Post by fattydash on Jul 14, 2011 15:58:57 GMT -4
07/14/2011
SHALL WE DEBATE THE FACTS OF APOLLO, OR WASTE TIME WITH OTHER NONSENSE? PART ONE
Jay and my esteemed and most valued Apollohoax forum colleagues,
Sorry it has taken me a bit to get back to you. As mentioned, I have a night job as well as many other obligations. Some matters required a tending to and kept me from our Apollo debate, our debate which as I am sure you have gathered, is something I enjoy ever as much as you. After enjoying a good day's sleep, I am looking forward to responding to your recent rather personal posts. As best I am able to interpret, the intent of your posts Jay, seemed to have been penned with a voice in challenge of my "authenticity", my authenticity as an Apollohoax.net forum member. Though your claims of such inauthenticity on some levels remain rather vague in my mind Jay, you do seem to have finally provided me with the requisite detail, detail adequate now in its serving to help me understand at long last the nature of these rather strange crimes of which I have been accused. I cover most of your charges in part one of this piece Jay, and will leave my response to a final charge of yours for my part two. I trust once these pieces have been completed and reviewed by those interested, the carges of inauthenticity raised against me shall be entirely laid to rest and we may move forward with the substance of our debate.
One final comment before moving on with my response, further down in this discussion, I poke fun at astronauts Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong. I would like to emphasize here, as I have done previously, to the degree that I am able to understand the true events of 07/20/1969, I imagine these men to be men of great courage, especially Armstrong. I say that with absolute sincerity. My poking fun is a literary device, a rhetorical device, as much as anything. That said, Apollo humor does serve in one additional relatively important regard. We must find humor in Apollo's absurdity. Humor may be the only thing we have in terms of our being able to cope with the full on fallout of "Apollo's Solution". So as you read, keep in mind, I make fun of the characters, the astro-actors as I like to call them. The men in their real lives here on earth, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins have engendered my sympathy, not that they should care what I think. But it is how I feel.
In your post # 328 Jay, you accused me of lying about the details of how it was that I was finally able to access the posting function of this marvelous forum. I indicated that I tried to register on several occasions as my first registration, the one I now use under the forum name fattydash, had not allowed me posting privileges, though ostensibly my registering had seemed to go smoothly. You and the moderator LunarOrbit suggested my multiple registering attempts demonstrated activity on my part suggestive of an intention to deceive forum members here and engage in sock puppetry. I pointed out this could hardly be the case as each of those registrations was submitted with the very same email address. Indeed, the common email address was the way in which the Apollohoax moderator learned of my multiple registrations. I pointed out that an individual engaged, or planning to engage in the act of sock puppetry would most decidedly NOT use the same email address in the setting up of more that one forum accounts. The whole point of sock, its modus operandi, is that wherein one person single person posts under several guises, under the cover of multiple aliases. Hardly something I could have done Jay given all of my registration attempts were linked to the very same email account, and as Apollohoax's own records demonstrate, the only posting done on this forum connected to that email account is posting by fattydash. The sock charge is of course baseless and I hope that it has been laid to rest.
In post #333 you asked me why I thought it was honest and appropriate to pretend to be multiple people, and you prefaced your question with your saying that you would not ask the question again. I presumed you did this as your way of demanding an answer, an answer which of course I was more than happy to provide, though admittedly I found this question's asking rather bizarre. I responded Jay and emphasized once again as the Apollohoax records show, I have only posted here under fattydash, and certainly, none of my posts contain anything remotely suggestive of misrepresenting myself in this strange multiple person context of yours Jay. Your challenge is so utterly weird, my pretending to be a person other than I am. I have little else to say about it as it makes such little sense to me. The question is flat out weird and very pointless I might add. What would it matter if I were to log on each day and just for yuks, or because I was psychotic, or because I wanted to see how effective various personality strategies worked in debating you Jay? What if I did do that which is the only context in which this question from outer space makes any sense? Who cares? And wouldn't it be the prerogative of the nutty person to do this? Regardless, I trust a review of my posts shows me to be consistent in my approach and tactics to debate. These example contexts in which a multiple person poster may show up here as a participant(s) in the forum certainly do not apply to me. My point in bringing this up Jay is even if these strange contexts were to apply to me, you or anyone, I would suggest that it should not be grounds for sanctioning the forum participant, whether he/she was screwing around or was literally mentally ill. At any rate, the context is/was meaningless in my case and I had hoped this strange multiple person charge of yours was laid to rest. Yet, there was more.
In your post #338 Jay, you pressed this odd question. In this more nuanced articulation of yours, I believed you to be suggesting I possessed a multiple person debating style/tactic/behavior, a style of debate which you find/found objectionable. Despite the slightly more, though still minimal coherence of your multiple person charge in its post #338 incarnation, I nevertheless continued to have difficulty making any real sense of it. Others unfamiliar of this little tiff between Jay and myself should take a look at Jay's post # 338 for themselves. Such as I am able to make heads or tails of it, it would appear that this most worthy debating opponent of mine, JayUtah, The Official Apollo Narrative's Light and Champion, was saying that my overall behavior in debating Apollo here on this forum included a tactic involving my posing as multiple people. I am quite literally not making this up. Please have a look at Jay's post #338 for yourself and see if you can make any sense out of it. I could not. Jay went on to emphasize my continued evasion of this question, my not answering why it was that I posed as multiple people in my "Lost Bird" thread debate with him, would result in a 6 month ban from the forum we all so love.
Of course I wish/wished to continue here with Jay and the others. Its so fun, challenging, edifying, maddening, enlightening, frustrating, sanctifying. Certainly, I found myself more than willing to try and answer Jay's question and answer it. As such, I made a simple request of in my post at #340, simply for Jay to cite specific posts where I had engaged in this apparently crude, underhanded and flat out dastardly tactic of "posing as multiple people" while debating Jay. The threat of a ban loomed and continues to loom, menacingly over my head, like a poorly secured stage light threatening to fall and whack Neil Armstrong on the noggin during his 07/20/1969 filming of "Apollo 11 Believe this Ridiculous Stuff, or I Dare Say NOT!". Great film by the way, check it out.
Jay responded in his post # 341 that my request for him to cite specific posts in which there was evidence for my posing as multiple persons amounted to game playing. I thought my request was quite reasonable. Simply show me, those posts in which this Apollohoax forum crime of conning Jay, God forbid outsmarting Jay no less, was in evidence. Simply direct me to the relevant post examples in which there was evidence of my pretending to be anyone other than the guy who is the one and only person in the world that knows the code to log in at Apollohoax.net under the user name "fattydash". Barbara Streisand did call me last week and asked for my fattydash code, "just for yuks" Barbara said. But debating Apollo is too important for me to compromise hoax ethics. Barbara of course was denied. And denied I was too. Jay had no examples for me per his post at #341, though I am sure all would agree that my request for Jay to provide such evidence, evidence for my employment of this dastardly multiple personality debate strategy, was a request very much more than fair. As beautiful and worthwhile as planet Apollohax forum is, at the same time it can be as strange a world as the 07/20/1969 world of Neil Armstrong's was, a world where the smartest astronaut walking the face of planet earth that summer day in 1969, couldn't figure out where it was exactly that he was on the moon. If someone accuses another of something, the accused is in any rational world afforded the opportunity to face his accost and be presented with the evidence against him or her. In Jay's post #341 he provided no examples of the multiple person behavior for which I was charged. He provided no evidence. He simply requested for me to explain my deceptive argumentation practices. He concluded with the statement, "Please stop screwing around and answer the questions". I swear to God I am so not making this up. See Jay's post for yourself, the one right after I told him no problem, just show me where I was more than one person, or whatever bizarre thing he means by that and I will comment as to what I said and answer any and all questions about the so referenced example of multiple person deceptive argumentation practices. Though for the life of me, how does one begin to reason given Jay's logic here? Multiple persons? Deceptive argumentation? What ever does it mean? Show me one example I asked Jay and I would be happy to comment. I think that was fair enough on my part, and I am sure most people would agree. If a person accuses me or anyone of something, even something as off the wall irrational as employing multiple persons in deceptive argumentation practices, and that same person emphasizes that I will be punished in the form of anApollohoax,net forum ban unless I respond to said charges, well then certainly I am entitled to see the evidence, in this case that would be my own posts. Jay was not able to provide such evidence, such examples because they did not, do not exist. Sort of like real moon rocks that really were collected on the moon. If one thinks about it for a minute, what would a post look like wherein the poster argued in one post, or from a collection of posts, and that argument was deceptive in its featuring that poster, that forum member to be posing as multiple persons. Again, I am so not making this up. Look at Jay's posts for yourself and see if you can arrive at another conclusion.
