[Merged] Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga - Page 3

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Not bad points about the rocks and pics, but as we all know only something like 5% of the rock samples have been studied. What about the other 95%?

Bull. Not just incorrect but flat-out nonsense. You are either woefully ill-informed or utterly disingenuous.

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm

The entire catalog is here. Click on any sample and you will find studies performed on them. If you need help with big words let us know.

Quote:

People go back and forth about the photos ad nauseam. Makes one dizzy. HBs see the photographs as obviously fake, mainstreamers see extraordinarily clear shots of the 20th century's most amazing event.

The photographs are consistent with the presented narrative. Any inconsistencies are the result of misinformation, disinformation, lack of understanding or actual lies.

Quote:

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story. What is the story?

The story is: Humans love to fling together leaky boats and go exploring. As soon as the moon was recognized as a "place" it became a destination.

Quote:

If that story features a pair of world class fighter pilots lost on the moon's surface with no clue as to how best to find themselves, I know I need not worry about rocks and pics, at least as regards to what they tell me about the Apollo Program's authenticity. The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue. Of course the rocks are fake. Of course the pictures are fake. Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? What metaphor! We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so. There is nothing subtle about this, and so there is no mystery to any of this, to the rocks, to the pics. It all must be counterfeit. There is no other explanation consistent with the fraudulent narrative.

If a NASA principal tells the people at Lick Observatory the precise coordinates of Tranquility Base during the evening of 07/20/1969 and withhold this information from the very man who needs it most, FIDO H. David Reed, we know Apollo must be bogus. How can it be otherwise?

If during the flight of Apollo 8 astronaut Borman gets diarrhea and his poop floats throughout the zero G cabin contaminating everything without anything that remotely resembles an appropriate response to it all by Charles Berry or one of the other pretend doctors, we know Apollo simply cannot be a bona fide space adventure to the moon. It can only be super fake, just based right there on the Borman diarrhea episode alone. It could not have happened with real doctors in a real world and so we know this was the pretend world of Apollo where it doesn't matter if salmonella adhere to Jim Lovell's eyebrows or not. It's only pretend bacteria after all. Score one for imagination and laughs though. Too bad the funny diarrhea story cost us $130,000,000,000. You'd think after the fake Borman loose poop episode that they would have come up with a fake contingency plan for future episodes of fraudulent g.i. distress, but their imaginations were limited.

You say real rocks and I say fake diarrhea. You say real photos and I say these lost astronauts couldn't score a Boy Scouts of America Map and Compass Navigation merit badge. We are at an impasse yes, but I pay no attention to the rocks and pics any more. I read what the astronauts say and the astronauts lie to my face, so I know Apollo cannot be true.

So sad…………..

Horse hockey from top to bottom. These paragraphs do not deserve detailed analysis, nor do you.

matt.tansy · 11th August 2011, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

If a NASA principal tells the people at Lick Observatory the precise coordinates of Tranquility Base during the evening of 07/20/1969 and withhold this information from the very man who needs it most, FIDO H. David Reed, we know Apollo must be bogus. How can it be otherwise?

The position given to Lick was 0.79 miles from the actual position determined later. That hardly counts as precise.

sts60 · 11th August 2011, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Not bad points about the rocks and pics, but as we all know only something like 5% of the rock samples have been studied. What about the other 95%?

Why don't you put together a research proposal and get some of the unused samples for yourself? Surely you're a qualified geologist; you've claimed to be about everything else.

Or would you prefer to wave your hands and make an appeal to ignorance? Yep, thought so.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

People go back and forth about the photos ad nauseam. Makes one dizzy. HBs see the photographs as obviously fake, mainstreamers see extraordinarily clear shots of the 20th century's most amazing event.

Many of the "extraordinarily clear" shots are nothing but; out of focus, cut off, sunstruck. So much for U. Google.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story.

I have to some extent, and I have actual spaceflight project experience from design, build, integration and test to training and flight ops. What exactly are your qualifications to evaluate the "narrative"?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

If that story features a pair of world class fighter pilots lost on the moon's surface with no clue as to how best to find themselves,

This doesn't get any more true with repetition.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I know I need not worry about rocks and pics, at least as regards to what they tell me about the Apollo Program's authenticity.

Which is, of course, utter nonsense, since the lunar samples, and the surface imagery, and the orbital mapping imagery, and the LRRR returns, and the ALSEP telemetry - years of it - are all consistent with manned missions.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent

I don't find it so, but I'm willing to listen to relevant personal experience. How many space missions have you personally worked?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

and therefore necessarily untrue.

What, then, does this say about the many times you have contradicted yourself?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

If during the flight of Apollo 8 astronaut Borman gets diarrhea....without anything that remotely resembles an appropriate response to it all by Charles Berry or one of the other pretend doctors,

Speaking of pretend doctors, your various sock puppets on BAUT already made this claim, and I refer the readers here to that forum. On this forum, you're a pretend "scientist" (so far); do try to remember, there's a good fellow.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

... We are at an impasse yes, but I pay no attention to the rocks and pics any more.

Shades of WTC Dust and "I don't pay any attention to airplanes". Yes, pretending evidence doesn't exist is much easier when it doesn't fit your ever-changing narrative.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I read what the astronauts say and the astronauts lie to my face, so I know Apollo cannot be true.

Circular. But how many Apollo astronauts have you spoken with personally? Please provide a number. I'm guessing it will be a nonnegative, nonpositive integer.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 01:30 PM

The official coordinates of Tranquility Base for many years and some still say these coordinates are best Matt are 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Not only precise, mind boggling dead on. Not 0.79 miles away, dead on, no corrections, 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Where did they get those perfect numbers Matt? Reed did not have them, the PNGS did not, AGS did not, AOT did not, maps no.

