's number one problems?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 08:02 PM   #1099
Redtail
Penultimate Amazing
 
Redtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,285
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
The questions are rhetorical nomuse, or in your parlance, "rhetorical rambles". When Neil says that the only thing one is able to see in cislunar space is the earth and the sun, ya' gotta' ask yourself, "does this guy really believe I am buyin' this line?" Of course the answer is, "No!" But that's an of course, of course. So the question, the "rhetorical ramble", well that takes it to the next level, takes you to the next level deep, or not so deep, of metaphor, depending on how badly your mom feels about doling out all those, even in 1960s bucks, worthless greenbacks.

I wonder if they couldn't mix those worthless tax dollar greenbacks with John Borman's imaginary space poopies to make a nitrogen rich rocket fuel for NASA's imaginary Apollo 11? Maybe they did! Wonder if that is what gave that phony Saturn 5 trailing blaze that nice nice orange glow? Remember in freshman chemistry class nomuse how you'd test for "sodium" "Borman, poopies" or what not, by subjecting this , that, or the other flaming substance of interest to some type of colorimetric assay? I remember that stuff. I was always one of the smartest kids in the class, even in college and grad school.

Oh well, guess I should go back to researching this, that and the other thing for my next fabulous iteration of an interminably eloquent DrPat master stroke.

And by the way nomuse, thanks a CSM space capsule full of John Borman poopie load for your incredibly relevant post. The folks at the forum here seem to be able to produce one ripe non sequitur after another, like veritable hot cakes, like they're going out of style.

Best to you good buddie while I drink my way back on topic.

Much love from somewhere NOT in cislunar space, your favorite doc, DrPat.
When did Armstrong say that?
__________________
Villager: Pfft... Who knows? Can your science explain why it rains?
Sokka: Wha!?... I ca.... YES!!!!
Redtail is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 08:03 PM   #1100
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
When did he say this? Or are you just making stuff up again?
I would like to see a quote and a link too. We have seen no evidence of this or anything else so far. One lives in hope.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 08:04 PM   #1101
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Redtail View Post
When did Armstrong say that?
No doubt Pat will provide us with full details for this and any future statements that he makes.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 08:44 PM   #1102
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
If the astronauts didn't put the LRRR there, who did?

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I wonder how, in Patrick's imagined version, NASA knew where the LRRR had landed.
Jack by the hedge,

I had mentioned this previously at my post #1040. Donald Beattie was the Program Manager for the Lunar Surface Experiments. Beattie mentions here in his book TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON that an LRRR device capable of reporting its own coordinates when struck by laser light had been developed by the Apollo Program Scientists.

In light of Beattie's report on this matter, one solution to the LRRR placement mystery would be for an LRRR with this coordinate reporting capacity to have been sent up to the moon by way of an unmanned Surveyor type craft. Here is Beattie;

"USGS had similar concerns but thought the biggest problem would be locating and documenting the sites visited, and in particular sampled, so that accurate traverse maps and profiles could be reconstructed back on Earth. The Flagstaff team had devised a surveying staff that would reflect a laser beam from a ranging device and automatically record the coordinates of a position on the lunar surface. This approach was based on the simulations and exercises we had been conducting for the post-Apollo missions, which suggested that without some type of surveying instrument it would be almost impossible for an astronaut to accurately locate his position on the Moon and associate a sample or observation with a specific point. Lunar geologic maps made without such positioning would be seriously degraded in value, since to establish map locations we would have to depend on some type of dead reckoning or coarse Earth-tracking and reconstruction of the traverse based on voice communication."

Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (Ebook Locations 1614-1619).

In the NASA LRRR Experiment's Final Report (1971) ; NAS 9-7809, the LRRR Project's Principal Investigator, C.O. Alley, wrote of plans to place LRRRs on the surface of the moon by way of Surveyor type unmanned craft.