I hope this response written in the interest for all here, but especially with regard to those concerns raised by Jay, will finally lay this childish issue to rest so that we may move on with our acknowledged favorite pastime, debating Apollo based on its facts. That said, there is one other context, one not covered above, a context in which I can imagine a post of mine having been read by Jay, a post in which as crazy as most would view it, Jay might see me as a person "posing as multiple persons". I'll take a look at that last "multiple persons" context toward the end of this post. Since it has been a while since I have been on, with work duties and what not, I'll review my general position, the one as presented in this thread. A review of my general "Lost Bird" thread views are important here as Jay's recent post at #350 charges me with inconsistency. Reviewing my position, summarizing yet again, will emphasize I have been anything but inconsistent. Furthermore as Jay's charges, as difficult as they are to make sense of, he himself cannot provide one with an example, are charges of my being in some sense inauthentic, So before covering that one last possible context in which I would like to defend myself against Jay's charges of "posing as multiple persons", engaging in "deceptive argumentation practices" I would like all interested parties to be clear as regards my fundamental position on "Apollo's Solution". Let's take a look again at my position in outline and once presented, the reader may review my posts and see if as Jay charges there is evidence for inconsistency, see if as Jay charges there is evidence for some type of inauthenticity on the part of the posts' author. Once this summary is complete, I'll move on and discuss the last context mentioned above, a context in which a post may have been "read" by Jay as inauthentic. I save this for last as the context is relevant coming to terms with the reality of the Apollo fraud.
As mentioned previously, I do appreciate very much the opportunity to present my theme of Apollo 11's Eagle as a "Lost Bird" here in this lively forum. Having been an active participant in the development of this theme yourself Jay, you are well aware of my theme in its broad outline. I have shown with excellent documentation/references how on the evening of 07/20/1969 it was imperative NASA present the Eagle as a bird lost in the moonlight. NASA's bizarre tale as documented in its very OWN telling of this story features a pair of superstar fighter pilots who land on the moon and cannot for the life of themselves, even when their lives are supposed to be quite literally on the line, determine where exactly it is they have landed. Their colleague, the Apollo 11 CM pilot Michael Collins, circles above the moon's equator, hunting for the pair of lost former fighter jocks now turned space buffoons. Collins searches for his friends utilizing nothing more that a narrow angle 28 power optic, and this, from more than 60 miles above. Geologists from the United States Geological Survey group are hunched over their lunar maps, searching searching searching for the location of Neil Armstrong's fabled Tranquility Base and ditto for a group of NASA geologists based in Flagstaff. Everybody it would seem was looking for the Eagle that evening. How marvelously ironic that so many of us were at the same time watching the two bird keepers shuffling around in dust wearing suits they apparently did not need. How can these two not so Eagle scouts be lost if we are all watching them on TV? One can only stand in a state of abject jaw dropped incredulity to find that NASA's own contention is Armstrong and Aldrin are providing the "raw data" for this bird hunt NOT in the form of measurements made with the Eagle's navigational equipment, but rather, by way of descriptions given by the alleged astronauts to their Houston based handlers of the Tranquility Based environs, as though we are expected to believe in the preposterous, that the Eagle's coordinates might have actually been defined with the requisite accuracy based upon the appearance of phony rocks and powder decorating NASA's Apollo 11 sound stage. And just when one imagines NASA's contempt for the public funding this ludicrous charade could not possibly be expressed in ways more profound than those alluded to above, we find ourselves cringing in a state of nothing less than fulminant disgust for this woeful embarrassment of an excuse for a "scientific institution" when we learn it had such adolescent temerity in its expectation of our believing that upon the return of the Keystone Nauts to Earth, the lunar coordinates of Tranquility Base were not determined until 08/01/1969, 11 days after the landing, and this contrived method in the finding of Tranquility Base location is that of NASA's itself. The preposterous story is NASA's own and nobody else's. NASA claims Tranquility Base's finding was based upon photo and flight data analysis from the pretended Apollo 11' journey which the space agency claimed lead to Lick Observatory's finally being able to target a LRRR on the moon's surface at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. Again, to emphasize,. this first successful targeting with laser light return that so identified Tranquility Base's coordinates at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E occurred by NASA's own admission 11 days after the staged landing of 07/20/1969. How are we to conclude anything but a big time space fake when reading Remington Stone's first hand account of his operating the famous Lick Observatory laser on the dramatic evening of 07/20/1969 when the observatory was provided THAT VERY EVENING with the Tranquility Base coordinates by NASA personal? How? NASA lies. Its story of the moon landing is a story that is not internally coherent and so cannot be true.
My best guess as to why NASA needed to hide the Eagle on the evening of the bogus landing has to do with the presence of the Russian unmanned craft LUNA 15, sintering as it hovered about, threatening to photograph the Eagle's "landing site" were Ivan only able to get his hot little Ruskie hands on the Tranquility Base coordinates that evening. As I mentioned before, it would have been pretty embarrassing for ol' Dick Nixon if the Ruskie's flew over to 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E and photographed the LRRR sans Eagle, sans astronauts. The motive for losing the bird was so that its "not photo" could not be taken.
Of course the silly story about the Eagle without an address won't fly with a few select Apollo 11 workers. It's an elite group, the scientists that never in a million years would buy into the notion that the Eagle was lost. The guidance people for one. They know precise landing coordinates would be required, would be essential, in the return of an Eagle to a circling CM. I'll mention a few details as regards this issue, this need to on the one hand tell this gigantic lie to most people that no one knows where the Eagle is, and then at the same time, tell a second lie, just as big because no one is really on the moon, tell this second lie for the express purpose of being sure the honest guidance systems people don't get suspicious. A guidance systems officer is not going to accept the sorry story that no one knows where Eagle is. Remember, essentially everybody, all 400,000 people working on the Apollo project believe it to be real, a real landing. A fraud of this nature in order to work, must have this feature. Indeed, this is what makes a fraud like this so effective. Real scientists and engineers are building real equipment, rockets, landers, spacesuits, and everyone except for a few monkeys at the top believe the stuff is in fact being built as part of a genuine landing effort. Another way to think of it is to see the actual equipment and its building as genuine, honest, the fraudulence is in the carrying out of the mission itself. Most of the smartest guys working on this project buy into its reality. I gave the excellent example in previous posts and alluded to it above, that of Donald Beattie. He was a geologist involved in the selection and design of experiments that the asro-actors were said to have taken to the moon. Beattie thought it was all real. His group was involved in the analysis of the photos and flight data that was forwarded to the Lick Observatory after the landing, an analysis when combined with educated guessing that NASA claimed culminated in the successful targeting of the LRRR at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. on 08/01/1969. (See the original article in the periodical SCIENCE previously referenced in which the primary investigators of the LRRR experiment confirm the LRRR was not targeted until 08/01/1969. ) We ultimately learn however,, based on a first hand account by Remington Stone, the man who targeted the laser, that NASA gave Stone the coordinates of the LRRR on the VERY NIGHT of 07/20/1969, and we learn from Stone and in the SCIENCE article previously referenced, and again, this is an article authored by the PRIMARY INVESTIGATORS of the LRRR experiment, that the reason the finding of the LRRR took 11 days had nothing at all to do with photo and flight data analysis. Nothing! It had to do with a software problem in the program responsible for the timing of the "catching" of photons when they bounced back to the Lick scientists from the moon. Who needs to analyze photos when you already had the coordinates on the evening of the landing , 07/20/1969? So NASA lied about this plain and simple. There is no other way to read it, and Beattie, a super high level scientist employed by NASA suckered the poor guy
So we see first of all, NASA lies about losing the Eagle because it does not want the Russians to take a photo of lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. There is only an LRRR there, nothing else, no Eagle, no astro-actors, no nothing. Well there is a mirror/LRRR and the unmanned craft that brought it up to the moon's surface well before 07/20/1969. NASA lies also about that very LRRR. They knew where it was the very evening of the landing, 07/20/1969. We know that with utter certainty because the man who targeted the laser and found the LRRR himself, tells us he was pointing it at that spot from the get go. There was no educated guessing. There was no need for photo analysis. Scientist Donald Beattie was USED. That is an horrid embarrassment and they should be ashamed of using that man like that. And finally, NASA lied in their pretending for the sake of a few elite navigation and guidance officers/scientists and other persons that that might notice, that there really were landing coordinates after all. As my previous posts, Flight International Magazine featured an article, well researched, that Armstrong had 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E appearing on his computer's screen in the R windows when he landed. Now how is that being lost Neil? On this tread's page 21, my post #308, I quote the Apollo Voice Transcript and demonstrate the CapCom is telling Collins with a high degree of precision where his buddies are down on the loaner surface. And if one cares to look further ahead in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript at the time of the pretended departure from the surface of the moon, time 05 02 51 36, we find the CapCom and the oh so very not Eagle scout Armstrong discussing the landing site coordinate details in very precise terms as the CapCom helps Armstrong pretend to blast off from the surface of the moon. Here's the actual Voice transcript as this hasn't been entered into the tread here directly yet;
"CC Tranquility, Houston. I have your LM ascent and CSI data pAD's when you are ready to copy.