MATT WHERE DID THEY GET THE NUMBERS BEFORE THEY MEASURED THE NUMBERS, THE UTTERLY PRECISE NUMBERS, NOT 0.79 MILES OFF, NOT A SMIDGEON OFF. WHERE OH WHERE DID THEY GET THOSE NUMBERS?

Hmmmmmmm, pretty wild isn't it?????????

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 01:33 PM

I read the astronauts books and the reports. I have written to several, no response. The term lying to my face is a figure of speech. They lie to us all. By using the term I mean to imply they are lies of contempt, filled with obscene temerity.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 01:35 PM

sts60, I know nothing of geology. I like to hike and climb very well. That is it.

Redtail · 11th August 2011, 01:49 PM

Pat? About the Russians taking a picture of where there were no astronauts... How would they be able to take a pic of them at all?

Alferd_Packer · 11th August 2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by EventHorizon

I like alternate history; it's one of my favorite genres of fiction.

I don't. I find that it is all too often artifically contrived and stilted.

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Of course the rocks are fake. Of course the pictures are fake. Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? What metaphor! We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so.

I'd like to revisit this statement.

Quote:

Of course the rocks are fake

Can you provide any evidence at all for this? No. Is there any way at all to create fake moon rocks that would satisfy all conditions of lunar geography? No. Are the rock and soil samples from the moon consistent with lunar meteorites found on earth? Yes, but with additional features indicative of having spent time on the moon but not spending time on earth.

So, no. The rocks are NOT "of course" fake, but you need them to be fake in order for your half a theory to make any sense. You magically wave the consistency away and declare inconsistency where none exists. Further, your argument fails to make use of even a layperson's knowledge of geology.

Quote:

Of course the pictures are fake.

Not one photograph has ever been proven to be fake, but there are thousands to draw upon. Maybe you're "the one." The Apollo Lunar Surface Journalhas every single photograph taken on the moon and quite a few mission-prep pictures as well.

Using your "science" make a prediction based on your initial premise and research the available data -- if the photos are "fake" there should be some evidence or another that conclusively proves the photos were not taken on an airless globe 2000+ miles in diameter a mere quarter million miles from earth.

Quote:

Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where?

Yes, to where? They were visible to the naked eye when in orbit, as large specks of light. Translunar Injection Burn was observable to people on the ground and was photographed by amateur astronomers with telescopes of modest power. Rockets went up, proven; they left earth orbit, proven; Apollo 11 transmissions were sent from the moon, proven.

What else do you have left? Nothing! Your "theory" is unable to explain these facts.

Quote:

We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so.

Circular logic is an automatic fail.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 01:57 PM

For ApolloGnomon,

Cataloging and generally describing an 800 lb collection of "Lunar Rocks" is one thing, subjecting all 800 pounds of the alleged samples to in depth study is another and has not been done. I stand by my previous statement which is true and accurate. Cataloging/describing is not in depth studying.

That said, as emphasized above, I could not care less. Don't get me wrong. The rocks are important to look at. It is just I know Apollo to be fake and along with Apollo the phony rocks because astronaut Borman pooped all over his space ship and no one cared. Now infectious disease is a subject I do know a lot about. And because of that I know Apollo is bogus as are the Apollo rocks.

I also know how to find myself on the surface of the earth and claim I could do the same on the surface of the moon. Astronaut Armstrong prefers to have others find him by way of examining lunar maps of low resolution.

How did they know Neil and Buzz were at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east Apollo by looking at those "crude maps" as Michael Collins called them? Did they hold up one of your fake rocks to the phony TV camera and make a bogus diagnosis of the fraudulent location based on the ghost of a rock's appearance on pretend TV Apollo?

As I said, you have your real rocks, I have my astronauts that cannot navigate their way out of a high tech bag. You have your pics and I have Charles Berry who doesn't seem qualified to treat a case of diarrhea at a summer camp.

Read the narrative, the phony story. You'll come around ApolloGnomon. Times have changed. The tide has turned. NASA is going down.

Alferd_Packer · 11th August 2011, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

STARS OF KRYPTONITE

That was a great concert

sts60 · 11th August 2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I read the astronauts books and the reports. I have written to several, no response.

Funny, on AH you implied that they had responded to you.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

The term lying to my face is a figure of speech.

You said one thing and meant something else. By your own approach, you must be lying. Actually, you have manifestly lied numerouse times in creating your sock-puppets on various fora.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

They lie to us all. By using the term I mean to imply they are lies of contempt, filled with obscene temerity.

And yet on AH you protested how much you liked them, and how you could understand why they would be "forced" to lie. Again, you can't keep your story straight - but you couldn't over there either.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

sts60, I know nothing of geology...

For once, I actually do believe you.

The people who do know geology, and have actually studied the samples, understand that they were collected in situ on the Moon, and accept the reality of Apollo.

Again, how many space missions have you personally worked?

Also, what do your numerous self-contradictions say about your honesty? Not to mention the various times you lied in order to create sock-puppets at AH and BAUT? I only ask because you make a big deal of honesty in your posts.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 02:13 PM

Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15.

Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts.

LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read.

Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 02:17 PM

I do admire the courage of Armstrong and the others, particularly Armstrong. I think he has suffered. It does not change my view of the lying or how I feel about being gamed this way.

Redtail · 11th August 2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15.

Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts.

LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read.

Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive.

Yeah I figured you were talking about Luna 15. What happened to it again?

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

and generally describing an 800 lb collection of "Lunar Rocks" is one thing, subjecting all 800 pounds of the alleged samples to in depth study is another and has not been done. I stand by my previous statement which is true and accurate. Cataloging/describing is not in depth studying.