Alley writing in the report's introduction, page 6(copy I have);

"In the f a l l of 1964 discussions were held by some of the authors of' this paper with Mr. Benjamin Milwitzlcy, director of the Surveyor program, and with other NASA officials in an effort to have NASA develop suitable reflectors for lunar emplacement by the Surveyors."

In this same NASA LRRR Final Report of Alley's, he discusses LRRR experimental techniques having been developed in the context of the Surveyor program. From the Introduction of the "TEST REPORT ON THE 0PTICAL:QUALITY OF THREE 1-1/2" RETROREFLECTORS" section;

"A short laser light pulse is transmitted through the 107" telescope pointed at the laser ranging retroreflector array on the Moon and the reflected light pulse from the array is collectedby the same telescope. The transmitted laser beam is very narror.7 so' that precise pointing of the telescope is essential. Techniques for this purpose were developed during the Surveyor 7 laser-beam-pointing test."

So Alley tells us there were discussions of placing LRRRs by way of Surveyor type unmanned devices, and Beattie tells us of a tool available to the program capable of automatically calculating/recording lunar coordinates when the device is illuminated by laser light.

I suggest such a scenario is quite reasonable. A landing by an unmanned Surveyor type craft with such an LRRR or LRRRs, capable of reflecting laser light and also generating/calculating the LRRR's lunar coordinates may well have been what happened.

It should be emphasized that this scenario is greatly preferred over that of the "official story", as we have demonstrated foreknowledge of the LRRR's Tranquility Base coordinates and so may confidently conclude the LRRR at Tranquility Base was not placed by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin, but placed by some other means. My proposed scenario is more consistent with the details/facts of NASA's own official narrative than is NASA's contention that the facts regarding the LRRR support the notion that it was placed by astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin as conventionally presented.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 08:55 PM. Reason: added " " ", changed quote spacing to single, Nr.>Mr.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:47 PM   #1103
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sapounakeika
Posts: 12,833
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Jack by the hedge,

I had mentioned this previously at my post #1040. Donald Beattie was the Program Manager for the Lunar Surface Experiments. Beattie mentions here in his book TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON that an LRRR device capable of reporting its own coordinates when struck by laser light had been developed by the Apollo Program Scientists.

<snip>
In other words zero evidence that there was an LRRR on Surveyor that could be located from Earth, just speculation requiring a conspiracy to hide the fact that Surveyor placed a LRRR.

Patrick1000 - it toook people on the moon to work out precisely where the Apollo craft were. Surveyor missions had no people.

Meanwhile all Surveyor missions are documented and landed away from Apollo sites. Your theory requires a secret mission, which is not possible.
__________________
The fundamental problem with time travel, according to Oglaf (contains naughty language)
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 10:49 PM   #1104
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 15,370
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
I suggest such a scenario is quite reasonable. A landing by an unmanned Surveyor type craft with such an LRRR or LRRRs, capable of reflecting laser light and also generating/calculating the LRRR's lunar coordinates may well have been what happened.

So we had the technology to deploy a laser reflector on the moon and we had the technology to shoot people into space. We just never combined the two?
__________________
"I recognize the problem ... but I was sort of hoping that no one would consider the issue important enough to bring up." Jabba


Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2011, 11:44 PM   #1105
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Yes to the deploy the LRRR, no to Apollo 11 CSM crossing cislunar space

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
So we had the technology to deploy a laser reflector on the moon and we had the technology to shoot people into space. We just never combined the two?
Loss Leader,

My argument above has shown that those individuals passing Tranquility Base coordinate numbers to the Lick Observatory staff, coordinate numbers of sufficient accuracy to allow for successful targeting of the 00 41 15 north/23 26 00 east LRRR so that were it not for the JPL timing problem, the LRRR may have in fact been successfully targeted, were in possession of those coordinate numbers prior to the calculation of similarly accurate coordinate numbers as calculated by the astronauts themselves and the staff at Mission Control. The astronauts and Mission Control flight officers were not in possession of Tranquility Base coordinate numbers sufficiently accurate to successfully target the LRRR until after H. David Reed made the necessary calculations sometime after the beginning of his shift on 07/21/1969. We know this to be the case as it is a fact based on the accounting of events on the morning of 07/21/1969 as provided by Mission Control's highest authority in the matter, launch trajectory specialist, FIDO H. David Reed, the man who calculated the very launch solution for the Eagle/CSM hook up.

