Moon landing question..

Your story is getting bigger.

Yes I deny it. I denied it on this thread. Boy, you are quite the liar!

No investigation, no questions. No threat.




However.

I'm pretty sure what set you off. I mentioned -- did not threaten with, imply, direct, implore, or otherwise indicate in any way that I was or could give orders -- to an imaginary character:

To wit, the inscrutable Doctor Haas, who becomes invisible when you try to look at him.

(But only in the range 5-15 milliseconds...at this point the humor of the remark should be clear to the specialist audience, and IDW's ignorance of yet another branch of science is illustrated.)

I repeat once again, I only said that this "Doctor Haas" existed (which he does not). And I said it in a post that contained a number of jokes and puns. And I never in any way shape or form said I knew him, would talk to him, would give orders to him. I never said in any way shape or form that I meant harm to IDW, directly or indirectly.

Only the most incredibly paranoid would think this was a reference to a real person, and I can not think of an adequate description for someone who would describe this as a threat.



You know what, IDW? The FBI does look into threats online. Shall we bring the entire thread in which that exchange occurred to their attention?

Let's see if they find it credible. Or if they find some of YOUR comments a little more to the point!




I've also learned specialist vocabulary confuses you. But then, this should be no surprise to anyone who has followed this threads (cough...slugs...cough).

Sounds like you're more of 'a placing radioactive substances in homes of people who disagree with you' contractor.

Honestly, I've got no idea where he got the radioactivity thing from.

Maybe from the same place he got his imaginary figures for the VARB?

Where's Hal?

I'm in Full Metal Honesty mode now, before I dump this thread and do something more interesting with my time (like watch Animaniacs).

Halcyon Dayz knows the Apollo SSTV a lot better than I do. I want him to correct every single thing I got wrong in my post above.

Really....I see.

I have no doubt you are aware this forum deleted all threads made prior to 2006 and deletes threats to prevent liability. he not only didn't deny it, he made a lame attempt to downplay it.

People are not that naive.

I don't think anyone that regularly visits this forum would make the assumption wat they're saying isn't monitored. That being said , you know it was reported to the FBI.
You also know you nor anyone else can link to it because it was deleted.

How....convenient.

Along with all those proofs you said you made, right?

Really the bottom line to this subject line is that the hard questions are never answered honestly, and that is the best evidence of a hoax. When NASA realized the original tapes could be used in court to prove a fraud, they conveniently lost them.

It is no coincidence this happened days after I stated on the BAD ASTRONOMY forum that the tapes would prove fraud and I intended to use the FOIA to obtain access to them for the purposes of research.

When a person such as myself uses the scientific method and NASA's own data to prove they lied, they engage in what can best be described as a criminal conspiracy to squelch the facts.

I proved Apollo could not have happened as promulgated.



Some of the tactics used are evident on this thread. A fact they rely on most is that most do not have the background or the knowledge to critically analyses the evidence, so they just throw up a shitstorm of technical jargon pretending expert status.

A typical example of their ineptness is when one of my opponents who was supposedly an expert on Apollo admonished and chastised me for calling the landing craft the LEM, which is what it was called. LEM was an abbreviation of "lunar excursion module".

If you don't know the basic nomenclature of the spacecraft's major components, how can you possibly even discuss the subject intelligently? It is especially revealing when they ridicule others who can discuss it intelligently.

A two sided intelligent and civilized exchange or debate focused on the facts is something they can not allow. Look at this thread for evidence. It's here..

Yes, convenient, but for who? You were hired to do the job you have because you're a slime bag

Such a pity that even the telemetry tapes that weren't lost would never get into your hands. I'd love to see your efforts to read data off them.

That's one inch wide, 14-track magnetic analog data tapes. You don't exactly pop that into your VCR.

Let's answer a question with a question, and make it a hypothetical question.

If I did prove it was a hoax would NASA admit it?

It was the reason NASA gave for the O2 tank rupturing on Apollo 13. I don't think engineers are stupid, but they clearly hadn't fixed the issue and instead of performing/completing a two manned spacecraft docking mission...(lets say for safety reasons should anything go wrong), they sent the first manned launch to the moon.
I am aware it was a 'RACE', but that's like building a sub for the Mariana trench, you know it has problems, but before even trialling shallow water escape/transfer methods, you fill it with blokes and drop it on the bottom
....just not logical considering Apollo 4-7 weren't manned due to THAT word...SAFETY

Piddling, I know, but typical. IDW just can't retreat. Not from anything. Like Nomad he has to show perfection in all things.

