What becomes of old 'friends'..

[Donnie B.]

"How do you kill that which has no life?"

Nuke it from orbit.   It's the only way to be sure.

[JayUtah]

"How do you kill that which has no life?"

Nuke it from orbit.   It's the only way to be sure.

This is winning fu.  That is all.

[Chew]

"How do you kill that which has no life?"

"Who foretold this prophecy?"
"Schwarzman. He's in accounting."

[Drewid]

Our favourite bicycle riding medic is trying again over at Cosmoquest nee BAUT. This time he's a lesbian microbiologist.

He's so wacky.

[ChrLz]

Our favourite bicycle riding medic is trying again over at Cosmoquest nee BAUT. This time he's a lesbian microbiologist.

He's so wacky.

Yup, as ClaudiaT, for the record (I'll compile a full list later, when I am bored..).  But poor Claudia is now (already) banned, which happened as I watched - just after I put my report in to the mod's, including a bit of the evidence I have collected to ensure 'recognition'.  I won't immodestly say that I caused it (I'm sure there were lots of other reports), but hopefully I was one of the straws.

So, a quick hi to ClaudiaT/fattydash/dastardly/Patrick1000/TotallyStokedDude etc..  Oh and 'her' new Youtube identity 'Kirsten Young'.  If you are reading this, may I say how much I enjoy seeing you off forums as quickly as possible, so that you have to put more wasted effort into new sockpuppets, new IP's, coming up with new stories and imaginary friends... all for pretty much no result whatsoever.  And each time the ways to prove who you are, become easier to compile and forward onto the moderators - you are now so obvious .. well, it is all rather sad..

I hope you're not getting angry, fatty?   As a token of my respect, may i suggest a forum like GLP might be best?  Places in the gutter of the Interweb should have no problem with most of your antics, and you'll be among like-minded trolls.

[twik]

Well, obviously, the answer to my question about what will happen when Patrick runs out of fora is that he'll start up new socks.

I don't know, maybe Patrick should give up Apollo and start writing fiction (or at least taking up role-playing). He seems to enjoy creating characters with their own histories. I know many HBs have socks, but Patrick goes above and beyond the ordinary by creating different writing styles for each one. However, I suspect that if he did take up a purely creative pursuit, all of his stories would revolve around how "I am the smartest, bestest person in the world, beating the experts with my intelligence and mad research skillz".

[Drewid]

But the writing styles really aren't that different.  There's something about the bounce and heft of his sentences that come through pretty much every time.

It's like someone's drunk uncle doing really bad impressions that all end up sounding like Sean Connery.

[twik]

Patrick created one sock on BAUT that wrote in a supposedly uneducated manner. However, the claim that he was the "best sextant user ever!" sort of gave it away. He's also had BAUT personas who were more aggressive, less aggressive, or who were "just asking questions".

But you're right, whatever he tries, his own bombastic, verbose character shines through, sort of like an actor who may try character roles, but they all end up just being "Patrick as working stiff", "Patrick as genteel lady," "Patrick as person who has no knowledge of Appollo," etc.

[slang]

"Patrick as person who has no knowledge of Appollo,"

Nah, that's the real one.

[darren r]

I noticed that he also specialises in having a tertiary persona popping up to support his secondary one and referring to them in a chummy way ie 'Chris', 'the Doc'.

BTW, where did ClaudiaT get that 'Apollo was just a cover for making star maps for ICBM's' nonsense from? Did he/she make that up themselves or is that another piece of lunacy doing the rounds among HB's?

[Abaddon]

I noticed that he also specialises in having a tertiary persona popping up to support his secondary one and referring to them in a chummy way ie 'Chris', 'the Doc'.

BTW, where did ClaudiaT get that 'Apollo was just a cover for making star maps for ICBM's' nonsense from? Did he/she make that up themselves or is that another piece of lunacy doing the rounds among HB's?

That's just Dr. Socks recycling his threadbare arguments.

[JayUtah]

BTW, where did ClaudiaT get that 'Apollo was just a cover for making star maps for ICBM's' nonsense from? Did he/she make that up themselves or is that another piece of lunacy doing the rounds among HB's?

Many hoax authors hypothesize that Apollo had secret military objectives.  Patrick has claimed that Apollo was a cover for deploying nuclear weapons technology to the Moon, and for testing nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  Most of his sock puppets have liberal politics and pacifist leanings, and make much out of the "taint" of nuclear weaponeering that he says infected Apollo.  In particular Patrick claims that Apollo was used to calibrate and deploy guidance, control, and navigation aids for nuclear missiles.

[ka9q]

Many hoax authors hypothesize that Apollo had secret military objectives.

This one has always mystified me. What were the total budgets for NASA and the DoD during the 1960s? Though large by today's standards, NASA's budget must have been dwarfed by the DoD's during the Vietnam War just as today's NASA budget is dwarfed by the "War on Terror". So it makes no sense to use NASA as "cover" for things that could easily have been done under the DoD. It was (and is) routine to classify entire DoD projects, especially large space-oriented ones like reconnaissance, surveillance, ballistic missiles and missile defense.

