Merged: Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

ApolloG, love the idea about the hangover, really do. Will give it a look tonight and keep it in mind. Very good suggestion. The other thing that seems so weird to me about their affect there, anyone, even an X-15 pilot would be flat out SCARED at times doing this. I never get that from them. Once i would expect a guy to say, "I was doing this and that, then suddenly it dawned on me where I was and I was breathing this pumped in air and everything was BLACK and oh MAN!, I was flat out SCARED!" But I never heard that once from an astronaut. Never made sense now that I look back.

[Patrick1000]

We can debate the rocks ApolloG, no big. i am not trying to get out of the rock debate. You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

ApolloG, love the idea about the hangover, really do. Will give it a look tonight and keep it in mind. Very good suggestion. The other thing that seems so weird to me about their affect there, anyone, even an X-15 pilot would be flat out SCARED at times doing this. I never get that from them. Once i would expect a guy to say, "I was doing this and that, then suddenly it dawned on me where I was and I was p breathing' this pumped in air and everything was BLACK and oh MAN!, I was flat out SCARED!" But I never heard that once from an astronaut. Never made sense now that I look back.

Fear is a response to the unknown. The training regimen for astronauts exposed them to many possibilities so that as little as possible would remain "unknown." They were combat pilots, test pilots, war veterans.

Quote:

Armstrong flew 78 missions over Korea for a total of 121 hours in the air, most of which was in January 1952. He received the Air Medal for 20 combat missions, a Gold Star for the next 20, and the Korean Service Medal and Engagement Star.[18

los wikis

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually.

You'll need to establish a proper argument first, with actual cause and effect sequences.

poop = annoying mess

does not equal

poop = mission failure

[Patrick1000]

Well if you worked in a hospital/clinic a bit you'd at least consider my perspective.

Think of it this way ApolloG. Let's assume it to be true, Apollo 8 made the big trip and Borman pooped, i think it was 18 hours or so in when it began. I'd have to look that up and am too lazy now.

So he has bad diarrhea. that is what they say. Even if the air filter removes everything from the air, all the bad stuff and even if they wipe up all the big diarrhea chunks with paper towel like Chaikin says, there is a film of potentiality infected feces on everything in this zero G environment, salmonella say just for the sake of argument.

This would be the circumstance. Salmonella on Jim Lovell's eyebrows. It is a concern. Anyone can see this , the concern part. No mention anywhere of this. Maybe no one cared. But I ain't staying in that ship. ABORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick1000]

I agree about armstrong, the guy was/is a stud, flat out. Also, fraud or real mission, he was hand picked, all that stuff about the random draw business is jive. First on the moon, real or fake, he was VERY carefully selected.

[mercatormac]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.

How many did you convince at ApolloHoax and BAUT?

[Patrick1000]

sts, Apollo is typically debated in terms of facts about things, the facts about the rocks, the telemetry, the photos. The best way to show Apollo bogus is to look at the story line. Hope this answers your question at #457. Is this what you wanted? Please elaborate if I misunderstood. thanx!

[Patrick1000]

I honestly believe I have never convinced a single person under any circumstances of the bogusness of Apollo except my brother. But i love this. I am learning for myself the truth this way. So it matters not whom I convince. I do not believe any of us here are convincible . Just don't feel that to be possible. I feel like we define ourselves with this and nothing more. Pretty narrow perspective, but that is what I think.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Well if you worked in a hospital/clinic a bit you'd at least consider my perspective.

Think of it this way ApolloG. Let's assume it to be true, Apollo 8 made the big trip and Borman pooped, i think it was 18 hours or so in when it began. I'd have to look that up and am too lazy now.

So he has bad diarrhea. that is what they say. Even if the air filter removes everything from the air, all the bad stuff and even if they wipe up all the big diarrhea chunks with paper towel like Chaiken says, there is a film of potentiality infected feces on everything in this zero G environment, salmonella say just for the sake of argument.