LEM was changed to LM during development, and prior to Apollo 11. In Thomas Kelly's "Moonlander" (no link avail) the date given for the change is 1967.

[link to history.nasa.gov]

[link to www.airspacemag.com]

Yes, I would imagine they would be labeled classified. One can only speculate as to why, but I think we all ahve a pretty good idea why,




One of the things that as always pissed me off and nauseated me about NASA is the way they treat the people who pay their meal ticket. When they ask to see something they paid for. NASA's response is consistently abusive and condescending, not so much unlike your response.

Those tapes belong to the american people, not NASA.

We ahve a right to examine them and critically analyze them just as any investor would.

It was called the LEM all throughout the missions by the astronauts, mission control ,and everyone who discussed it..

Armstrong's words right before he stepped off the ladder were and I quote, "ok, I'm stepping off the LEM now"

No. Ridiculous.

Things like that belong to the American PEOPLE. Not to IDW.

Which means they would only be remanded to someone who could protect that heritage.

If there was only one breeding pair of Bald Eagles left in the world, would the Park Service be forced to turn them over to you? Just because you are a taxpayer and asked for them?

Hardly. They would only be turned over to someone or something -- individual or agency -- with the ability to care for them.

Same would go for the original of the Constitution. The Liberty Bell. Yosemite Valley. The Watergate Tapes.

The NASA telemetry is only going to go to the care of someone who has the demonstrated skill, experience, and equipment to read them without damaging them any more than is absolutely unavoidable.

That short list does not include any random Joe Schmo who doesn't even know what speed they run at.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.

The name was changed to LM but the pronunciation remained "Lem" throughout the program.

As is explained in every one of the links I just showed you.



To take a Boston reference, you might pronounce it "Woosta" but the NAME is "Worchester."

"Then there was the lunar module (LM, pronounced LEM, which had actually been its designation - for lunar excursion module - until someone decided that the word "excursion" might lend a frivolous note to Apollo)."

When did they decide 'excursion' would lend a frivolous note to Apollo', in 2001 ? It was abbreviated as LEM and it was called "the LEM". LM is not pronounced LEM. There is no short 'e' sound in LM.

Those tapes will never see the light of day.Anyone given access to them will be in the loop.

I believe you made my point for me.

It is unfortunate we live in a country that is pretending to be free when it's government is about the most repressive regime in the world.

I don't want to play te tapes on a VCR, I don't even want to remove them from NASA's custody, all I want is a chance to see them critically analyzed by people who are not subject to NASA's control

As is explained in the linked sources, the LM was conceived the moment they switched to orbital rendezvous instead of attempting single-stage. By the time NASA demanded the nomenclature change, people had been talking about the "LEM" for several years, and that pronunciation had become ingrained.

They couldn't very well call it the "L'm." It would make meetings sound like everyone had peanut butter stuck to the roofs of their mouths.

"El Em" would work, but as I said, "Lem" was grandfathered in. But spelled out, it was the Lunar Module, not the Lunar Excursion Module, and when the abbreviation is used in writing, it is the "LM."

It is a simple mistake. Lots of people have made it. And in the span of all things, not particularly important. Most people would move on, accept that "LM" is more historically correct unless you are talking about the early phases of the project.



Or do you also insist on calling a certain mission "Apollo Saturn-204" despite the official and after-the-investigation name change to Apollo 1?

An impossible condition.

To access and interpret the data on the tapes you need specialist knowledge.

By your definition, having any specialist knowledge of NASA makes you a suspect insider.

I'm glad you wee stupid enough to use these examples. Every American can view the original Constitution, the Liberty bell and the Watergate tapes. In the case of Nixon's tapes, most of the damaging stuff has been published ,and there are transcripts you can view on the internet.


NASA will never allow them tapes to be analyzed because they didn't send men to the moon

And we can view the landings.

You aren't asking to view the Constitution; you are asking permission to perform undescribed chemical analysis on the paper in order to satisfy your own curiosity about its authenticity.

You are asking permission to strike the Liberty Bell because of some theory you have about how it would sound.