CDR We're ready to copy.
CC Roger. LMascentPAD: TIG12422000000 NOUN 76 55349 00322, plus 0017; DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470, plus 58604, plus 56936. Your LM weight 10837. Your T14 126, plus 20, plus 12. Over.
CDR What figure is the crossrange and NOUN 76? (TRANQ)
CC Roger. Your crossrange for NOUN 76 - By the way, we may update this later, but now it is
plus 0017. Over.
CDR Roger. Readback follows. TIG 124 22 0000 (TRANQ) 55349 00322, plus 0017, plus 37104, minus 70470,
plus 58604, plus 56936. LM weight 10837. T14, 126 20 12. Go."
I must say, I find it oh so remarkable that Collins, Armstrong, Aldrin and the CapCom all know where they are and indeed, know it with great precision. Yet, those poor US Geological Survey people are hunting hunting hunting for that bird, and all at the time the NASA guys down the hall know EXACTLY where this lost bird is!!! See the 3rd entry down where it says noun 76. 76 is a reference to the guidance platform's state vector. That is its position velocity and time, or where and when and how the platform/spaceship is moving. 47 refers to the direction of the alleged ship's take off. They kind of try to hide that number. It is omitted, deleted from many documents. Hmmmmmmmmm I wonder why? So you see the third entry, that is fake astronaut speak for a fake spaceship's position and intended direction of a fake departure from an imagined surface. In this case the moon's. They write it out funny this way on purpose in their failed effort to fool us. Also, as regards these and other coordinates appearing in the Apollo 11 script, there are subtle surprises that I have yet to discuss, but for now, rest assured, those are the coordinates of and intended direction of departure for the Eagle. Pretty dang sneaky. You think they would have said; we'll leave at noon from 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E at noon and include with this a reference to an intended initial flight of departure path. But then we'd all know the lost Eagle was found and oh my, how that would look bad. Important people caught in such a big nasty ugly black dark cold frigid cislunar lie.
As an important aside here, its an excellent place to point out why all of the CapComs are astronauts themselves. This way EVERY WORD OF THE VOICE TRANSCRIPT DOCUMENT IS CONTROLLED, SCRIPTED. NOTHING ELSE APPEARS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS THEMSELVES BUT WORDS OF ASTRO-ACTORS.
Collins is a funny bird. He knows where his friends are. The CapCom knows, everybody knows. Everybody knows with the feigned precision, with bogus exactness, the very hallmark of these over budget space farces. What WAS Collins ever doing with that silly sextant looking for Neil and Buzz? He said in his OWN book there really isn't any way to judge where the Eagle came down except by comparing descriptions Buzz and Neil give with and I quote "RATHER CRUDE MAPS WHICH HOUSTON HAS". I swear to God, you have got to read this for yourself. I am so NOT making it up(page 407 of my Bantam paperback version). I would not trust this guy to drive me back from a bar at night let alone pilot a spaceship. Too funny! Too bad the joke cost us $130,000,000,000. Read his OWN book, "Carrying the Fire". Be sure you strap yourself in before getting to this part about Collins hunting for Armstrong with the sextant and all along Houston knows exactly what the pretended lunar position is of this pretended spaceship. If you are not buckled in well, you may fall out of your space seat laughing and hurt yourself. Happy landings!
So Collins is hunting for the Eagle with a sextant, Armstrong and Aldrin claimed to have not known where they were, US Geological Survey personal and geologists in Flagstaff hunt for Tranquility Base on maps that Collins himself describes as "rather crude", Donald Beattie and his colleagues analyze flight data and photos in an effort to help the Lick Observatory people locate the LRRR at the landing site and this analysis goes on for days AFTER the astronauts return, and the whole time, as incredible as it seems, they had the coordinates all along.
As quoted above in the transcript, there before your eyes are the numbers entered for the state vector and direction of take off for the pretend spaceship Eagle. This INCLUDES A PRECISE DETERMINATION OF ITS POSITION, its coordinates if you will, its precise location, on the moon. And let's also not forget, NASA on the one hand is pretending like they can't find this bird, and on the other hand, somebody at NASA gave the coordinates of "Tranquility Base" to the Lick Observatory people. Now that's inside information. Not even Michael Collins could get that info, but the dude that called Remington Stone on 07/20/1969, he had it. Remember, according to our not so very Eagle scout, there would be no way to come up with 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969 because all one has to work with is BY COLLINS VERY OWN ACCOUNT, CRUDE MAPS. I don't think those guys ever should have blasted off. Wouldn't you think they would have thought about it a little more? Going to the moon and no way of knowing where you landed? Blastoff? I don't think so.
Here in my ApolloHoax.net "Lost Bird" thread, I have provided more than ample documentation for my claims as outlined above. And this story where Astronauts are both lost and found, this story where CapComs have the landing's coordinates and at the same time don't have the common sense to tell the US Geological Survey people to chill out and quit the bird hunt cuz' the Keystone Nauts had been found, this story where we are told by Remington Stone, the man who operated the laser at the Lick Observatory on 07/20/1969 that he was given the landing coordinates on that very evening and at the same time Donald Beattie and his colleagues, the Apollo scientific staff are wasting their ever loving time trying to make sense of photos and flight data that cannot be possibly anything other than bogus because REMINGTON STONE AND THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATORS OF THE LRRR EXPERIMENT HAVE HAD THE LANDING COORDINATES FOR 11 DAYS ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY, this is the story not told by some kook, some whacko hoax advocate that always thinks the government cons people, this is the story told in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself, the story told by Michael Collins himself, the story told by Neil Armstrong himself, the story told by the CapComs themselves, the story told by honest scientist and dumb shuck Donald Beattie himself, the story told by the primary investigators of the LRRR experiment itself.