No forum member has presented any evidence to refute/counter this claim. We may therefore confidently conclude the Apollo 11 Mission was fraudulent. Given this fraudulence, it is reasonable to suggest the American Space Program was not capable of sending men to the moon, though that claim cannot be comprehensively established. What can be established based on the above is that the the Apollo 11 Mission astronauts did not place a LRRR on the surface of the moon. That particular Mission we have established beyond doubt as fraudulent.

We may rightfully conclude, as an LRRR was targeted successfully by the staff at Lick Observatory on 08/01/1969, the American Space Program did indeed have the capability of placing said device on the lunar surface. From the above, this was not done by the Apollo 11 astronauts given this mission's fraudulence.

And finally, to the degree the issue has been studied by this forum's members heretofore, prior to 08/01/1969, there is no credible evidence of the American Space Program's having the ability to land men on the moon. They may have been in possession of such an ability, but their first attempt to reach the moon has been demonstrated to be fraudulent. Additional study is required before we might be able to come to any further conclusions with respect to the American capacity for lunar exploration.

So NASA definitely was able to land LRRR devices on the moon and demonstrate their presence by 08/01/1969. Prior to this time, the American Space Program never demonstrated an ability to reach the moon with manned space craft. Further study is required to determine if NASA was capable of reaching the moon subsequent to 08/01/1969 with manned craft..

Last edited by Patrick1000; 23rd August 2011 at 11:53 PM. Reason: 01>00, added "the LRRR may have in fact been successfully targeted", 20>21,removed "the" added command "with manned craft"
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 12:28 AM   #1106
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tuolumne City, CA
Posts: 20,273
I'm still not following your logic on this.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 12:33 AM   #1107
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sapounakeika
Posts: 12,833
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
<snip>
So NASA definitely was able to land LRRR devices on the moon and demonstrate their presence by 08/01/1969.
How was the secret Surveyor mission managed? Where and when was the launch and how was it disguised? Who built the "missing" Surveyor craft and all the accompanying hardware? Who controlled the secret mission once it was launched?

What was the degree of accuracy in locating the know Surveyor landings?
__________________
The fundamental problem with time travel, according to Oglaf (contains naughty language)
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 12:47 AM   #1108
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
SMay well not

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
How was the secret Surveyor mission managed? Where and when was the launch and how was it disguised? Who built the "missing" Surveyor craft and all the accompanying hardware? Who controlled the secret mission once it was launched?

What was the degree of accuracy in locating the know Surveyor landings?
GlennB,

May well not have been much of a "secret". As previously mentioned, may have been launched 07/16/1969 under the guise of Apollo 11. Many possibilities exist and are worth exploring. One thing we do know with absolute certainty, given the foreknowledge issue, Armstrong and Aldrin did not place the reflector upon the surface of the moon.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 24th August 2011 at 12:48 AM. Reason: removed "is that"
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 01:13 AM   #1109
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: People's Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 773
I have a simpler solution, Patrick. The secret robotic LRRR was launched by the same SaturnV stack that was pretending to launch Apollo 11. It made it to the Moon via the same CSM and LM that Apollo 11 pretended to have. And after the LRRR deployed, the fake LM continued to sit on the surface in case some sneaky Russkies happened to fly over with a camera.