As probably the most PR-oriented agency of the US federal government, NASA is the very last place you'd want to do something out of the public eye. While NASA does have classification authority, I get the impression that it is used to protect relatively limited aspects of projects that are otherwise completely public; is this generally so?

I see a fair number of declassified Confidential documents in the Apollo record but I don't think I've seen anything at Secret or above, and I also haven't seen any redactions in those documents. This is pretty unusual for declassified documents from other federal agencies, most of which are released with huge black boxes on most pages. What were the considerations for classification in those days? The formerly classified documents I've seen seem to fall into two categories: personal privacy, such as crew intercom transcripts, and until about the mid 1960s, detailed performance analyses of guidance systems

[Abaddon]

This one has always mystified me.

OK, I'll bite. Please note that I don't believe a word of the following. 

<HB mode on>
We know that NASA has used DoD assets. eg ICBM platforms for Mercury/Gemini.
We know that DoD has used NASA assets. eg.Shuttle missions to launch military satellites.
We know that both are agencies of te ebil gubmint, and are thus largely interchangeable.
It is no leap at all to therefore reach the conclusion that DoD covertly created NASA as a convenient vehicle to perform the following tasks:
A) Present a public, ostensibly transparent body which could get funding in addition to the DoD itself.
B) Design hugely expensive missions, which would allow funds to be garnered for super sekrit DoD projects, for which the DoD was unable to secure funding and/or approval.
C) Perform the publicly announced space missions on the cheap to maximise the funds which could be diverted to covert ops.
D) Fake those missions which would be too expensive.
E) Pass the PR to the gullible public.
F) Distract the sheeple from the nefarious doings with the pretty pictures.

So NASA is simply a front set up by DoD to cover up all manner of shenanigans.
Why go to such trouble? you may ask.
Simple. Plausible deniability. If the DoD compartmentalises the whole thing, then no investigation of DoD budget spends will uncover the skulduggery. On the other hand, any investigation of NASA will find a happy mish mash of real and faked missions which appears plausible spending, especially given the sophistication of the fakery and the difficulty of proving it. For example, prove Curiousity really is on Mars right now. see? 2.6 billion in the bank simply by faking some telemetry and some images. In fact the failed Mars missions are even more fun. Billions "spent" and no need to even fake telemetry or images.

Once you sheeple reach this point of understanding, I can pretty well make up any delusional conspiracy I like.
<HB mode off>

WOW. After all that I can actually type with my nose.

Feel free to pick holes in that, I have no intention of defending that nonsense. 

[JayUtah]

OK, I'll bite. Please note that I don't believe a word of the following. 

Well then neither do we.  But someone will salute it if you run it up the flagpole.

We know that NASA has used DoD assets. eg ICBM platforms for Mercury/Gemini.

Yep, and still does.  The military has all the best toys and (sad as it seems) the best track record for safely managing high-risk technologies.  Some of what NASA does requires high-performance assets, and the discipline to operate them safely.  Hence the military helps.  But then again, this happens all over.  Many other government agencies rely, for example, on the Army Corps of Engineers simply because they're the in-house experts.

We know that DoD has used NASA assets. eg.Shuttle missions to launch military satellites.

One of the worst shotgun weddings in history.  Nixon essentially summoned the Air Force and NASA to the table and told them he was only going to approve funding for one launch vehicle program for the U.S. and it had better serve everyone's needs.  The generals and the nerds rolled their eyes but realized that it was better to share one toy than not to have any.  So the shuttle had to meet military standards and the Air Force had to stand in line with everyone else to get launch times.

After Challenger's demise grounded the fleet for while and the DoD was hard up for Keyhole satellites, the policy was quietly relaxed and the Air Force was allowed to run its own launch program again.  Sadly NASA had to deal with the legacy of compromise.

We know that both are agencies of te ebil gubmint, and are thus largely interchangeable.

Sure, because everyone who gets paid out of taxpayer funds is the same mindless robot. 

Really, even just getting NASA to play nice with NASA is hard enough.  The reality of NASA is that it's the antithesis of the monolithic government institution.  It's a loose federation of squabbling, previously autonomous centers dominated by inefficiency, infighting, impenetrable bureaucracy, and political pawnbrokering.

A) Present a public, ostensibly transparent body which could get funding in addition to the DoD itself.

Asked and answered, of course.  NASA's budget doesn't even cover the cost of floor wax for the Pentagon.  DoD is so much more able to get "no questions asked" funding on its own and is able to set up front organizations, such as how the titanium for the SR-71 was procured from Soviet sources.

... etc. ...

F) Distract the sheeple from the nefarious doings with the pretty pictures.

Mmmm, pictures...

On the other hand, any investigation of NASA will find a happy mish mash of real and faked missions which appears plausible spending, especially given the sophistication of the fakery and the difficulty of proving it.

Oh sure, every conspiracy theory needs just enough genius and skullduggery to be interesting and sinister, but copious amounts of stupidity to allow pale crusaders to discover it from their parents' basements.

WOW. After all that I can actually type with my nose.

TMI.

Feel free to pick holes in that, I have no intention of defending that nonsense. 

And I'm only responding because the conference call I'm on is dreadfully boring.