False. All 800+ pounds have been studied in depth. Your claim otherwise is a flat out lie. Again, here's the link to the archive of the Lunar Samples Compendium http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm Go read 'em and prove me wrong.

Quote:

That said, as emphasized above, I could not care less. Don't get me wrong. The rocks are important to look at. It is just I know Apollo to be fake and along with Apollo the phony rocks because astronaut Borman pooped all over his space ship and no one cared. Now infectious disease is a subject I do know a lot about. And because of that I know Apollo is bogus as are the Apollo rocks.

Well, to be fair pooping all over a spaceship is pretty convincing proof that the missions were bogus,

but it has nothing to do with the rocks. This is the logical fallacy called "non sequitur" because the one does not logically follow the other.

Fallacies are like pokemon. Hoax believers and conspiracy theorists tend to collect them all.

Admit it -- you don't wanna talk about rocks because they're proof of missions on the moon to collect them.

Quote:

I also know how to find myself on the surface of the earth and claim I could do the same on the surface of the moon. Astronaut Armstrong prefers to have others find him by way of examining lunar maps of low resolution.

Um. Yeah? what? I think you've lost me here. Perhaps the problem is your understanding of the scope and design of the A11 mission is flawed.

Quote:

How did they know Neil and Buzz were at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east Apollo by looking at those "crude maps" as Michael Collins called them? Did they hold up one of your fake rocks to the phony TV camera and make a bogus diagnosis of the fraudulent location based on the ghost of a rock's appearance on pretend TV Apollo?

I have no proof you're an idiot, so I won't call you one. The statement above lacks any relevance or intellectual rigor.

Quote:

As I said, you have your real rocks, I have my astronauts that cannot navigate their way out of a high tech bag. You have your pics and I have Charles Berry who doesn't seem qualified to treat a case of diarrhea at a summer camp.

whatev's

Quote:

Read the narrative, the phony story. You'll come around ApolloGnomon. Times have changed. The tide has turned. NASA is going down.

That would explain the literal flood of ~~skeptics~~ sock puppets.

There are only about 12 people on the planet, honestly, who actually believe this drivel. Half of them are represented by Jarrah "ask me about my $300 bucket of dirt" White and his coterie of sycophantic catamites like Stray "ask me about my drug bust probation" Dog.

What's YOUR excuse?

Sword_Of_Truth · 11th August 2011, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where?

They went to the moon.

We know this not just because NASA said so, we know this because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also said so.

Anyone with three radio antennas and an accurate clock can pinpoint the position of a radio broadcast in 3 dimensions. And the russians were slightly more experienced at this than the more technologically advanced Americans. The russians watched a radio source ascend to orbit from Cape Canaveral, then travel to the Moon. They watched the radio source orbit the Moon, land and then return across 250,000 miles of space.

To believe that the Apollo landings were a hoax is to believe that the largest empire in history, and one of it's bloodiest, one that would murder tens of millions of its own citizens in the belief that this protected its internal stability, an empire typified by unprovoked agression and wars of conquest, the largest state exporter and sponsor of terrorism in history... would simply allow itself to fracture, split apart and quietly fade, all the while protecting the secret that its first worst enemy didn't really win the biggest propaganda battle in historys biggest staring contest.

Sword_Of_Truth · 11th August 2011, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15.

Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts.

LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read.

Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive.

You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about or you wouldn't have brought it up at all. The mere existence of the Soviet space program is devastating to the hoaxers case. As pointed out above, the commies knew that Apollo had made it to the Moon without the need for pictures.

And there is just no bloody way the spawn of Stalin would have let America have it's victory lap and 40 year gloat-fest if there was even the slightest scintilla of evidence that something was hinky.

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 03:00 PM

When hoax believers disregard the significance of the Soviet Union one can fairly accurately establish an upper limit to their age.

Sword_Of_Truth · 11th August 2011, 03:42 PM

BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration?

Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block.

TheRedWorm · 11th August 2011, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

They went to the moon.

We know this not just because NASA said so, we know this because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also said so.

Anyone with three radio antennas and an accurate clock can pinpoint the position of a radio broadcast in 3 dimensions. And the russians were slightly more experienced at this than the more technologically advanced Americans. The russians watched a radio source ascend to orbit from Cape Canaveral, then travel to the Moon. They watched the radio source orbit the Moon, land and then return across 250,000 miles of space.

To believe that the Apollo landings were a hoax is to believe that the largest empire in history, and one of it's bloodiest, one that would murder tens of millions of its own citizens in the belief that this protected its internal stability, an empire typified by unprovoked agression and wars of conquest, the largest state exporter and sponsor of terrorism in history... would simply allow itself to fracture, split apart and quietly fade, all the while protecting the secret that its first worst enemy didn't really win the biggest propaganda battle in historys biggest staring contest.

Well, when you put it like that, it's almost as if the hoax claims are a bit implausible

EventHorizon · 11th August 2011, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

I don't. I find that it is all too often artifically contrived and stilted.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

DC · 11th August 2011, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

DC, none of the landings are "real". Apollo 11 is a good one, a sort of fun one, to study though because of the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, the LUNA factor, Remington Stone's great writing about the LRRR issue and the SCIENCE articles by the LRRR principal investigators that relate to the first targetings. I like Apollo 11 the most. It has the richest background because of its primacy. The materials with regard to Apollo 11 are more detailed and plentiful.

when you are correct, would you agree that this video below is NASA's best fake?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration?

Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block.

bu-dump-bump Pshhhh!

Erock · 11th August 2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon

bu-dump-bump Pshhhh!

Erock · 11th August 2011, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by DC

when you are correct, would you agree that this video below is NASA's best fake?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It's good, but not as good as this one...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

mercatormac · 11th August 2011, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15.

Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts.

LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read.