Certainly I have embellished as regards my humorous and perhaps for some, not so humorous editorializing, but when one has been ripped off like this there is a touch of consolation in making light humor of the whole thing. what are we to do but poke fun at Mike Collins and his lack of common sense? We are out so much dough and have lost so much self respect in this idiotic enterprise, it really is the only thing that makes any sense. Humorous embellishment aside, the material facts, the facts as above, as presented are NASA's facts. It all comes from a story they tell. I did not write this nonsense, the clowns that perpetrated the fraud did. People ask, how ever could it be possible to fool so many bright people for so long. Well my friends, there is a big lesson here for us all. Apparently it is not hard at all, as this contrived plot is as vacuous as space itself. IT MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
I suggested in earlier posts before this whole matter of forum member "authenticity" was brought up that it would be fruitful for both sides in our debate here to take as a given that the lander works and works well, but these other matters FACTS of course must remain in play. I honestly do not know what the Apollo 11 mission would "look like" if we were to explore it from that perspective, but I would like to try. My point here is that such an approach enforces the emphasis on adherence to facts, and what else do we have in terms of data here? So the lander lands, granted, I will concede that. But Michael Collins floats above our heads, peering down upon us with sextant in hand.
So as regards my position in our debate in this thread, before we became sidetracked by the ever so terribly irrelevant, one option for us in terms of continuing to explore Apollo is to say yes, absolutely the lander landed, and how can you Jay, or any of your colleagues on the official story side object to that as a given? I will too. But Michael Collins still has the sextant. Donald Beattie is still studying flight data and photos on July 26 1969 to help find Tranquility Base. Remington Stone is still firing a laser at lunar coordinates 00 41 "15"(50) N, 23 26 00 E on 07/20/1969, making Beattie's contribution irrelevant. The facts as presented in the landmark papers by the principal investigators of the LRRR experiment at Lick Observatory still stand. US Geological Survey personal continue to hunt for Armstrong and Aldrin on what Michael Collins refers to as "crude maps" despite Stone targeting the LRRR that very night, with precise information from NASA no less, and despite the CapCom providing Neil Armstrong with precise state vector and flight direction data for the LM ascent. I propose to continue the debate on these terms. I concede fully the lander has landed. It is on the moon. But these facts as above, and others, those of the Apollo 11 Mission Transcript, those of Collins' own book, those of Remington Stone's first person account of 07/20/1969, those of the landmark LRRR articles which originally appeared in the periodical SCIENCE. It all remains as stated, as presented in the official Apollo 11 mission narrative. Shall we continue the debate with the landing as a given, for I can still argue the official story cannot be true, or shall we go back to the old? I am open to both, though am intrigued by the potential for insight that the new approach might provide. Suggestions?
Now that I have hopefully summarized reasonably well what I believe my main lines of argument to have been here in this thread, and before moving on to defending myself against Jay's charge of "inauthenticity" given this summary of my argument offered as context, a context which I view as essential given Jay's charge of inauthenticity, I would like to make one more general point about my views on Apollo.
Regardless of how we agree to debate the "facts" of Apollo, IF WE REMAIN TRUE TO THE DETAILS OF APOLLO AS PRESENTED BY NASA ITSELF IN THE TELLING OF THE STORY OF NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN AND MICHAEL COLLINS ON 07/20/1969, WE SHALL FIND THE STORY AS REVEALED THROUGH A SIMPLE EXAMINATION OF THOSE DETAILS TO BE INTERNALLY INCOHERENT AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY UNTRUE. This is where my approach, unique as far as I can tell, in the investigation of Apollo differs from others interested in the subject. I see for the most part people quibbling over shadows, flags waving or not waving, rocks terrestrial or exotic, the potential health effects from radiation exposure while traveling through cislunar space. Do not get me wrong, these are important matters and should be studied, discussed and debated. But such study, debate, investigation can never provide what I would call"Apollo's Solution" short of an astronaut or other key player in the fraud finally giving in and talking. If NASA insists on continuing to claim the Apollo 11 photos were taken from lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, there is nothing anyone can do but stand before those obviously fraudulent pictures and scream in frustration. Same goes with arguing rock points. Official story advocates like rocks because they can stonewall with the support of the general public, not to mention the mainstream scientific community. There really is no way to determine a moon rock's authenticity in terms of demonstrating claims of veracity, in a lunar sense, for any given stone, demonstrating its lunality with absolute metaphysical certainty, or even a fair amour of simple old fashioned earthly certainty. This cannot be done. Both sides are dug it. With this approach to "debate", short of a deathbed confession by Armstrong, we will never make any progress.
That said, we need not take that approach. "Apollo's Solution" stands before us. There is no question of truth one way or the other in the case of Apollo in the context of its consideration by any reasonable person. Law enforcement officials encourage suspects in crimes to talk about what it is they have been doing in various circumstances because they want them to commit to a particular line, commit to a particular accounting of things. Once that has been accomplished, if the suspect paints him or herself into a corner by way of committing to a set of facts that don't square with the truth as that truth over time becomes revealed, then the suspect's story changes, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. The story becomes inconsistent in its being pressured by truth. Additionally, as people, groups of people, enterprises, engage this world with their intentions, it may come to pass that in their efforts to achieve things they decide to lie outright in their efforts to achieve. We do this most of the time, wrongheadedly, because of its expedience. We are always injured by this and the bigger the deceit, the greater the injury to everyone, including the perpetrators.
In situations where individuals or institutions set out from the get go to deceive for expediency's sake, truth pressures the enterprise from the get go. The enterprise, the fraud, is constantly bumping up against reality's restraints, reality's conditions, reality's admonitions, reality's truth, for what simply is, that which stares us in the face and happens, must be true, cannot be otherwise. The hallmark of enterprises which challenge the restraints, conditions, admonitions, truths of this particular world we find ourselves in, carries the unmistakable hallmark of incoherence, inauthenticity. As a deceptive enterprise proceeds to move about among us, haunting, spooky like a monster, it lies out of necessity, for what is it to do if it has set out to deceive from the get go. Indeed, lies are what sustain it, define it. And so, history herself marks each of those moments, she is scarred by those moments, she bleeds from those moments.
Those of us that sometimes care to doubt what others say, we look out upon history and it is easy to see where she has bled. Wounds in the great fabric of events, they heal, but their occurrence is always evident if one looks.
And so, suspects in crimes can be shown to be guilty, guilty without the need for any photographic evidence whatsoever, any material evidence whatsoever. If a man murders another with a rock, I can show him to be responsible if I simply allow him to incriminate himself through his lies, his telling of new stories, stories different from the first told, as his deceit encounters the conditions, constraints, admonitions, values of this real world. Lies are the sign of a deceitful enterprise having been flushed out into the open as that enterprise encounters and is pressured by the constraints imposed by truth.
Herein is the grand irony. For a lie is anything but secret. It is very much deceit flushed out into the open, visible as such, as a wound fresh, or scar old, a mark of trauma, evident to all upon the roar, spin, swirl, calm , hush, quite self of history herself. Everything is recorded upon her, even her wounds. Look and have a see.
And so, sure I can debate moon rocks, photos, radiation and so forth. But need I really? Apollo was an enterprise of outrageous deception. Pretending to go to the moon? We see now only the little wounds as some frantically try to attend to history, covering her here or there, wrapping a bandage about her, trying to hide a terrible old wound, a place that 42 years ago bled so badly. These machinations are nothing less than more lies, easy to spot and hurt history, injure her all the more. And on and on it goes. So evident.
I do not need photos. No need for rocks. If Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin lie as they do, if they claim that they cannot find one another, and in the special case of this pair of alleged moonwalkers who also claim to not have the slightest idea as to how they might simply find themselves, if at the same time that these three very bad actors are feigning a decided indifference to their disorientation within a realm ever so exotic and ever all the more pretended, they are seen by us to be pretending to receive precise information radioed to them as regards their whereabouts we know these men are lying. We know the story they are telling cannot be true, and we know as well that it would be best for the people back home that had been looking for them on crude maps to simply stop. These men are phantoms, they never existed as real astronauts. We should stop looking for them as such. They can best be identified now not for what they seem to be as they speak and move among us, but from the scars they have left upon history's vast and beautiful body. Look for evidence of Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong there. See how she bled.
Part Two, the conclusion of this piece, hopefully will provide the balance of answers to questions as regards my authenticity, and promising to provide more details regarding the truth about Apollo, that which I refer to as "Apollo's Solution".