But want to know what would make the plan even more elegant? Instead of trying to accomplish all of this with 1960's robotics, all you need is a small number of dare-devil volunteers who will ride the bird down and personally deploy the LRRR. Heck, while they are there they can even deploy some other scientific packages and save you having to fake the data from them (c.f. ALSEP.) And as a final bonus, these highly trained volunteers could also fake the radio broadcasts convincing the listening world that the Apollo missions were actually taking place.
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 01:19 AM   #1110
Toke
Godless Socialist
 
Toke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,759
Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
I have a simpler solution, Patrick. The secret robotic LRRR was launched by the same SaturnV stack that was pretending to launch Apollo 11. It made it to the Moon via the same CSM and LM that Apollo 11 pretended to have. And after the LRRR deployed, the fake LM continued to sit on the surface in case some sneaky Russkies happened to fly over with a camera.

But want to know what would make the plan even more elegant? Instead of trying to accomplish all of this with 1960's robotics, all you need is a small number of dare-devil volunteers who will ride the bird down and personally deploy the LRRR. Heck, while they are there they can even deploy some other scientific packages and save you having to fake the data from them (c.f. ALSEP.) And as a final bonus, these highly trained volunteers could also fake the radio broadcasts convincing the listening world that the Apollo missions were actually taking place.
You are right, that would be the simplest way to carry out the hoax.
__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

Toke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 01:31 AM   #1111
Kiwi9
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
No forum member has presented any evidence to refute/counter this claim.
Umm, Patrick1000, would you please carefully re-read post No. 1065 on page 27 where I certainly countered nine or ten of your claims.

And please answer my queries in that post. So far you have ignored it, which says something about your "thoroughness."

By the way, I note that in one of your previous walls-of-words you used the word "rational" a few times, whereas I believe you sould have used "rationale," unless American English doesn't ever use the word even though it has been around since the 17th century.

Last edited by Kiwi9; 24th August 2011 at 01:33 AM.
Kiwi9 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 01:56 AM   #1112
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,167
So PTD, here we are on page 28, still zero proof of "foreknowledge" and you're down to ignoring refutations.

Such a well worn path and nothing special.
drewid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:32 AM   #1113
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,631
Originally Posted by Patrick1000 View Post
Jack by the hedge,

I had mentioned this previously at my post #1040.
Indeed. But it didn't make much sense, hence my questioning.

Quote:
Donald Beattie was the Program Manager for the Lunar Surface Experiments. Beattie mentions here in his book TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON that an LRRR device capable of reporting its own coordinates when struck by laser light had been developed by the Apollo Program Scientists.In light of Beattie's report on this matter, one solution to the LRRR placement mystery would be for an LRRR with this coordinate reporting capacity to have been sent up to the moon by way of an unmanned Surveyor type craft.
I strongly suspect you misunderstand what he wrote. I don't think he describes a device with that capability at all.
Quote:

Here is Beattie;

"USGS had similar concerns but thought the biggest problem would be locating and documenting the sites visited, and in particular sampled, so that accurate traverse maps and profiles could be reconstructed back on Earth. The Flagstaff team had devised a surveying staff that would reflect a laser beam from a ranging device and automatically record the coordinates of a position on the lunar surface. This approach was based on the simulations and exercises we had been conducting for the post-Apollo missions, which suggested that without some type of surveying instrument it would be almost impossible for an astronaut to accurately locate his position on the Moon and associate a sample or observation with a specific point. Lunar geologic maps made without such positioning would be seriously degraded in value, since to establish map locations we would have to depend on some type of dead reckoning or coarse Earth-tracking and reconstruction of the traverse based on voice communication."

Donald A. Beattie. Taking Science to the Moon: Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program (Ebook Locations 1614-1619).
(My highlighting)

It seems entirely clear to me that what Beattie is describing is surveying equipment of the type which is commonplace nowadays. He's describing a surveyor's pole with a retroreflector, and a rangefinding laser theodolite which will automatically record the direction and distance to the pole. It records relative position, not absolute position.