NASA certainly dodged a bullet there then. One thing I don't understand though, how does NASA prevent Luna 16, Luna 17, Luna 18, Luna 19, Luna 20, Luna 21, Luna 22, Luna 23 and Luna 24 or any other space probe from photographing the non-landing site and blowing the hoax wide open?

DC · 11th August 2011, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Erock

It's good, but not as good as this one...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ha nice never saw that.

theprestige · 11th August 2011, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration?

Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block.

When he got to the far side of the White House, Collins became the loneliest man in Washington, D.C.

twinstead · 11th August 2011, 04:49 PM

Patrick you deny the undeniable. There's a special term for people who do that.

Macgyver1968 · 11th August 2011, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Patrick you deny the undeniable. There's a special term for people who do that.

Crazy?

twinstead · 11th August 2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Macgyver1968

Crazy?

Ah, that's the word I was looking for.

NobbyNobbs · 11th August 2011, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration?

Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block.

So incredibly awesome. I'm totally stealing that.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 08:38 PM

twinstead,

Crazy like a fox, you betcha'.

Follow the facts where they lead. David Reed is not crazy. What is it you know about Apollo twinstead that Reed doesn't know? He sat at the bench of Mission Control, their most talented , most capable launch FIDO. He thought Neil Armstrong was lost on the morning of 07/21/1969 until Reed himself managed to "find" him. Armstrong described the landscape that morning for the benefit of the US Geological Survey guys looking for him on their "crude maps". Was Armstrong himself wrong? did he really know where he was?

So twinstead, was Reed wrong or fooled? Was Armstrong wrong or fooled? Was the location of the Eagle's perch known to any reasonable degree of accuracy before Reed sat down to work on the morning or 07/21/1969? Is it crazy to believe Reed's accounting of the facts that morning, an accounting supported by Armstrong's own telling of the lunar landing story? I don't disagree with Reed's accounting, nor Armstrong's. I believe the Mission Control boys did not know where Eagle was within 25,000 feet/5 miles give or take anyway as stated by Reed. Armstrong supports that position. Why am I crazy for supporting it?

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 09:24 PM

Ah, yes, another old familiar tactic: Ignore all responses relevant to the thread and instead attempt to back random posters into rhetorical or technical corners of your choosing.

Whatev's.

Care to tell us how moon rocks could be faked? 'Cuz if you can't then there's no bother continuing to waffle on about 12 digit grid coordinates.

Care to tell us how the largest rocket ever built could be hidden from view while orbiting the earth? If ya can't then there's no real reason to continue flailing in the general direction of voice transcripts.

Care to tell us how fake photographs NOT taken from the moon could accurately show weather patterns on earth, corroborated with various outside sources? If not then you might as well stop hammering on the bent nail of telescopes.

ApolloGnomon · 11th August 2011, 09:41 PM

Great! So, about those rocks. . .

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 09:42 PM

Thanks ApolloG, thought I was stuck in that telescope mode there. Again, nobody's fault but my own. I was just trying to respond to your challenges.

sts60 · 11th August 2011, 11:11 PM

Speaking of fattydash - what do the numerous changes and contradictions in your claims say about your honesty? After all, you keep telling us that there are contradictions in the A11 story and that this means it is a lie. Similarly, what about the numerous times you lied in accepting the TOSs of BAUT and AH when creating sock-puppets there? It's relevant because you're the one who started harping about honesty.

Also, in regard to "evaluating the narrative" - how many space missions have you personally worked?

Also, exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that the A11 LRRR was placed by anything other than the crew of Apollo 11? No handwaving. Just any actual evidence for this particular claim.

Oh, and please provide a description of Luna 15's ability to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit; it certainly didn't do so in proximity (despite your previous claim that it "hovered about") as it landed a good fraction of the Moon's circumference away. I've worked on image tasking systems for high-resolution imaging satellites, so this ought to be good.

Patrick1000 · 11th August 2011, 11:49 PM

sts,

FYI sts, you seem to be under the impression that "fattydash" is ONE flesh and blood person who is a sock artist, ever finding his/her way back onto a site. Ironically, such is not the case. "Fattydash" is NOT one guy/gal.

To allay any anxieties here. My name is indeed Patrick. I am not the Apollohoax "fattydash" poster. Though admittedly I did copy some of the "fattydash" stuff and try and post it here for expediency's sake. I study similar materials obviously. I didn't realize there was a rule against such copying and I do sincerely apologize. I, Patrick, do promise to be the only person posting here under the user name Patrick1000.

Hope that was helpful sts.

sts60 · 12th August 2011, 12:02 AM

That's funny. You tell us you're not fattydash, but you also tell us a story about the exact nature of fattydash.

Yes, you're fattydash and DoctorTea and all those other tedious sock-puppets. But it doesn't really matter; you're using the same bogus, self-contradictory arguments even if you weren't the same person. The questions stand.