Kind regards to my esteemed colleagues at Apollohoax. I look forward to all the more spirited debate. Fatty d
SHALL WE DEBATE THE FACTS OF APOLLO, OR WASTE TIME WITH OTHER NONSENSE? PART ONE
Jay and my esteemed and most valued Apollohoax forum colleagues,
Sorry it has taken me a bit to get back to you. As mentioned, I have a night job as well as many other obligations. Some matters required a tending to and kept me from our Apollo debate, our debate which as I am sure you have gathered, is something I enjoy ever as much as you. After enjoying a good day's sleep, I am looking forward to responding to your recent rather personal posts. As best I am able to interpret, the intent of your posts Jay, seemed to have been penned with a voice in challenge of my "authenticity", my authenticity as an Apollohoax.net forum member. Though your claims of such inauthenticity on some levels remain rather vague in my mind Jay, you do seem to have finally provided me with the requisite detail, detail adequate now in its serving to help me understand at long last the nature of these rather strange crimes of which I have been accused. I cover most of your charges in part one of this piece Jay, and will leave my response to a final charge of yours for my part two. I trust once these pieces have been completed and reviewed by those interested, the carges of inauthenticity raised against me shall be entirely laid to rest and we may move forward with the substance of our debate.
One final comment before moving on with my response, further down in this discussion, I poke fun at astronauts Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong. I would like to emphasize here, as I have done previously, to the degree that I am able to understand the true events of 07/20/1969, I imagine these men to be men of great courage, especially Armstrong. I say that with absolute sincerity. My poking fun is a literary device, a rhetorical device, as much as anything. That said, Apollo humor does serve in one additional relatively important regard. We must find humor in Apollo's absurdity. Humor may be the only thing we have in terms of our being able to cope with the full on fallout of "Apollo's Solution". So as you read, keep in mind, I make fun of the characters, the astro-actors as I like to call them. The men in their real lives here on earth, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins have engendered my sympathy, not that they should care what I think. But it is how I feel.
In your post # 328 Jay, you accused me of lying about the details of how it was that I was finally able to access the posting function of this marvelous forum. I indicated that I tried to register on several occasions as my first registration, the one I now use under the forum name fattydash, had not allowed me posting privileges, though ostensibly my registering had seemed to go smoothly. You and the moderator LunarOrbit suggested my multiple registering attempts demonstrated activity on my part suggestive of an intention to deceive forum members here and engage in sock puppetry. I pointed out this could hardly be the case as each of those registrations was submitted with the very same email address. Indeed, the common email address was the way in which the Apollohoax moderator learned of my multiple registrations. I pointed out that an individual engaged, or planning to engage in the act of sock puppetry would most decidedly NOT use the same email address in the setting up of more that one forum accounts. The whole point of sock, its modus operandi, is that wherein one person single person posts under several guises, under the cover of multiple aliases. Hardly something I could have done Jay given all of my registration attempts were linked to the very same email account, and as Apollohoax's own records demonstrate, the only posting done on this forum connected to that email account is posting by fattydash. The sock charge is of course baseless and I hope that it has been laid to rest.
In post #333 you asked me why I thought it was honest and appropriate to pretend to be multiple people, and you prefaced your question with your saying that you would not ask the question again. I presumed you did this as your way of demanding an answer, an answer which of course I was more than happy to provide, though admittedly I found this question's asking rather bizarre. I responded Jay and emphasized once again as the Apollohoax records show, I have only posted here under fattydash, and certainly, none of my posts contain anything remotely suggestive of misrepresenting myself in this strange multiple person context of yours Jay. Your challenge is so utterly weird, my pretending to be a person other than I am. I have little else to say about it as it makes such little sense to me. The question is flat out weird and very pointless I might add. What would it matter if I were to log on each day and just for yuks, or because I was psychotic, or because I wanted to see how effective various personality strategies worked in debating you Jay? What if I did do that which is the only context in which this question from outer space makes any sense? Who cares? And wouldn't it be the prerogative of the nutty person to do this? Regardless, I trust a review of my posts shows me to be consistent in my approach and tactics to debate. These example contexts in which a multiple person poster may show up here as a participant(s) in the forum certainly do not apply to me. My point in bringing this up Jay is even if these strange contexts were to apply to me, you or anyone, I would suggest that it should not be grounds for sanctioning the forum participant, whether he/she was screwing around or was literally mentally ill. At any rate, the context is/was meaningless in my case and I had hoped this strange multiple person charge of yours was laid to rest. Yet, there was more.
In your post #338 Jay, you pressed this odd question. In this more nuanced articulation of yours, I believed you to be suggesting I possessed a multiple person debating style/tactic/behavior, a style of debate which you find/found objectionable. Despite the slightly more, though still minimal coherence of your multiple person charge in its post #338 incarnation, I nevertheless continued to have difficulty making any real sense of it. Others unfamiliar of this little tiff between Jay and myself should take a look at Jay's post # 338 for themselves. Such as I am able to make heads or tails of it, it would appear that this most worthy debating opponent of mine, JayUtah, The Official Apollo Narrative's Light and Champion, was saying that my overall behavior in debating Apollo here on this forum included a tactic involving my posing as multiple people. I am quite literally not making this up. Please have a look at Jay's post #338 for yourself and see if you can make any sense out of it. I could not. Jay went on to emphasize my continued evasion of this question, my not answering why it was that I posed as multiple people in my "Lost Bird" thread debate with him, would result in a 6 month ban from the forum we all so love.
Of course I wish/wished to continue here with Jay and the others. Its so fun, challenging, edifying, maddening, enlightening, frustrating, sanctifying. Certainly, I found myself more than willing to try and answer Jay's question and answer it. As such, I made a simple request of in my post at #340, simply for Jay to cite specific posts where I had engaged in this apparently crude, underhanded and flat out dastardly tactic of "posing as multiple people" while debating Jay. The threat of a ban loomed and continues to loom, menacingly over my head, like a poorly secured stage light threatening to fall and whack Neil Armstrong on the noggin during his 07/20/1969 filming of "Apollo 11 Believe this Ridiculous Stuff, or I Dare Say NOT!". Great film by the way, check it out.
Jay responded in his post # 341 that my request for him to cite specific posts in which there was evidence for my posing as multiple persons amounted to game playing. I thought my request was quite reasonable. Simply show me, those posts in which this Apollohoax forum crime of conning Jay, God forbid outsmarting Jay no less, was in evidence. Simply direct me to the relevant post examples in which there was evidence of my pretending to be anyone other than the guy who is the one and only person in the world that knows the code to log in at Apollohoax.net under the user name "fattydash". Barbara Streisand did call me last week and asked for my fattydash code, "just for yuks" Barbara said. But debating Apollo is too important for me to compromise hoax ethics. Barbara of course was denied. And denied I was too. Jay had no examples for me per his post at #341, though I am sure all would agree that my request for Jay to provide such evidence, evidence for my employment of this dastardly multiple personality debate strategy, was a request very much more than fair. As beautiful and worthwhile as planet Apollohax forum is, at the same time it can be as strange a world as the 07/20/1969 world of Neil Armstrong's was, a world where the smartest astronaut walking the face of planet earth that summer day in 1969, couldn't figure out where it was exactly that he was on the moon. If someone accuses another of something, the accused is in any rational world afforded the opportunity to face his accost and be presented with the evidence against him or her. In Jay's post #341 he provided no examples of the multiple person behavior for which I was charged. He provided no evidence. He simply requested for me to explain my deceptive argumentation practices. He concluded with the statement, "Please stop screwing around and answer the questions". I swear to God I am so not making this up. See Jay's post for yourself, the one right after I told him no problem, just show me where I was more than one person, or whatever bizarre thing he means by that and I will comment as to what I said and answer any and all questions about the so referenced example of multiple person deceptive argumentation practices. Though for the life of me, how does one begin to reason given Jay's logic here? Multiple persons? Deceptive argumentation? What ever does it mean? Show me one example I asked Jay and I would be happy to comment. I think that was fair enough on my part, and I am sure most people would agree. If a person accuses me or anyone of something, even something as off the wall irrational as employing multiple persons in deceptive argumentation practices, and that same person emphasizes that I will be punished in the form of anApollohoax,net forum ban unless I respond to said charges, well then certainly I am entitled to see the evidence, in this case that would be my own posts. Jay was not able to provide such evidence, such examples because they did not, do not exist. Sort of like real moon rocks that really were collected on the moon. If one thinks about it for a minute, what would a post look like wherein the poster argued in one post, or from a collection of posts, and that argument was deceptive in its featuring that poster, that forum member to be posing as multiple persons. Again, I am so not making this up. Look at Jay's posts for yourself and see if you can arrive at another conclusion.