This is plainly equipment to be used to create accurate maps of the astronauts traverse of the lunar landscape, relative to the position of their base. It does not sound at all like equipment for determining the base's absolute position on the lunar surface.

It does not sound remotely like what you imagine: an active LRRR which detects when it is illuminated by an earth-based laser and responds by somehow transmitting its location to earth. That's fantasy. You do not see the obvious problem that this imaginary LRRR itself would have no idea where on the moon it was, so what coordinates could it transmit?

I'm afraid Patrick that, on examination, your version of the story collapses like a house of cards.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 04:33 AM   #1114
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Response to Kiwi's challenge at post #1065

Kiwi,

#1) All reading the Stone article, including almost all official story advocates, recognize the "WEST" in 23 26 00 WEST as a typographical error. The planned landing site for the Apollo 11 Mission was landing site 2 . Below is from the Apollo 11 Mission Press Kit.

"The Apollo 11 Landing Sites Are:

latitude 00 42' 50" North longitude 23 42' 28" East
Site 2 is located on the east central part o f the Moon in south- western Mar Tranquillitatis. The site is approximately 62 miles
(100 kilometers) east o f the rim of CraterSabineandapproximately 118 miles (190 kilometers) south- west o f the Crater Maskelyne."

All involved in the Apollo 11 Mission were anticipating a landing in this area, landing site 2 at roughly 00 42 50 north and 23 42 28 east. including the Lick Observatory Staff. The Lick Observatory staff was anticipating that they would be directed to target the laser at roughly; 00 42 50 north and 23 42 38 east, the coordinates found in the press kit, the coordinates said to be those of the planned landing site. A Lick staff anticipating 23 42 28 east would have immediately rejected 23 26 00 WEST as an outright error. It would have made no sense to them were this actually to have been reported by Houston as the east-west coordinate. We may conclude, as essentially all do, that "WEST" here is a typographical error and we may disconfirm 23 26 00 WEST as the east-west coordinate reported to the Lick Observatory Staff on the evening of 07/20/1969.

As I have pointed out previously, we need not employ Remington Stone's testimony in any sense anyway to show coordinate foreknowledge and Apollo 11 Mission fraudulence.

#2) As I discussed at length in a previous post addressing nomuse's contention that 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east may simply appear in the Remington Stone article out of convenience as it was unlikely he, Stone, or anyone for that matter, would have remembered what the people from Houston told scientist Joe Wampler with respect to the actual coordinate numbers that evening.

I agreed with nomuse, and had only mentioned the explicit coordinates in the Remington Stone article as a rhetorical device. I'll repeat my previous point here. It is irrelevant with regard to my claim of foreknowledge what the actual coordinates were that passed from Houston along to the Lick Observatory Staff. A point I have made previously and supported by way of a quote from the LRRR Principal Investigator's, C.O. Alley, January 1970 article that appeared in the journal SCIENCE, was that the Lick Observatory team's failure to successfully target the LRRR had to do with the Jet Propulsion Lab's earth/telescope-moon distance calculation error. It had nothing to do with accuracy of the coordinates provided on the evening of 07/20/1969. Here is the Alley quote again from the SCIENCE article;

"A first "geodetic result" from the acquisition observations at Lick (9) was the discovery, from the drift of the residual round-trip travel time with respect the JPL lunar ephemeris 16 (LE16)predictions, that the coordinates for the 120-inch telescope are not those given for Mt. Hamilton (Lick Observatory)in the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac(9a). The Lick Observatory participated in the acquisition phase of the experiment to increase the probability of getting early returns. The weather and seeing are generally excellent there in the summer. Laser ranging activities ceased at Lick in August."

Alley' s colleague James Faller wrote the very first article about the very first successful targeting of the LRRR by the Laser Ranging Experiment group. Faller's article appeared in the 3 October 1969 SCIENCE publication. In that article professor Faller states(page 100);

"The angular diameter of the outgoing beam was approximately 2 seconds of arc and made as spot of light on the moon about 3.2 km in diameter."