You are asking unfettered access to the original magnetic media of the Watergate Tapes, in order to try and discover places where editing was performed.

And let's not forget....


The telemetry tapes are intact for almost everything but the EVA portion of Apollo 11.

That's the space the smoking gun can hide in.

If there was some obvious sign of fakery, why aren't you looking for it in the full color, original-tape-available, video of Apollo 12?

Hey Nomuse, I thought you were taking a break from this thread!

Why don't you come clean and tell us your connection to NASA.

Way too much emotion for YEARS on this board about various NASA follies. No effin way are you not connected or not being paid to post 24/7. Contractor of what?

Just one problem.

The Constitution, Liberty Bell and Watergate tapes weren't "lost."

Neither is the television coverage of the Apollo 11 EVA.

In fact, we are seeing it better today than they did in 1969.



Emotion, yeah. I'm getting a whole lot of boredom.

I will lay odds that in 2017 or 2018, when old stuff expires from GLP, IDW/A.A will use this same excuse to pretend he never claimed that December 21, 2012 was going to be the great cleansing, a date he supposedly arrived independently of the Mayan calendar and shouted about for *years.* He will also deny that he claimed undeniable multiple Tunguska-sized meteor strikes would be occurring right now, too.

IDW/A.A, since you have repeatedly claimed you have all of your threads completely stored in your super-database-of-everything-IDW/A.A-has-ever-written, I cahllenge you to reproduce the conversation with Nomuse where he threatened you with radioactive poisoning.

And watch my utter surprise when you utterly fail to do this, the excuse being that there's no point, as its authenticity will be questioned anyway -- thus being yet another *failure* on your part to produce evidence you claim you can.

AGAIN.

Thus, I'll *have* to add it to the List.

Sleeping.


The signal was 320 lines, not 280. Same difference.

This blog post [link to depletedcranium.com] has a nice diagram showing what was done with the signal received from the Moon.
The only difference between the data on the backup tapes (and their intended purpose was only ever as backup) and the archived recordings are the conversion steps.
These reduced the image quality somewhat.
Modern digital technology and algorithms (which could not have been anticipated at the time) allow us the squeeze a bit more info out of noisy data than was possible before.
It was/is being done on the archived recordings as shown here:

[link to www.youtube.com]

If we had the backup tapes we could produce an image that is better, but not much better, than that.
You'd still just have a 320 lines 10 fps B&W image* from a rather primitive vidicon camera with all its flaws shooting under less than optimal lighting conditions.
It would be nice to have, but it wouldn't change a thing to the evidential situation.
If they hadn't brought the EVA camera along on Apollo 11, as was originally intended, the flight would still be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt.

*The technical reasons for using this and not a better one for the Apollo 11 EVA are explained here: [link to www.clavius.org]



No. it was called LM (pronounced "lem") all throughout the missions by the astronauts, mission control, and everyone who discussed it.
Either that, or Lunar Module.



IOW you have never heard of Apollo 7 through 10, and a lot of other things.
Got it.


They went back (successfully) 5 times.


Considering that your knowledge of the subject is next to non-existing why should your opinion impress anyone?
The assertion "I don't understand how they did it, therefore they can't have done it" is irrational.
There are a lots of things you don't know anything about and are still evidently true.
Some 10th century Englishman not knowing how the Chinese managed to make fireworks doesn't tell us anything about 10th century firework technology.


Well, I never heard of one who did, and such a person would be quite the talk of the town.


Neither am I.
The past is a distant country, America then is not America now.




You think a ~150 minute video recording is the "proof" of Apollo?

Why do you guys keep insisting on proving my assertion: In my experience it is only those who know little about Apollo who believe such nonsense.


Bonus video:

[link to www.youtube.com]
_____________________________________________________________​____________________
I will give a hundred bucks (EUR100,-) to the first person who can proof a single relevant evidential fact ever claimed by any hoaxmonger.
The Halcyon Dayz EVIDENCE or STFU! Challenge.

Proof means it has to pass scientific muster, relevant means it must actually be evidence for hoaxing and nothing else.
Any suggestions on how to organise this are welcome.

That's cute that you think stuff that is deleted is really gone. IF you were really concerned you should have taken a screenshot. There is also the wayback machine.

I'm sure you're lying though.