This would be the circumstance. Salmonella on Jim Lovell's eyebrows. It is a concern. Anyone can see this , the concern part. No mention anywhere of this. Maybe no one cared. But I ain't staying in that ship. ABORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why abort? They're already exposed. How abort? They're on the way to the moon.

Quote:

But I ain't staying in that ship.

Well, first of all you're not an astronaut, second your "feelings" are irrelevant, and second, where the hell ya gonna go? You really think hard core well trained men who've already steeled themselves up for being strapped to the top of a big friggin' bomb can't deal with a little crap?

You obviously don't have children. A little crap is nothing, and there were no alternatives. You don't just turn the car around and go home.

[Patrick1000]

mercato,

Another way to make my point. Best outcome for either side is to walk away and have learned something. Sounds trite, but is true. I do not think nomuse can bring me back to the pro real view, but he showed me how careless I can be with words and how misleading i was in a situation and never sensitive to it until he pressed me. Very good thing for me to see.

i cannot convince nomuse of Apollo's fakeness, but he read Dr. Clark's work I think because I pushed him a bit and he really learned something too, at least my sense is that was the case.

So this is what we are doing here and anywhere for that matter when we "debate".

[LashL]

The discussion about telescope magnification and star visibility has been split to a separate thread here.

Posted By:LashL

[Patrick1000]

Say there really was salmonella in the cabin ApolloG. there wasn't because the thing is fake. But assume it all to be real and now we have salmonella everywhere. You turn the ship around NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Supposedly that was discussed, but they were beyond the window of opportunity per the official story, so they had to go anyway. But according to NASA's tale, an abort was considered. 25,000 mph in one direction to 25,000 mph in the other.

[drewid]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Say there really was salmonella in the cabin ApolloG. there wasn't because the thing is fake. But assume it all to be real and now we have salmonella everywhere. You turn the ship around NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Supposedly that was discussed, but they were beyond the window of opportunity per the official story, so they had to go anyway. But according to NASA's tale, an abort was considered. 25,000 mph in one direction to 25,000 mph in the other.

How? Even if this conclusion is correct, which it clearly isn't, how do you go from "25,000 mph in one direction to 25,000 mph in the other."?
I'm waiting for an answer on this one, me and Sir Issac.

[Patrick1000]

You can read about it drewid. i am actually sitting in a McDonalds now after work so don't have access to my references. I'll send you something later today. you may find a good reference on your own though.

Search/hunt around for abort contingencies. They had several for these missions, real or imagined depending on one's persuasion. One of the contingencies was literally brake and then go 25,000 in the other direction once the thing is slowed and paused.

This particular abort option must be triggered fairly early in the course of a mission. In the Apollo 8 situation, they were past this point when this particularly radical abort was said to have been considered.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

Say there really was salmonella in the cabin ApolloG. there wasn't because the thing is fake. But assume it all to be real and now we have salmonella everywhere. You turn the ship around NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Supposedly that was discussed, but they were beyond the window of opportunity per the official story, so they had to go anyway. But according to NASA's tale, an abort was considered. 25,000 mph in one direction to 25,000 mph in the other.

Like a Star Wars X-wing, eh? Swoop around in a heavy bank like a WWII Spitfire? Return to base!

Oh dear.

You got no physics, bro. A doctor should know better than this.

p.s. I thought you were going away? You left my questions about the directional nature of the radio transmissions unanswered.

[drewid]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

This particular abort option must be triggered fairly early in the course of a mission. In the Apollo 8 situation, they were past this point when this particularly radical abort was said to have been considered.

And?

[Patrick1000]

With all due respect Glenn, will also cover you with a reference about the abort contingencies. A direct turnaround was actually considered for Apollo 8 for the very reason we are discussing here, Borman's illness. There are probably many members here familiar with this. If no one provides you with a reference before i get home, I'll shoot you a good one. i believe it is discussed in Chaikin's book, if you have that handy you might check, though I could be wrong. at any rate, it is unbelievable really isn't it, to stop a ship like that. Wild.

[Patrick1000]

turned out I didn't have to work Glenn.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

turned out I didn't have to work Glenn.