11th August 2011, 01:01 PM	#81
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Not bad points about the rocks and pics, but as we all know only something like 5% of the rock samples have been studied. What about the other 95%? Bull. Not just incorrect but flat-out nonsense. You are either woefully ill-informed or utterly disingenuous. http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm The entire catalog is here. Click on any sample and you will find studies performed on them. If you need help with big words let us know. Quote: People go back and forth about the photos ad nauseam. Makes one dizzy. HBs see the photographs as obviously fake, mainstreamers see extraordinarily clear shots of the 20th century's most amazing event. The photographs are consistent with the presented narrative. Any inconsistencies are the result of misinformation, disinformation, lack of understanding or actual lies. Quote: The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story. What is the story? The story is: Humans love to fling together leaky boats and go exploring. As soon as the moon was recognized as a "place" it became a destination. Quote: If that story features a pair of world class fighter pilots lost on the moon's surface with no clue as to how best to find themselves, I know I need not worry about rocks and pics, at least as regards to what they tell me about the Apollo Program's authenticity. The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent and therefore necessarily untrue. Of course the rocks are fake. Of course the pictures are fake. Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? What metaphor! We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so. There is nothing subtle about this, and so there is no mystery to any of this, to the rocks, to the pics. It all must be counterfeit. There is no other explanation consistent with the fraudulent narrative. If a NASA principal tells the people at Lick Observatory the precise coordinates of Tranquility Base during the evening of 07/20/1969 and withhold this information from the very man who needs it most, FIDO H. David Reed, we know Apollo must be bogus. How can it be otherwise? If during the flight of Apollo 8 astronaut Borman gets diarrhea and his poop floats throughout the zero G cabin contaminating everything without anything that remotely resembles an appropriate response to it all by Charles Berry or one of the other pretend doctors, we know Apollo simply cannot be a bona fide space adventure to the moon. It can only be super fake, just based right there on the Borman diarrhea episode alone. It could not have happened with real doctors in a real world and so we know this was the pretend world of Apollo where it doesn't matter if salmonella adhere to Jim Lovell's eyebrows or not. It's only pretend bacteria after all. Score one for imagination and laughs though. Too bad the funny diarrhea story cost us $130,000,000,000. You'd think after the fake Borman loose poop episode that they would have come up with a fake contingency plan for future episodes of fraudulent g.i. distress, but their imaginations were limited. You say real rocks and I say fake diarrhea. You say real photos and I say these lost astronauts couldn't score a Boy Scouts of America Map and Compass Navigation merit badge. We are at an impasse yes, but I pay no attention to the rocks and pics any more. I read what the astronauts say and the astronauts lie to my face, so I know Apollo cannot be true. So sad………….. Horse hockey from top to bottom. These paragraphs do not deserve detailed analysis, nor do you.
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 01:25 PM	#83
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Not bad points about the rocks and pics, but as we all know only something like 5% of the rock samples have been studied. What about the other 95%? Why don't you put together a research proposal and get some of the unused samples for yourself? Surely you're a qualified geologist; you've claimed to be about everything else. Or would you prefer to wave your hands and make an appeal to ignorance? Yep, thought so. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 People go back and forth about the photos ad nauseam. Makes one dizzy. HBs see the photographs as obviously fake, mainstreamers see extraordinarily clear shots of the 20th century's most amazing event. Many of the "extraordinarily clear" shots are nothing but; out of focus, cut off, sunstruck. So much for U. Google. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 The only way one ever makes headway in coming to terms with any of this is to look at the narrative itself. Study the story. I have to some extent, and I have actual spaceflight project experience from design, build, integration and test to training and flight ops. What exactly are your qualifications to evaluate the "narrative"? Originally Posted by Patrick1000 If that story features a pair of world class fighter pilots lost on the moon's surface with no clue as to how best to find themselves, This doesn't get any more true with repetition. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 I know I need not worry about rocks and pics, at least as regards to what they tell me about the Apollo Program's authenticity. Which is, of course, utter nonsense, since the lunar samples, and the surface imagery, and the orbital mapping imagery, and the LRRR returns, and the ALSEP telemetry - years of it - are all consistent with manned missions. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 The narrative is inconsistent, internally incoherent I don't find it so, but I'm willing to listen to relevant personal experience. How many space missions have you personally worked? Originally Posted by Patrick1000 and therefore necessarily untrue. What, then, does this say about the many times you have contradicted yourself? Originally Posted by Patrick1000 If during the flight of Apollo 8 astronaut Borman gets diarrhea....without anything that remotely resembles an appropriate response to it all by Charles Berry or one of the other pretend doctors, Speaking of pretend doctors, your various sock puppets on BAUT already made this claim, and I refer the readers here to that forum. On this forum, you're a pretend "scientist" (so far); do try to remember, there's a good fellow. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 ... We are at an impasse yes, but I pay no attention to the rocks and pics any more. Shades of WTC Dust and "I don't pay any attention to airplanes". Yes, pretending evidence doesn't exist is much easier when it doesn't fit your ever-changing narrative. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 I read what the astronauts say and the astronauts lie to my face, so I know Apollo cannot be true. Circular. But how many Apollo astronauts have you spoken with personally? Please provide a number. I'm guessing it will be a nonnegative, nonpositive integer.
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525

11th August 2011, 01:33 PM	#85
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	I read the astronauts books and the reports. I have written to several, no response. The term lying to my face is a figure of speech. They lie to us all. By using the term I mean to imply they are lies of contempt, filled with obscene temerity.
	Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 01:33 PM. Reason: willed> with

11th August 2011, 01:49 PM	#87
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	Pat? About the Russians taking a picture of where there were no astronauts... How would they be able to take a pic of them at all?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

11th August 2011, 01:53 PM	#88
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	Originally Posted by EventHorizon I like alternate history; it's one of my favorite genres of fiction. I don't. I find that it is all too often artifically contrived and stilted.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

11th August 2011, 01:07 PM	#82
matt.tansy Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Groton, CT Posts: 802	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 If a NASA principal tells the people at Lick Observatory the precise coordinates of Tranquility Base during the evening of 07/20/1969 and withhold this information from the very man who needs it most, FIDO H. David Reed, we know Apollo must be bogus. How can it be otherwise? The position given to Lick was 0.79 miles from the actual position determined later. That hardly counts as precise.