The FIDO/launch trajectory specialist, H. David Reed, that calculated the solution states that he used rendezvous radar in reverse to calculate the launch solution which included the Eagle's lunar coordinates. Reed's rendezvous radar coordinates are found in table 5-IV of the Mission Report and are; .636 north and 23.50 east. Converting to second/minutes format and correcting for trajectory to map reference per footnotes, we find Reed to have arrived at a coordinate solution of 00 40 35 north and 23 25 43, roughly 1200 feet from the official Tranquility Base numbers of that era, 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east.

Per the flight officer's testimony in his chapter in the book, FROM THE TRENCHES OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON, the coordinate numbers he calculated on the morning of 07/20/1969 were at least 25,000 feet from all of the other options/solutions he had available to him that morning. Those solutions as determined by PNGS, AGS, maps/photos, targeted landing, MSFN. As Reed's rendezvous radar coordinates, the very coordinates used in the launch solution were roughly 1200 feet from Tranquility Base, and as the closest of all the alternative solutions; PNGS, AGS, maps/photos, targeted landing and MSFN were no nearer than 25,000 feet to Reed's rendezvous radar calculated coordinates, we may do the simple math and see; 25,000 minus 1200 feet gives 23,800 feet/4.36 miles. Per FIDO H. David Reed's, Professor Faller's and Professor Alley's references then, 4.36 miles is the very closest that one of the other(PNGS, AGS, targeted landing site, maps/photos, MFSN) solutions could possibly have been to Tranquility Base.

Here is one of the Reed quotes again, from the TRENCHES.... book;

"And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff."


We conclude, prior to H. David Reed's arrival at Mission Control on the morning of 07/20/1969, there was no coordinate solution available to any member of the Apollo 11 flight team nearer to Tranquility Base than 4.36 miles. Now per professor James Faller's report in the October issue of Science, the laser beam at the lunar surface measured 3.2 kilometers across or 2 miles across, right on the button.

Given the fact that the coordinates given to Lick Observatory HAD TO HAVE BEEN within 2 miles of Tranquility Base, as these very coordinates, whatever they were exactly, yielded a successful targeting of the LRRR on 08/01/1969, and given the fact that the coordinates available to Mission Control personal on the evening of 07/20/1969 were no nearer to Tranquility Base than 4.36 miles, we conclude the person "from Houston" providing the coordinates to the Lick Observatory staff had access to "information" outside the Apollo program. That person provided coordinate numbers to the Lick Observatory staff within two miles of Tranquility Base. No one in Mission Control was in possession of such numbers. As such, we may conclude this rogue, whoever he or she was, possessed foreknowledge of Tranquility Base's position and as such, the Apollo 11 Mission must be be fraudulent.

Note at no time did I use the Remington Stone article or Stone's testimony of any sort, coordinate wise or otherwise in this presentation. The references were per Professors James Faller and C.O. Alley of the LRRRR Experiment Team and Flight Dynamics Officer H. David Reed, the flight officer who actually calculated the very launch trajectory solution that was in fact utilized on the morning of 07/20/1969. I would suggest Reed would know this matter better than anyone give the stakes here. I suggest that these 3 references collectively are more than credible and I assert any and all of Kiwi9's objections to be successfully countered.