I hope this response written in the interest for all here, but especially with regard to those concerns raised by Jay, will finally lay this childish issue to rest so that we may move on with our acknowledged favorite pastime, debating Apollo based on its facts. That said, there is one other context, one not covered above, a context in which I can imagine a post of mine having been read by Jay, a post in which as crazy as most would view it, Jay might see me as a person "posing as multiple persons". I'll take a look at that last "multiple persons" context toward the end of this post. Since it has been a while since I have been on, with work duties and what not, I'll review my general position, the one as presented in this thread. A review of my general "Lost Bird" thread views are important here as Jay's recent post at #350 charges me with inconsistency. Reviewing my position, summarizing yet again, will emphasize I have been anything but inconsistent. Furthermore as Jay's charges, as difficult as they are to make sense of, he himself cannot provide one with an example, are charges of my being in some sense inauthentic, So before covering that one last possible context in which I would like to defend myself against Jay's charges of "posing as multiple persons", engaging in "deceptive argumentation practices" I would like all interested parties to be clear as regards my fundamental position on "Apollo's Solution". Let's take a look again at my position in outline and once presented, the reader may review my posts and see if as Jay charges there is evidence for inconsistency, see if as Jay charges there is evidence for some type of inauthenticity on the part of the posts' author. Once this summary is complete, I'll move on and discuss the last context mentioned above, a context in which a post may have been "read" by Jay as inauthentic. I save this for last as the context is relevant coming to terms with the reality of the Apollo fraud.
As mentioned previously, I do appreciate very much the opportunity to present my theme of Apollo 11's Eagle as a "Lost Bird" here in this lively forum. Having been an active participant in the development of this theme yourself Jay, you are well aware of my theme in its broad outline. I have shown with excellent documentation/references how on the evening of 07/20/1969 it was imperative NASA present the Eagle as a bird lost in the moonlight. NASA's bizarre tale as documented in its very OWN telling of this story features a pair of superstar fighter pilots who land on the moon and cannot for the life of themselves, even when their lives are supposed to be quite literally on the line, determine where exactly it is they have landed. Their colleague, the Apollo 11 CM pilot Michael Collins, circles above the moon's equator, hunting for the pair of lost former fighter jocks now turned space buffoons. Collins searches for his friends utilizing nothing more that a narrow angle 28 power optic, and this, from more than 60 miles above. Geologists from the United States Geological Survey group are hunched over their lunar maps, searching searching searching for the location of Neil Armstrong's fabled Tranquility Base and ditto for a group of NASA geologists based in Flagstaff. Everybody it would seem was looking for the Eagle that evening. How marvelously ironic that so many of us were at the same time watching the two bird keepers shuffling around in dust wearing suits they apparently did not need. How can these two not so Eagle scouts be lost if we are all watching them on TV? One can only stand in a state of abject jaw dropped incredulity to find that NASA's own contention is Armstrong and Aldrin are providing the "raw data" for this bird hunt NOT in the form of measurements made with the Eagle's navigational equipment, but rather, by way of descriptions given by the alleged astronauts to their Houston based handlers of the Tranquility Based environs, as though we are expected to believe in the preposterous, that the Eagle's coordinates might have actually been defined with the requisite accuracy based upon the appearance of phony rocks and powder decorating NASA's Apollo 11 sound stage. And just when one imagines NASA's contempt for the public funding this ludicrous charade could not possibly be expressed in ways more profound than those alluded to above, we find ourselves cringing in a state of nothing less than fulminant disgust for this woeful embarrassment of an excuse for a "scientific institution" when we learn it had such adolescent temerity in its expectation of our believing that upon the return of the Keystone Nauts to Earth, the lunar coordinates of Tranquility Base were not determined until 08/01/1969, 11 days after the landing, and this contrived method in the finding of Tranquility Base location is that of NASA's itself. The preposterous story is NASA's own and nobody else's. NASA claims Tranquility Base's finding was based upon photo and flight data analysis from the pretended Apollo 11' journey which the space agency claimed lead to Lick Observatory's finally being able to target a LRRR on the moon's surface at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. Again, to emphasize,. this first successful targeting with laser light return that so identified Tranquility Base's coordinates at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E occurred by NASA's own admission 11 days after the staged landing of 07/20/1969. How are we to conclude anything but a big time space fake when reading Remington Stone's first hand account of his operating the famous Lick Observatory laser on the dramatic evening of 07/20/1969 when the observatory was provided THAT VERY EVENING with the Tranquility Base coordinates by NASA personal? How? NASA lies. Its story of the moon landing is a story that is not internally coherent and so cannot be true.
My best guess as to why NASA needed to hide the Eagle on the evening of the bogus landing has to do with the presence of the Russian unmanned craft LUNA 15, sintering as it hovered about, threatening to photograph the Eagle's "landing site" were Ivan only able to get his hot little Ruskie hands on the Tranquility Base coordinates that evening. As I mentioned before, it would have been pretty embarrassing for ol' Dick Nixon if the Ruskie's flew over to 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E and photographed the LRRR sans Eagle, sans astronauts. The motive for losing the bird was so that its "not photo" could not be taken.
Of course the silly story about the Eagle without an address won't fly with a few select Apollo 11 workers. It's an elite group, the scientists that never in a million years would buy into the notion that the Eagle was lost. The guidance people for one. They know precise landing coordinates would be required, would be essential, in the return of an Eagle to a circling CM. I'll mention a few details as regards this issue, this need to on the one hand tell this gigantic lie to most people that no one knows where the Eagle is, and then at the same time, tell a second lie, just as big because no one is really on the moon, tell this second lie for the express purpose of being sure the honest guidance systems people don't get suspicious. A guidance systems officer is not going to accept the sorry story that no one knows where Eagle is. Remember, essentially everybody, all 400,000 people working on the Apollo project believe it to be real, a real landing. A fraud of this nature in order to work, must have this feature. Indeed, this is what makes a fraud like this so effective. Real scientists and engineers are building real equipment, rockets, landers, spacesuits, and everyone except for a few monkeys at the top believe the stuff is in fact being built as part of a genuine landing effort. Another way to think of it is to see the actual equipment and its building as genuine, honest, the fraudulence is in the carrying out of the mission itself. Most of the smartest guys working on this project buy into its reality. I gave the excellent example in previous posts and alluded to it above, that of Donald Beattie. He was a geologist involved in the selection and design of experiments that the asro-actors were said to have taken to the moon. Beattie thought it was all real. His group was involved in the analysis of the photos and flight data that was forwarded to the Lick Observatory after the landing, an analysis when combined with educated guessing that NASA claimed culminated in the successful targeting of the LRRR at lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. on 08/01/1969. (See the original article in the periodical SCIENCE previously referenced in which the primary investigators of the LRRR experiment confirm the LRRR was not targeted until 08/01/1969. ) We ultimately learn however,, based on a first hand account by Remington Stone, the man who targeted the laser, that NASA gave Stone the coordinates of the LRRR on the VERY NIGHT of 07/20/1969, and we learn from Stone and in the SCIENCE article previously referenced, and again, this is an article authored by the PRIMARY INVESTIGATORS of the LRRR experiment, that the reason the finding of the LRRR took 11 days had nothing at all to do with photo and flight data analysis. Nothing! It had to do with a software problem in the program responsible for the timing of the "catching" of photons when they bounced back to the Lick scientists from the moon. Who needs to analyze photos when you already had the coordinates on the evening of the landing , 07/20/1969? So NASA lied about this plain and simple. There is no other way to read it, and Beattie, a super high level scientist employed by NASA suckered the poor guy
So we see first of all, NASA lies about losing the Eagle because it does not want the Russians to take a photo of lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E. There is only an LRRR there, nothing else, no Eagle, no astro-actors, no nothing. Well there is a mirror/LRRR and the unmanned craft that brought it up to the moon's surface well before 07/20/1969. NASA lies also about that very LRRR. They knew where it was the very evening of the landing, 07/20/1969. We know that with utter certainty because the man who targeted the laser and found the LRRR himself, tells us he was pointing it at that spot from the get go. There was no educated guessing. There was no need for photo analysis. Scientist Donald Beattie was USED. That is an horrid embarrassment and they should be ashamed of using that man like that. And finally, NASA lied in their pretending for the sake of a few elite navigation and guidance officers/scientists and other persons that that might notice, that there really were landing coordinates after all. As my previous posts, Flight International Magazine featured an article, well researched, that Armstrong had 00 41 15 N, 23 26 00 E appearing on his computer's screen in the R windows when he landed. Now how is that being lost Neil? On this tread's page 21, my post #308, I quote the Apollo Voice Transcript and demonstrate the CapCom is telling Collins with a high degree of precision where his buddies are down on the loaner surface. And if one cares to look further ahead in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript at the time of the pretended departure from the surface of the moon, time 05 02 51 36, we find the CapCom and the oh so very not Eagle scout Armstrong discussing the landing site coordinate details in very precise terms as the CapCom helps Armstrong pretend to blast off from the surface of the moon. Here's the actual Voice transcript as this hasn't been entered into the tread here directly yet;
"CC Tranquility, Houston. I have your LM ascent and CSI data pAD's when you are ready to copy.