11th August 2011, 01:30 PM	#84
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	The official coordinates of Tranquility Base for many years and some still say these coordinates are best Matt are 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Not only precise, mind boggling dead on. Not 0.79 miles away, dead on, no corrections, 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east. Where did they get those perfect numbers Matt? Reed did not have them, the PNGS did not, AGS did not, AOT did not, maps no. MATT WHERE DID THEY GET THE NUMBERS BEFORE THEY MEASURED THE NUMBERS, THE UTTERLY PRECISE NUMBERS, NOT 0.79 MILES OFF, NOT A SMIDGEON OFF. WHERE OH WHERE DID THEY GET THOSE NUMBERS? Hmmmmmmm, pretty wild isn't it?????????

11th August 2011, 01:35 PM	#86
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	sts60, I know nothing of geology. I like to hike and climb very well. That is it.

11th August 2011, 01:54 PM	#89
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Quote: Of course the rocks are fake. Of course the pictures are fake. Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? What metaphor! We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so. I'd like to revisit this statement. Quote: Of course the rocks are fake Can you provide any evidence at all for this? No. Is there any way at all to create fake moon rocks that would satisfy all conditions of lunar geography? No. Are the rock and soil samples from the moon consistent with lunar meteorites found on earth? Yes, but with additional features indicative of having spent time on the moon but not spending time on earth. So, no. The rocks are NOT "of course" fake, but you need them to be fake in order for your half a theory to make any sense. You magically wave the consistency away and declare inconsistency where none exists. Further, your argument fails to make use of even a layperson's knowledge of geology. Quote: Of course the pictures are fake. Not one photograph has ever been proven to be fake, but there are thousands to draw upon. Maybe you're "the one." The Apollo Lunar Surface Journalhas every single photograph taken on the moon and quite a few mission-prep pictures as well. Using your "science" make a prediction based on your initial premise and research the available data -- if the photos are "fake" there should be some evidence or another that conclusively proves the photos were not taken on an airless globe 2000+ miles in diameter a mere quarter million miles from earth. Quote: Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? Yes, to where? They were visible to the naked eye when in orbit, as large specks of light. Translunar Injection Burn was observable to people on the ground and was photographed by amateur astronomers with telescopes of modest power. Rockets went up, proven; they left earth orbit, proven; Apollo 11 transmissions were sent from the moon, proven. What else do you have left? Nothing! Your "theory" is unable to explain these facts. Quote: We know this to be the case because we find the principals to be lying and obviously so. Circular logic is an automatic fail.
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 01:57 PM	#90
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity For ApolloGnomon, Cataloging and generally describing an 800 lb collection of "Lunar Rocks" is one thing, subjecting all 800 pounds of the alleged samples to in depth study is another and has not been done. I stand by my previous statement which is true and accurate. Cataloging/describing is not in depth studying. That said, as emphasized above, I could not care less. Don't get me wrong. The rocks are important to look at. It is just I know Apollo to be fake and along with Apollo the phony rocks because astronaut Borman pooped all over his space ship and no one cared. Now infectious disease is a subject I do know a lot about. And because of that I know Apollo is bogus as are the Apollo rocks. I also know how to find myself on the surface of the earth and claim I could do the same on the surface of the moon. Astronaut Armstrong prefers to have others find him by way of examining lunar maps of low resolution. How did they know Neil and Buzz were at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east Apollo by looking at those "crude maps" as Michael Collins called them? Did they hold up one of your fake rocks to the phony TV camera and make a bogus diagnosis of the fraudulent location based on the ghost of a rock's appearance on pretend TV Apollo? As I said, you have your real rocks, I have my astronauts that cannot navigate their way out of a high tech bag. You have your pics and I have Charles Berry who doesn't seem qualified to treat a case of diarrhea at a summer camp. Read the narrative, the phony story. You'll come around ApolloGnomon. Times have changed. The tide has turned. NASA is going down.
	Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 01:59 PM. Reason: them>them?, you>your

11th August 2011, 01:58 PM	#91
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,220	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 STARS OF KRYPTONITE That was a great concert
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

11th August 2011, 02:11 PM	#92
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 I read the astronauts books and the reports. I have written to several, no response. Funny, on AH you implied that they had responded to you. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 The term lying to my face is a figure of speech. You said one thing and meant something else. By your own approach, you must be lying. Actually, you have manifestly lied numerouse times in creating your sock-puppets on various fora. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 They lie to us all. By using the term I mean to imply they are lies of contempt, filled with obscene temerity. And yet on AH you protested how much you liked them, and how you could understand why they would be "forced" to lie. Again, you can't keep your story straight - but you couldn't over there either. Originally Posted by Patrick1000 sts60, I know nothing of geology... For once, I actually do believe you. The people who do know geology, and have actually studied the samples, understand that they were collected in situ on the Moon, and accept the reality of Apollo. Again, how many space missions have you personally worked? Also, what do your numerous self-contradictions say about your honesty? Not to mention the various times you lied in order to create sock-puppets at AH and BAUT? I only ask because you make a big deal of honesty in your posts.
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525

11th August 2011, 02:13 PM	#93
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15. Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts. LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read. Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive.
	Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 02:16 PM. Reason: east>east", ann > a

11th August 2011, 02:17 PM	#94
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	I do admire the courage of Armstrong and the others, particularly Armstrong. I think he has suffered. It does not change my view of the lying or how I feel about being gamed this way.