Someone knew where the Eagle was before the landing coordinates were determined by flight officers in any kind of formal sense and so we may conclude that the Apollo 11 Mission must be fraudulent. Either that, or one of the flight officers there at Mission Control on the evening of 07/20/1970, before Reed came in, was a flight officer with the ability to see into the future.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 24th August 2011 at 04:50 AM. Reason: added "we may",removed "therefore",added "miles"too>to,added comma X2, removed "s", added "HAD TO HAVE BEEN"
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:05 AM   #1115
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Tranquility Base Coordinates in the Mission Report Fraudulent

Since we have gone to the trouble of going through this exercise again, it is worth pointing out yet again that; given H. David Reed's reliable testimony wherein he informs us that all coordinate solutions available to him when he reported to duty at Mission Control on the morning of 07/20/1969 were at least 25,000 feet from the coordinate solution that he ultimately arrived at using "rendezvous radar in reverse", given Reed's statement that the coordinate solutions as determined by AGS, PNGS, maps/photos, targeting, MSFN were at great variance from one another, "not even close" to one another, and given the fact that as it turns out and in direct contradiction to Reed's testimony, those coordinate values as reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report are not only very close to Reed's rendezvous radar calculated .636 north and 23.50 east but also very very close to one another, we may conclude this Mission Report Document to contain fraudulent material, fraudulent Tranquility Base coordinate measurements not even remotely consistent with the telling of the Apollo Mission Control story by their lunar module launch specialist FIDO, H. David Reed.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:10 AM   #1116
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,631
But you still have not explained how NASA came to have the coordinates of the LRRR to give to Lick.

As I explained above, your fantasy LRRR-transponder never existed, and even if you persist in the delusion that it might, you have not explained how this magic LRRR could know were it was.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:11 AM   #1117
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I'm still not following your logic on this.
Me neither.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:17 AM   #1118
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Good point

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Indeed. But it didn't make much sense, hence my questioning.

I strongly suspect you misunderstand what he wrote. I don't think he describes a device with that capability at all.
(My highlighting)

It seems entirely clear to me that what Beattie is describing is surveying equipment of the type which is commonplace nowadays. He's describing a surveyor's pole with a retroreflector, and a rangefinding laser theodolite which will automatically record the direction and distance to the pole. It records relative position, not absolute position.

This is plainly equipment to be used to create accurate maps of the astronauts traverse of the lunar landscape, relative to the position of their base. It does not sound at all like equipment for determining the base's absolute position on the lunar surface.

It does not sound remotely like what you imagine: an active LRRR which detects when it is illuminated by an earth-based laser and responds by somehow transmitting its location to earth. That's fantasy. You do not see the obvious problem that this imaginary LRRR itself would have no idea where on the moon it was, so what coordinates could it transmit?

I'm afraid Patrick that, on examination, your version of the story collapses like a house of cards.

Jack by the hedge,

I see your point and it is valid. I would suggest the LRRR was placed by a surveyor type craft and then targeted for verification by an appropriate laser ranging team operating "outside" the official Apollo 11 program, with its coordinates having been determined in the same way as surveyor VII's were. Except in this case, instead of taking a picture like the Surveyor VII camera did of the argon lasers in 1968, ruby red photons bounce back off this 1969 surveyor type craft LRRR in the context of a ranging operation. The first time done, a secret ranging operation. Once this clandestinely placed LRRR's position is confirmed at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east, those coordinates are passed to the Lick Observatory people as though the coordinates were derived in the context of a manned moon mission and not as they really had been, derived from a surveyor VII type unmanned feigned Apollo 11 operation.
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:21 AM   #1119
Patrick1000
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west
Posts: 3,040
Alley was planning to do the LRRR experiment with surveyor before the Apollo option

Remember Jack by the hedge, Alley and the other LRRR scientists, were arguing to do the laser ranging operation either way, manned or unmanned, and they had already essentially done it with surveyor VII in 1968. Surveyor VII just happened to have had a camera and not a LRRR mounted on it. In one of my previous posts I had a reference with Alley mentioning the unmanned option. In his literature, this is fairly common.

Last edited by Patrick1000; 24th August 2011 at 05:23 AM. Reason: don >done, an>a, VIII>VII
Patrick1000 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2011, 05:26 AM   #1120
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
 
Evilgiraffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 760
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I'm still not following your logic on this.
Me neither.
I don't follow the logic of the entire thread. How has this made it to 28 pages? How!?
Evilgiraffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.