Fine. So how about an answer to my post about how any idiot with a decent radio receiver* could tell that the signals weren't coming from the right place?

*including, but not limited to, every state with bad feelings towards the USA.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I am actually sitting in a McDonalds now after work so don't have access to my references.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

turned out I didn't have to work Glenn.

Oh what a tangled web we weave .
When first we practice to deceive.

[Patrick1000]

Glenn, drewid, from the NASA Apollo 8 Prelaunch Report, will send better reference later


Aborts During Translunar Coast
The abort procedure for this phase of the mission would be similar to the 90 minute abort. If conditions warrant an abort, abort information specifying a combination of SPS burn time and CSM attitude would be sent to the crew. Deep space aborts will be targeted to, in order of priority, (1) the Mid-Pacific line, (2) the Atlantic Ocean
line, (3) the East Pacific or West Pacific lines, and (4) the Indian Ocean line. Regardless of the recovery line selected, the landing latitude should remain nearly
the same. The minimum elapsed time between abort initiation and CM landing
increases with translunar coast flight time. About the time the CSM enters the moon’s sphere of gravitational influence, it becomes faster to perform a circumlunar abort rather than returning directly to earth.

[Patrick1000]

I said i did not have to work Glenn. You are silly. I worked all night and instead of having to stick around got to leave. Came to McDonalds to drink coffee and mooch their net line.

[Patrick1000]

anyhoo, going home. will send you the abort reference.

[ApolloGnomon]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

You can read about it drewid. i am actually sitting in a McDonalds now after work

I find this oddly believable

Quote:

so don't have access to my references.

Your use of the term "references" is laughable.

Quote:

Search/hunt around for abort contingencies. They had several for these missions, real or imagined depending on one's persuasion. One of the contingencies was literally brake and then go 25,000 in the other direction once the thing is slowed and paused

.

Uh, no.

Quote:

This particular abort option must be triggered fairly early in the course of a mission. In the Apollo 8 situation, they were past this point when this particularly radical abort was said to have been considered.

I know a thing or two about the trajectory, others know quite a bit more. You apparently don't know jack.

[Patrick1000]

Just got home ApolloG. Actually I am quite good with books of all sorts. I am sleepy now, but will give you one general reference here about 8, more later, so sleepy, Ciao!.

Glenn's and Drewid's references;

Chaikin, A MAN ON THE MOON; Penguin paper, page 99;

"Minutes later, in consultation with Berry and other manages, Apollo program director Sam Phillips decided to let the flight continue. Even if Phillips had decided otherwise, Apollo 8 was too far away for the SPS to manage a swift about face maneuver. Borman Lovell and Anders were committed now; even if they had to abort their mission, they were going to go around the moon.

[ApolloGnomon]

Thanks for debunking your own argument that the poopy spaceship could have just turned around.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.

Is it your contention that the conspirators invented the embarrassing and wildly unpleasant diarrhea incident to lend their supposedly far-fetched tale a sort of gritty verisimilitude? Do you think the concern was that the average man on the street would read about the Apollo missions and think to himself, "yeah I'll buy surviving the Van Allen belt and all that other stuff that to my ignorant mind might seem suspicious, but the accounts all seem to omit mentions of diarrrea and that for me is a major red flag"?

By "they all do in the end" do you mean that you have managed to eventually convince others of your "poop=fraud" theory? Or was there someone else who came up with the theory who eventually convinced you? Or by "they" do you mean your brother?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I honestly believe I have never convinced a single person under any circumstances of the bogusness of Apollo except my brother.

Have you considered the possibility that that you are having difficulty convincing others of your theory because your theory is absurd and has no evidence to support it? Similarly, let's say that I try to convince the world that cars are powered by elves and that the whole "cars require gas to run" thing is just a conspiracy on the part of "Big Oil". Is any skepticism I may face an example of a close-minded "sheeple" public or might it simply indicate that my elves theory may be wrong?

BTW my earlier question about the Quote button wasn't meant as rhetorical. Why don't you use the Quote button when responding to posts?