11th August 2011, 02:26 PM	#95
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15. Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts. LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read. Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive. Yeah I figured you were talking about Luna 15. What happened to it again?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,309	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

11th August 2011, 02:39 PM	#96
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 and generally describing an 800 lb collection of "Lunar Rocks" is one thing, subjecting all 800 pounds of the alleged samples to in depth study is another and has not been done. I stand by my previous statement which is true and accurate. Cataloging/describing is not in depth studying. False. All 800+ pounds have been studied in depth. Your claim otherwise is a flat out lie. Again, here's the link to the archive of the Lunar Samples Compendium http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/compendium.cfm Go read 'em and prove me wrong. Quote: That said, as emphasized above, I could not care less. Don't get me wrong. The rocks are important to look at. It is just I know Apollo to be fake and along with Apollo the phony rocks because astronaut Borman pooped all over his space ship and no one cared. Now infectious disease is a subject I do know a lot about. And because of that I know Apollo is bogus as are the Apollo rocks. Well, to be fair pooping all over a spaceship is pretty convincing proof that the missions were bogus, but it has nothing to do with the rocks. This is the logical fallacy called "non sequitur" because the one does not logically follow the other. Fallacies are like pokemon. Hoax believers and conspiracy theorists tend to collect them all. Admit it -- you don't wanna talk about rocks because they're proof of missions on the moon to collect them. Quote: I also know how to find myself on the surface of the earth and claim I could do the same on the surface of the moon. Astronaut Armstrong prefers to have others find him by way of examining lunar maps of low resolution. Um. Yeah? what? I think you've lost me here. Perhaps the problem is your understanding of the scope and design of the A11 mission is flawed. Quote: How did they know Neil and Buzz were at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east Apollo by looking at those "crude maps" as Michael Collins called them? Did they hold up one of your fake rocks to the phony TV camera and make a bogus diagnosis of the fraudulent location based on the ghost of a rock's appearance on pretend TV Apollo? I have no proof you're an idiot, so I won't call you one. The statement above lacks any relevance or intellectual rigor. Quote: As I said, you have your real rocks, I have my astronauts that cannot navigate their way out of a high tech bag. You have your pics and I have Charles Berry who doesn't seem qualified to treat a case of diarrhea at a summer camp. whatev's Quote: Read the narrative, the phony story. You'll come around ApolloGnomon. Times have changed. The tide has turned. NASA is going down. That would explain the literal flood of ~~skeptics~~ sock puppets. There are only about 12 people on the planet, honestly, who actually believe this drivel. Half of them are represented by Jarrah "ask me about my $300 bucket of dirt" White and his coterie of sycophantic catamites like Stray "ask me about my drug bust probation" Dog. What's YOUR excuse?
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 02:46 PM	#97
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Of course the Saturn V launches are "staged", with the big rockets going up, but not to the moon., to know where? They went to the moon. We know this not just because NASA said so, we know this because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also said so. Anyone with three radio antennas and an accurate clock can pinpoint the position of a radio broadcast in 3 dimensions. And the russians were slightly more experienced at this than the more technologically advanced Americans. The russians watched a radio source ascend to orbit from Cape Canaveral, then travel to the Moon. They watched the radio source orbit the Moon, land and then return across 250,000 miles of space. To believe that the Apollo landings were a hoax is to believe that the largest empire in history, and one of it's bloodiest, one that would murder tens of millions of its own citizens in the belief that this protected its internal stability, an empire typified by unprovoked agression and wars of conquest, the largest state exporter and sponsor of terrorism in history... would simply allow itself to fracture, split apart and quietly fade, all the while protecting the secret that its first worst enemy didn't really win the biggest propaganda battle in historys biggest staring contest.

11th August 2011, 02:55 PM	#98
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15. Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts. LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read. Think about it Redtail. Would you go to the moon if there was no plan to locate you on its surface? This story is preposterous. As they say, the bigger the lie, they easier it is to get the public to swallow the jive. You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about or you wouldn't have brought it up at all. The mere existence of the Soviet space program is devastating to the hoaxers case. As pointed out above, the commies knew that Apollo had made it to the Moon without the need for pictures. And there is just no bloody way the spawn of Stalin would have let America have it's victory lap and 40 year gloat-fest if there was even the slightest scintilla of evidence that something was hinky.

11th August 2011, 03:00 PM	#99
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	When hoax believers disregard the significance of the Soviet Union one can fairly accurately establish an upper limit to their age.
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 03:42 PM	#100
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration? Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block.

11th August 2011, 03:46 PM	#101
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Body: Michigan, Heart: Chicago Posts: 3,894	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth They went to the moon. We know this not just because NASA said so, we know this because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics also said so. Anyone with three radio antennas and an accurate clock can pinpoint the position of a radio broadcast in 3 dimensions. And the russians were slightly more experienced at this than the more technologically advanced Americans. The russians watched a radio source ascend to orbit from Cape Canaveral, then travel to the Moon. They watched the radio source orbit the Moon, land and then return across 250,000 miles of space. To believe that the Apollo landings were a hoax is to believe that the largest empire in history, and one of it's bloodiest, one that would murder tens of millions of its own citizens in the belief that this protected its internal stability, an empire typified by unprovoked agression and wars of conquest, the largest state exporter and sponsor of terrorism in history... would simply allow itself to fracture, split apart and quietly fade, all the while protecting the secret that its first worst enemy didn't really win the biggest propaganda battle in historys biggest staring contest. Well, when you put it like that, it's almost as if the hoax claims are a bit implausible
	__________________ See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. -Joker Working them to death is murder. Making them live like pigs and dying from disease is murder. Shooting them next to a ditch is murder. Digging them up and burning them to hide your murder, is extra credit evil. -beachnut

11th August 2011, 04:04 PM	#104
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration? Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block. bu-dump-bump Pshhhh!
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 04:15 PM	#105
Erock Muse Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Debunking Linkbarf & Poop Posts: 617	Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon bu-dump-bump Pshhhh!
	__________________ The less they know the more they blow.