CDR We're ready to copy.
CC Roger. LMascentPAD: TIG12422000000 NOUN 76 55349 00322, plus 0017; DEDA 47, plus 37104, minus 70470, plus 58604, plus 56936. Your LM weight 10837. Your T14 126, plus 20, plus 12. Over.
CDR What figure is the crossrange and NOUN 76? (TRANQ)
CC Roger. Your crossrange for NOUN 76 - By the way, we may update this later, but now it is
plus 0017. Over.
CDR Roger. Readback follows. TIG 124 22 0000 (TRANQ) 55349 00322, plus 0017, plus 37104, minus 70470,
plus 58604, plus 56936. LM weight 10837. T14, 126 20 12. Go."
I must say, I find it oh so remarkable that Collins, Armstrong, Aldrin and the CapCom all know where they are and indeed, know it with great precision. Yet, those poor US Geological Survey people are hunting hunting hunting for that bird, and all at the time the NASA guys down the hall know EXACTLY where this lost bird is!!! See the 3rd entry down where it says noun 76. 76 is a reference to the guidance platform's state vector. That is its position velocity and time, or where and when and how the platform/spaceship is moving. 47 refers to the direction of the alleged ship's take off. They kind of try to hide that number. It is omitted, deleted from many documents. Hmmmmmmmmm I wonder why? So you see the third entry, that is fake astronaut speak for a fake spaceship's position and intended direction of a fake departure from an imagined surface. In this case the moon's. They write it out funny this way on purpose in their failed effort to fool us. Also, as regards these and other coordinates appearing in the Apollo 11 script, there are subtle surprises that I have yet to discuss, but for now, rest assured, those are the coordinates of and intended direction of departure for the Eagle. Pretty dang sneaky. You think they would have said; we'll leave at noon from 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E at noon and include with this a reference to an intended initial flight of departure path. But then we'd all know the lost Eagle was found and oh my, how that would look bad. Important people caught in such a big nasty ugly black dark cold frigid cislunar lie.
As an important aside here, its an excellent place to point out why all of the CapComs are astronauts themselves. This way EVERY WORD OF THE VOICE TRANSCRIPT DOCUMENT IS CONTROLLED, SCRIPTED. NOTHING ELSE APPEARS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS THEMSELVES BUT WORDS OF ASTRO-ACTORS.
Collins is a funny bird. He knows where his friends are. The CapCom knows, everybody knows. Everybody knows with the feigned precision, with bogus exactness, the very hallmark of these over budget space farces. What WAS Collins ever doing with that silly sextant looking for Neil and Buzz? He said in his OWN book there really isn't any way to judge where the Eagle came down except by comparing descriptions Buzz and Neil give with and I quote "RATHER CRUDE MAPS WHICH HOUSTON HAS". I swear to God, you have got to read this for yourself. I am so NOT making it up(page 407 of my Bantam paperback version). I would not trust this guy to drive me back from a bar at night let alone pilot a spaceship. Too funny! Too bad the joke cost us $130,000,000,000. Read his OWN book, "Carrying the Fire". Be sure you strap yourself in before getting to this part about Collins hunting for Armstrong with the sextant and all along Houston knows exactly what the pretended lunar position is of this pretended spaceship. If you are not buckled in well, you may fall out of your space seat laughing and hurt yourself. Happy landings!
So Collins is hunting for the Eagle with a sextant, Armstrong and Aldrin claimed to have not known where they were, US Geological Survey personal and geologists in Flagstaff hunt for Tranquility Base on maps that Collins himself describes as "rather crude", Donald Beattie and his colleagues analyze flight data and photos in an effort to help the Lick Observatory people locate the LRRR at the landing site and this analysis goes on for days AFTER the astronauts return, and the whole time, as incredible as it seems, they had the coordinates all along.
As quoted above in the transcript, there before your eyes are the numbers entered for the state vector and direction of take off for the pretend spaceship Eagle. This INCLUDES A PRECISE DETERMINATION OF ITS POSITION, its coordinates if you will, its precise location, on the moon. And let's also not forget, NASA on the one hand is pretending like they can't find this bird, and on the other hand, somebody at NASA gave the coordinates of "Tranquility Base" to the Lick Observatory people. Now that's inside information. Not even Michael Collins could get that info, but the dude that called Remington Stone on 07/20/1969, he had it. Remember, according to our not so very Eagle scout, there would be no way to come up with 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E on the evening of 07/20/1969 because all one has to work with is BY COLLINS VERY OWN ACCOUNT, CRUDE MAPS. I don't think those guys ever should have blasted off. Wouldn't you think they would have thought about it a little more? Going to the moon and no way of knowing where you landed? Blastoff? I don't think so.
Here in my ApolloHoax.net "Lost Bird" thread, I have provided more than ample documentation for my claims as outlined above. And this story where Astronauts are both lost and found, this story where CapComs have the landing's coordinates and at the same time don't have the common sense to tell the US Geological Survey people to chill out and quit the bird hunt cuz' the Keystone Nauts had been found, this story where we are told by Remington Stone, the man who operated the laser at the Lick Observatory on 07/20/1969 that he was given the landing coordinates on that very evening and at the same time Donald Beattie and his colleagues, the Apollo scientific staff are wasting their ever loving time trying to make sense of photos and flight data that cannot be possibly anything other than bogus because REMINGTON STONE AND THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATORS OF THE LRRR EXPERIMENT HAVE HAD THE LANDING COORDINATES FOR 11 DAYS ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY ALREADY, this is the story not told by some kook, some whacko hoax advocate that always thinks the government cons people, this is the story told in the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself, the story told by Michael Collins himself, the story told by Neil Armstrong himself, the story told by the CapComs themselves, the story told by honest scientist and dumb shuck Donald Beattie himself, the story told by the primary investigators of the LRRR experiment itself.