1. You don't know how to use the Quote button and can't be bothered to learn.

2. You don't see the point of it.

3. It amuses you in your role of maverick to disregard convention, even if that convention serves a useful purpose.

4. Due to some peculiarity of your OS or browser you are unable to use the Quote button.

5. Two or more of the above.

6. None of the above.

[frenat]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

It's fake, has to be. The Boorman thing, right there, has to be. Could not be otherwise. No way astronauts would be sick like that and have yo-yos for docs. the docs would be first rate. these guys in the NASA script are pretend docs. Sorry but it is true.

Except for the FACT that the only remaining classified aspect of the missions are their medical records. Don't you think some of the actions they took and concern that you say they should have had might be expressed in there? Can you prove they aren't? All you have is an "If I ran the zoo" fallacy with incomplete evidence on your part.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

We can debate the rocks ApolloG, no big. i am not trying to get out of the rock debate. You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.

What "all"?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by twinstead

What "all"?

Him and his sockpuppets, apparently.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

One of the contingencies was literally brake and then go 25,000 in the other direction once the thing is slowed and paused.

Reference please.

Of all the contingencies available, slowing a craft from 25000mph to zero, then back up to 25000mph, using what fuel was on board the CSM was impossible.

If anything, the closer they were to the neutral point, the more likeliehood of an abort would be possible. Yet it would be the less appealing of the two options of 1) doing a reverse burn and accelerate to the identical speed in the opposite direction or 2) free return trajectory.

18 hrs in to a lunar coast, the CSM would be doing 4-5000 mph.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by Erock

Reference please.

Of all the contingencies available, slowing a craft from 25000mph to zero, then back up to 25000mph, using what fuel was on board the CSM was impossible.

If anything, the closer they were to the neutral point, the more likeliehood of an abort would be possible. Yet it would be the less appealing of the two options of 1) doing a reverse burn and accelerate to the identical speed in the opposite direction or 2) free return trajectory.

18 hrs in to a lunar coast, the CSM would be doing 4-5000 mph.

Hey, why not? They did it for Apollo 13!

Oh wait...

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

...You'll come around to the fake poop=fraud view eventually. they all do in the end.

Originally Posted by twinstead

What "all"?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

I honestly believe I have never convinced a single person under any circumstances of the bogusness of Apollo except my brother.

That "all".

He ain't many, he's my brother.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Erock

Reference please.

Sorry, but he has yet to provide any reference.

He claims to have many, none of which he will give.

[ApolloGnomon]

Let's be fair, guys. He has given us the name of a book for his latest claim.

Oddly, it totally debunks him. But Hey!! It's a reference!

[DC]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

sts, Apollo is typically debated in terms of facts about things, the facts about the rocks, the telemetry, the photos. The best way to show Apollo bogus is to look at the story line. Hope this answers your question at #457. Is this what you wanted? Please elaborate if I misunderstood. thanx!

you fail at that

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

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

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

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

special fail videos for you

[matt.tansy]

My favorite:

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

Be sure to watch the sped up version, too.

[Patrick1000]

Hey DC,

Thanks for the videos. Those are funny, have seen them before. You have to be patient. I have only begun to present my case.

Here is a tiny example. Consider this; when I first brought up the abort notion, very recently, a few members simply didn't believe an abort was a consideration from the position of an alleged translunar coast. Well of course it is. It is a very main stream notion, nothing "way out" there about it or anything like that.

So in order to even begin to present my case about one of the Apollo inconsistencies, first I have to provide references to support my assertion with regard to something that really is not controversial at all, an abort contingency from a translunar coast vantage.

There are many official story supporters who of course know such contingencies are part of the mainstream story/view and they could pop in right now and say, "the Patrick guy is correct, there is such a thing as an abort contingency for a full fledged high speed turn around". But as it turns out, a discussion like this seldom goes that way. Rather, I actually have to show some official story advocates the truth with respect to features of the official story. In this case, the truth that a translunar coast vantage abort contingency did exist and was even "considered" in some of the Apollo scripts; Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 to my knowledge. There may be others.