11th August 2011, 04:23 PM	#107
mercatormac Scholar Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 109	Originally Posted by Patrick1000 Redtail, the Soviets had LUNA 15, a satellite with excellent photographic capabilities WAITING FOR APOLLO 11'S ARRIVAL. How much the Russians knew about the fraud is not clear to me, but the Apollo effort understood the photographic threat posed by LUNA 15. Try this on for size Redtail. The Eagle touches down and Armstrong says, "Houston we are at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east." LUNA 15 flies by and photographs nothing or perhaps a LRRR sans associated astro-not-very-Eagle-Scouts. LUNA 15 was perceived as a threat and it makes Apollo 11's fraudulence particularly easy to read. NASA certainly dodged a bullet there then. One thing I don't understand though, how does NASA prevent Luna 16, Luna 17, Luna 18, Luna 19, Luna 20, Luna 21, Luna 22, Luna 23 and Luna 24 or any other space probe from photographing the non-landing site and blowing the hoax wide open?
mercatormac Scholar Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 109

11th August 2011, 04:48 PM	#109
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration? Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block. When he got to the far side of the White House, Collins became the loneliest man in Washington, D.C.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,616

11th August 2011, 04:49 PM	#110
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,578	Patrick you deny the undeniable. There's a special term for people who do that.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th August 2011, 05:35 PM	#111
Macgyver1968 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 3,610	Originally Posted by twinstead Patrick you deny the undeniable. There's a special term for people who do that. Crazy?
	__________________ "Fixin' crap that ain't broke."

11th August 2011, 05:50 PM	#112
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,578	Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 Crazy? Ah, that's the word I was looking for.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th August 2011, 07:01 PM	#113
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 5,630	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth BTW, did you all hear what happened when the Apollo 11 crew went to the White House for then 40th anniversary commemoration? Aldrin and Armstrong went inside to meet the President while Micheal Collins stayed in the car and drove around the block. So incredibly awesome. I'm totally stealing that.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

11th August 2011, 08:38 PM	#114
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	twinstead, Crazy like a fox, you betcha'. Follow the facts where they lead. David Reed is not crazy. What is it you know about Apollo twinstead that Reed doesn't know? He sat at the bench of Mission Control, their most talented , most capable launch FIDO. He thought Neil Armstrong was lost on the morning of 07/21/1969 until Reed himself managed to "find" him. Armstrong described the landscape that morning for the benefit of the US Geological Survey guys looking for him on their "crude maps". Was Armstrong himself wrong? did he really know where he was? So twinstead, was Reed wrong or fooled? Was Armstrong wrong or fooled? Was the location of the Eagle's perch known to any reasonable degree of accuracy before Reed sat down to work on the morning or 07/21/1969? Is it crazy to believe Reed's accounting of the facts that morning, an accounting supported by Armstrong's own telling of the lunar landing story? I don't disagree with Reed's accounting, nor Armstrong's. I believe the Mission Control boys did not know where Eagle was within 25,000 feet/5 miles give or take anyway as stated by Reed. Armstrong supports that position. Why am I crazy for supporting it?
	Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 08:42 PM. Reason: hat>what, twin stead>twin stead, know.>know?, did>Did, story.>story?

11th August 2011, 09:24 PM	#115
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Ah, yes, another old familiar tactic: Ignore all responses relevant to the thread and instead attempt to back random posters into rhetorical or technical corners of your choosing. Whatev's. Care to tell us how moon rocks could be faked? 'Cuz if you can't then there's no bother continuing to waffle on about 12 digit grid coordinates. Care to tell us how the largest rocket ever built could be hidden from view while orbiting the earth? If ya can't then there's no real reason to continue flailing in the general direction of voice transcripts. Care to tell us how fake photographs NOT taken from the moon could accurately show weather patterns on earth, corroborated with various outside sources? If not then you might as well stop hammering on the bent nail of telescopes.
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah Last edited by ApolloGnomon; 11th August 2011 at 09:28 PM.

11th August 2011, 09:41 PM	#116
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 1,910	Great! So, about those rocks. . .
	__________________ Lunar Sample Compendium ............Apollo Lunar Surface Journal "I'm ignoring the rest of your foaming rant. " JayUtah

11th August 2011, 09:42 PM	#117
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	Thanks ApolloG, thought I was stuck in that telescope mode there. Again, nobody's fault but my own. I was just trying to respond to your challenges.

11th August 2011, 11:11 PM	#118
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525	Speaking of fattydash - what do the numerous changes and contradictions in your claims say about your honesty? After all, you keep telling us that there are contradictions in the A11 story and that this means it is a lie. Similarly, what about the numerous times you lied in accepting the TOSs of BAUT and AH when creating sock-puppets there? It's relevant because you're the one who started harping about honesty. Also, in regard to "evaluating the narrative" - how many space missions have you personally worked? Also, exactly what evidence do you have for your claim that the A11 LRRR was placed by anything other than the crew of Apollo 11? No handwaving. Just any actual evidence for this particular claim. Oh, and please provide a description of Luna 15's ability to conclusively image the A11 landing site from orbit; it certainly didn't do so in proximity (despite your previous claim that it "hovered about") as it landed a good fraction of the Moon's circumference away. I've worked on image tasking systems for high-resolution imaging satellites, so this ought to be good.
sts60 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,525

11th August 2011, 11:49 PM	#119
Patrick1000 Banned Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: 37 47' 36" north, 121 33' 17" west Posts: 3,040	sts, FYI sts, you seem to be under the impression that "fattydash" is ONE flesh and blood person who is a sock artist, ever finding his/her way back onto a site. Ironically, such is not the case. "Fattydash" is NOT one guy/gal. To allay any anxieties here. My name is indeed Patrick. I am not the Apollohoax "fattydash" poster. Though admittedly I did copy some of the "fattydash" stuff and try and post it here for expediency's sake. I study similar materials obviously. I didn't realize there was a rule against such copying and I do sincerely apologize. I, Patrick, do promise to be the only person posting here under the user name Patrick1000. Hope that was helpful sts.
	Last edited by Patrick1000; 11th August 2011 at 11:50 PM. Reason: study the>study