Sure I am qualified to address the lightning strike issue.
It is simply a matter of common sense.
BZZT!
That's all "common sense" is; common. Every week I deal with clients who think that common sense is all that is required to predict the behavior of a technology and science they are unfamiliar with. And very, very basic things trip them up. Imagine how bright a 60W bulb is. Now make it two bulbs. Twice the brightness, right? No. The human eye is a non-linear sensor. Most sensory stimuli are better simulated through a power law. But every week, I run into people who are thinking and saying and wanting to write contract based on the equivalent of thinking two bulbs are twice the perceived brightness. Or getting really angry when the bills come due, because their naive intuition didn't agree with either reality or what the contractor was trying to tell them.
Actually, though, there is one fairly good rule of thumb that tells you if you really do understand a technical or scientific field well enough to apply your instinct successfully. The test is this; do you think you know all you could possibly need to, and the situation is simple and intuitive? Then you are probably wrong about it. The people who actually know the subject are a lot more respectful of their limitations.
Nowadays, planes are more or less lightning proof. That is not to say, a plane cannot get damaged, and damaged very badly by a strike, but the science of "proofing" planes for lightning, electrical discharge protection, has come so so so far since the 60s.
Actually, 1967 was the last time a plane blew up and crashed due to a lightning strike. Unlikely to happen now. But even then, as in the recent case with the Irish plane, they aren't going to let you fly around once hit by lightning. They'll land you if they can to be sure the plane is OK.
Back in the 60s, they knew less about lightning strikes. Hits on planes were all the more sources of consternation.
The Apollo 12 lightning issue is one of the half dozen or so most important pieces of Apollo fraud evidence. It is irrefutable by the pro mainstream side. It is proof positive of big time fraud.
A confirmed lightning strike on a bird slated to go to the moon, 2 strikes there were actually, and you still go traipsing across cislunar space? I don't think so Jay. Way way way fake buddy.
Think about it Jay........ They initially have electrical problems immediately upon being hit. They get those squared away. They get up into earth orbit and then "all the systems check out fine" so what do they do? Well they go to the moon of course. Too ludicrous for words......
This is one of those deep seeded lies Jay, like denying the stars. Something insanely huge is behind it, the lie, that I haven't quite put my finger on yet. Just as in the case with the star phobia, it took me 3 months or so for me to figure out that lie was about laser fright. Now here in this case with "lightning nonchalance", another huge lie with some major motivation in its telling. Not quite there yet with the payoff, but it'll come to me. I have nothing but time to bust the Apollo fraud wide open. I am fully committed to exposing Neil et al. for the scammers they are Jay.
Imagine Jay if you were flying, and 2 minutes in to the flight, on the way up, the plane gets hit by lightning. Once you get to 30K, the pilot comes on the overhead and says, "no big deal, we're heading across the Atlantic regardless, the plane checks out fine".
I don't know about you Jay, but I'd be fit to be tied. I'd demand to get off that bad boy. Imagine if something happened? Law suit city. Imagine in the case of Apollo 12 were the strike real. Say they "GO!" but unfortunately, the astronauts die due to lightning strike related occult damage. It might not end Apollo forever, but it would shut it down big time, and the yo-yos that sent the astronauts, meaning all of the top brass, and I do mean brass as in military, would be axed.
This is one of the more obvious pieces of bogus narrative here Jay, the GO! post lightning strike.
So very fake, unbelievably so.
And you go on to say nothing but expressions of personal incredulity. At length. Inefficiently. But without adding a single additional detail to your argument, or supporting detail.
Let's think about your alternate scenario a moment here. Say lightning strikes. The decision is made to scrub and somehow this is done without ejecting and having the spacecraft destroyed by range control. Somehow.
So now you have the spacecraft on the ground. What do you do? You perform diagnostics. All the diagnostics pass. According to every test you can make, the electronics are in good working order.
NOW what do you do? You've already determined that this is insufficient. The spacecraft can not continue on its mission with this level of confidence. Any further investigation involves tear-down, and these circuits are not designed to be popped in and out like hot-swapping a USB peripheral.
So, sure, you could pull everything apart. And for all essential purposes be rebuilding it. Fresh wiring, with possibly fresh problems, which means another round of diagnostics.
Oh, I forgot. Diagnostics aren't good enough.
Follow this far enough, and you can't even build the spacecraft in the first place. That level of confidence is impossible to achieve.
But since the same goes for civilian airliners -- and even more so -- I think you've just managed to disprove flight itself.
I stretched things a bit. Actually, what you called for was indeed abort of mission. Which is to say; to subject the suspect electronics to an untried emergency procedure which had no more chance of being undamaged than the main mission profile did. And this gains us safety how?
Reality is that problems, potential and identified, are signed off on all the time. Someone has to make a call as to whether it is mission critical. This happens daily, in high-performance machines with human lives riding on their correct function. And sometimes the human beings make the wrong call. That happens to, and the procedures for that are also well known and tested.
If you wanted perfect predictability of outcome you wouldn't be in aerospace. Or in medicine. Or, really, anywhere. Any job in the world that has any measure of responsibility carries with it, well, responsibility; that at some point the chips are going to fall the wrong way and you will have been the person that said "Go for launch."