So you can't really suggest I've failed in any fair sense yet, because the guys and gals arguing from the other side are first of all waiting for me to provide them with their own facts, the facts of the official story.

None of this I mind by the way. My point is only that it takes a great deal of time. It is a very slow process. I believe ApolloG commented above that my little abort reference from Chaikin's book debunked my own claim. I haven't even begun to present my best evidence for my claim yet. I am still in the process of first providing evidence there was such a thing as an abort from cislunar space.

So I am challenged every step of the way.

The NASA official story claims the Eagle's coordinates were not known with certainty until 08/01/1969. This is the official story claim. Nothing CT about it. Very mainstream, very much a part of the official story. Yet as you'll see, it will be me presenting NASA's own materials to support what others will view as a claim on my part, yet within the materials which stand as those of Apollo's official canon there is no big deal about this.

So DC, I'll proceed now with presenting a little about the abort thing in terms of references. You'd think I would not really need to as it is a part of the main, official story wise, but because it's not part of the main, public appreciation wise, it falls to me to point it out when arguing my case.

I like your videos and do not feel offended by the way because I am confident about all of this, as I was with my point about telescope magnification. But each point takes a great deal of time to make. So in building my case, a day, two, three, four may pass before in the context of this forum everyone agrees on something as fundamental as aborts from a cislunar vantage.

You'll see I have many interesting things to say, all from NASA's own story. Here's one to consider for example. In the Apollo 11 Post flight Mission Report, in the section on LASER RANGING RETRO-REFLECTOR it says;

"The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector(LRRR) experiment is optimally designed for lunar night operation and has consequently not yet been acquired by any laser ranging stations".

Well this report is from July 24 1969. We know that the LRRR was not successfully targeted until 08/01/1969 per NASA and the Primary Investigators of the LRRR experiment. The experimenters published their reports in the professional journal Science. We also know that it was still "daytime" on the moon on 08/01/1969. We know from NASA itself and the Apollo experimental scientists that Lick Observatory was not able to find the location of the LM at 00 41 15 north and 23 26 00 east until 08/01/1969 because they could not provide the Lick Observatory scientists with their best estimation of the LRRR's position until they analyzed trajectory data and photo data from the mission.

All this being the undisputed case, we also know that someone from Houston gave Lick Observatory the numbers 00 41 15 and 23 26 00 east on the evening of 07/20/1969.

Taken together, the above facts as presented by NASA, the Apollo Lunar Scientists and the Lick Observatory staff constitute an utterly incoherent narrative. I of course will suggest it is the NASA piece that is out of place, that is the BIG LIE because I see no reason for the Apollo Lunar Scientists to lie, nor a reason for the Lick Observatory Staff to lie, nor a reason for the LRRR primary investigators to lie, but many reasons for NASA to lie.

In my presentation of the above. I will only use primary sources in presenting the facts as outlined, nothing conjectural. But each point I imagine might take days if I so care to work at it. I say that because I will be the one presenting to my challengers NASA's own official story, and I will be challenged every step of the way, as you can see I was when I first suggested there was such a thing as a cislular abort consideration/contingency.

So you may want to withhold your opinion about my abilities for a bit in fairness since the process is so very slow going. But if not, that is OK too, you may keep sending the videos. I think the astronauts are sort of funny too.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

sts, Apollo is typically debated in terms of facts about things, the facts about the rocks, the telemetry, the photos. The best way to show Apollo bogus is to look at the story line. Hope this answers your question at #457. Is this what you wanted? Please elaborate if I misunderstood. thanx!

Well, I had a long answer fall into the bit-bucket. Briefly put - it's shocking that anyone who calls himself a "scientist" would work so hard to avoid examining empirical data. What we're left with is your uninformed view of a mish-mash of records and popular books, appeals to personal incredulity, and childish jokes. I can't help you put together a coherent narrative if you continue to avoid the questions.

BTW, I believe "#457" is now post 206 after the thread split. The questions still await an answer. I get the feeling they will become rather lonely waiting; fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc.,etc. can't or won't even give a straightforward answer to clarify which manned missions he believes in.