Certainly I have embellished as regards my humorous and perhaps for some, not so humorous editorializing, but when one has been ripped off like this there is a touch of consolation in making light humor of the whole thing. what are we to do but poke fun at Mike Collins and his lack of common sense? We are out so much dough and have lost so much self respect in this idiotic enterprise, it really is the only thing that makes any sense. Humorous embellishment aside, the material facts, the facts as above, as presented are NASA's facts. It all comes from a story they tell. I did not write this nonsense, the clowns that perpetrated the fraud did. People ask, how ever could it be possible to fool so many bright people for so long. Well my friends, there is a big lesson here for us all. Apparently it is not hard at all, as this contrived plot is as vacuous as space itself. IT MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
I suggested in earlier posts before this whole matter of forum member "authenticity" was brought up that it would be fruitful for both sides in our debate here to take as a given that the lander works and works well, but these other matters FACTS of course must remain in play. I honestly do not know what the Apollo 11 mission would "look like" if we were to explore it from that perspective, but I would like to try. My point here is that such an approach enforces the emphasis on adherence to facts, and what else do we have in terms of data here? So the lander lands, granted, I will concede that. But Michael Collins floats above our heads, peering down upon us with sextant in hand.
So as regards my position in our debate in this thread, before we became sidetracked by the ever so terribly irrelevant, one option for us in terms of continuing to explore Apollo is to say yes, absolutely the lander landed, and how can you Jay, or any of your colleagues on the official story side object to that as a given? I will too. But Michael Collins still has the sextant. Donald Beattie is still studying flight data and photos on July 26 1969 to help find Tranquility Base. Remington Stone is still firing a laser at lunar coordinates 00 41 "15"(50) N, 23 26 00 E on 07/20/1969, making Beattie's contribution irrelevant. The facts as presented in the landmark papers by the principal investigators of the LRRR experiment at Lick Observatory still stand. US Geological Survey personal continue to hunt for Armstrong and Aldrin on what Michael Collins refers to as "crude maps" despite Stone targeting the LRRR that very night, with precise information from NASA no less, and despite the CapCom providing Neil Armstrong with precise state vector and flight direction data for the LM ascent. I propose to continue the debate on these terms. I concede fully the lander has landed. It is on the moon. But these facts as above, and others, those of the Apollo 11 Mission Transcript, those of Collins' own book, those of Remington Stone's first person account of 07/20/1969, those of the landmark LRRR articles which originally appeared in the periodical SCIENCE. It all remains as stated, as presented in the official Apollo 11 mission narrative. Shall we continue the debate with the landing as a given, for I can still argue the official story cannot be true, or shall we go back to the old? I am open to both, though am intrigued by the potential for insight that the new approach might provide. Suggestions?
Now that I have hopefully summarized reasonably well what I believe my main lines of argument to have been here in this thread, and before moving on to defending myself against Jay's charge of "inauthenticity" given this summary of my argument offered as context, a context which I view as essential given Jay's charge of inauthenticity, I would like to make one more general point about my views on Apollo.
Regardless of how we agree to debate the "facts" of Apollo, IF WE REMAIN TRUE TO THE DETAILS OF APOLLO AS PRESENTED BY NASA ITSELF IN THE TELLING OF THE STORY OF NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN AND MICHAEL COLLINS ON 07/20/1969, WE SHALL FIND THE STORY AS REVEALED THROUGH A SIMPLE EXAMINATION OF THOSE DETAILS TO BE INTERNALLY INCOHERENT AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY UNTRUE. This is where my approach, unique as far as I can tell, in the investigation of Apollo differs from others interested in the subject. I see for the most part people quibbling over shadows, flags waving or not waving, rocks terrestrial or exotic, the potential health effects from radiation exposure while traveling through cislunar space. Do not get me wrong, these are important matters and should be studied, discussed and debated. But such study, debate, investigation can never provide what I would call"Apollo's Solution" short of an astronaut or other key player in the fraud finally giving in and talking. If NASA insists on continuing to claim the Apollo 11 photos were taken from lunar coordinates 00 41 15 N and 23 26 00 E, there is nothing anyone can do but stand before those obviously fraudulent pictures and scream in frustration. Same goes with arguing rock points. Official story advocates like rocks because they can stonewall with the support of the general public, not to mention the mainstream scientific community. There really is no way to determine a moon rock's authenticity in terms of demonstrating claims of veracity, in a lunar sense, for any given stone, demonstrating its lunality with absolute metaphysical certainty, or even a fair amour of simple old fashioned earthly certainty. This cannot be done. Both sides are dug it. With this approach to "debate", short of a deathbed confession by Armstrong, we will never make any progress.
That said, we need not take that approach. "Apollo's Solution" stands before us. There is no question of truth one way or the other in the case of Apollo in the context of its consideration by any reasonable person. Law enforcement officials encourage suspects in crimes to talk about what it is they have been doing in various circumstances because they want them to commit to a particular line, commit to a particular accounting of things. Once that has been accomplished, if the suspect paints him or herself into a corner by way of committing to a set of facts that don't square with the truth as that truth over time becomes revealed, then the suspect's story changes, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly. The story becomes inconsistent in its being pressured by truth. Additionally, as people, groups of people, enterprises, engage this world with their intentions, it may come to pass that in their efforts to achieve things they decide to lie outright in their efforts to achieve. We do this most of the time, wrongheadedly, because of its expedience. We are always injured by this and the bigger the deceit, the greater the injury to everyone, including the perpetrators.
In situations where individuals or institutions set out from the get go to deceive for expediency's sake, truth pressures the enterprise from the get go. The enterprise, the fraud, is constantly bumping up against reality's restraints, reality's conditions, reality's admonitions, reality's truth, for what simply is, that which stares us in the face and happens, must be true, cannot be otherwise. The hallmark of enterprises which challenge the restraints, conditions, admonitions, truths of this particular world we find ourselves in, carries the unmistakable hallmark of incoherence, inauthenticity. As a deceptive enterprise proceeds to move about among us, haunting, spooky like a monster, it lies out of necessity, for what is it to do if it has set out to deceive from the get go. Indeed, lies are what sustain it, define it. And so, history herself marks each of those moments, she is scarred by those moments, she bleeds from those moments.
Those of us that sometimes care to doubt what others say, we look out upon history and it is easy to see where she has bled. Wounds in the great fabric of events, they heal, but their occurrence is always evident if one looks.
And so, suspects in crimes can be shown to be guilty, guilty without the need for any photographic evidence whatsoever, any material evidence whatsoever. If a man murders another with a rock, I can show him to be responsible if I simply allow him to incriminate himself through his lies, his telling of new stories, stories different from the first told, as his deceit encounters the conditions, constraints, admonitions, values of this real world. Lies are the sign of a deceitful enterprise having been flushed out into the open as that enterprise encounters and is pressured by the constraints imposed by truth.
Herein is the grand irony. For a lie is anything but secret. It is very much deceit flushed out into the open, visible as such, as a wound fresh, or scar old, a mark of trauma, evident to all upon the roar, spin, swirl, calm , hush, quite self of history herself. Everything is recorded upon her, even her wounds. Look and have a see.
And so, sure I can debate moon rocks, photos, radiation and so forth. But need I really? Apollo was an enterprise of outrageous deception. Pretending to go to the moon? We see now only the little wounds as some frantically try to attend to history, covering her here or there, wrapping a bandage about her, trying to hide a terrible old wound, a place that 42 years ago bled so badly. These machinations are nothing less than more lies, easy to spot and hurt history, injure her all the more. And on and on it goes. So evident.
I do not need photos. No need for rocks. If Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin lie as they do, if they claim that they cannot find one another, and in the special case of this pair of alleged moonwalkers who also claim to not have the slightest idea as to how they might simply find themselves, if at the same time that these three very bad actors are feigning a decided indifference to their disorientation within a realm ever so exotic and ever all the more pretended, they are seen by us to be pretending to receive precise information radioed to them as regards their whereabouts we know these men are lying. We know the story they are telling cannot be true, and we know as well that it would be best for the people back home that had been looking for them on crude maps to simply stop. These men are phantoms, they never existed as real astronauts. We should stop looking for them as such. They can best be identified now not for what they seem to be as they speak and move among us, but from the scars they have left upon history's vast and beautiful body. Look for evidence of Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong there. See how she bled.
Part Two, the conclusion of this piece, hopefully will provide the balance of answers to questions as regards my authenticity, and promising to provide more details regarding the truth about Apollo, that which I refer to as "Apollo's Solution".
Kind regards to my esteemed colleagues at Apollohoax. I look forward to all the more spirited debate. Fatty d