Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Here is a good way to think of it Jay......

No, your main point all along has not been that Apollo's toilet needed to be "fixed." It has instead been all along that the Apollo 8 mission should have been aborted because of Borman's illness, and that because NASA did not follow your personal judgment the mission was therefore not authentic.

Have you conceded that Apollo 8 should not have aborted and that the decision to proceed was correct? Please explicitly answer this question.

"The toilet" was a relief bag, technology borrowed from other aerospace applications. While undignified, it is deemed sanitary enough by the relevant qualified authority for use in this type of application.



You haven't proven that it is any more dangerous in the Apollo context than it would be in other occupational contexts.

Please describe in detail a feces handling system that you believe NASA should have installed aboard the Apollo CM and LM. Your description should address at least

1. the industry-acceptable sustainable level of fecal material (a) in the cabin atmosphere and (b) on cabin surfaces, citing appropriate documentary and regulatory sources;
2. a rational for why the existing cabin air filtration system and cabin housekeeping procedures would fail to achieve and maintain that level;
3. exactly how, in terms of mechanics, your proposed apparatus would achieve and maintain the necessary contamination prevention and abatement standards required above;
4. the mass requirements for your system (including a full mass-properties analysis), and how they will conform to Apollo requirements;
5. the mass-properties effect of your apparatus on launch, spaceflight dynamics, and aerodynamics;
6. the volume requirements for your apparatus (including constraints on flight-axis orientation, proximity, mechanical interference), and its effect on Apollo volumetric constraints;
7. the consumables requirements for your system (including consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
8. the power requirements for your apparatus (including a power consumption profile for all flight contingencies), and how they will conform to Apollo budgets;
9. the thermal properties and tolerances for your apparatus (including a heat-transfer analysis), and how they will confirm to Apollo budgets;
10. the materials hazard properties of your apparatus (e.g., outgassing, vacuum tolerance, thermal tolerances, flammability, oxidation, exposure to materials) and a mitigation plan for each hazard for each flight contingency;
11. a list of expected failure modes and a contingency plan for each failure mode including adverse effects on spacecraft operation and system, loss of functionality, feasibility of fault correction/mitigation procedures, mission downgrading potential, and criticality elimination design rationals.

You say you know a little engineering. Let's see if you do, or whether all you can do is just sit back and idly criticize the professionals.



You are not qualified to make this judgment.



Armstrong could have been breathing Collins' feces just by washing his hands outside Collins' stall in a building in Houston. An astounding quantity of evidence has been presented to substantiate that we all daily ingest and inhale aerosolized fecal material, yet suffer few if any ill effects.



Does in the inhalation or ingestion of fecal material invariably result in death?

Here is a good way to think of it Jay......If someone has influenza and they are in the hospital with me, they are followed under strict respiratory isolation precautions, masks, isolation room and so forth. If someone has infectious diarrea, regardless of the type/etiology (C. Difficile enteritis, Salmonella, etc.)
, ditto with regard to isolation, and in the infectious diarrhea case, strict stool precautions are rigorously adhered to. Problems like C. difficile enteritis spread like crazy through our institution and others regardless of how tightly adherent any staff is to good infection precautions. C. dif, would not have been out of the question in the Borman case. Had he been so afflicted, the others would have gotten sick with essentially 100% certainty given the circumstances.

There is absolutely no precident for the Borman case, so were it real, the docs would have reported the case in the medical literature, reported what they found in Borman's stool, on the cabin's inside surfaces in the Apollo Command Module, reported on the food, the water, the filtering system. It would have been a big deal, and though not "exciting" medicine, it would have been an important and precident setting case. There would have been, and would be still, a lot of references to the case in medical literature, "Possible infected stool in zero G environment, etiology unclear, capacity for air filtering system to offer protection yet to be defined, etc....."

But there was none of this, only Borman's account in Life Magazine of his thinking it was the Seconal and Berry offering viral gastroenteritis in the Mission Report and neglecting to mention this case altogether in the chapter he wrote in the aerospace medicine text I referenced previously. Pretty amazing when one pauses to think about it.

So the bottom line is, docs don't have a crystal ball Jay, when something is new, they work from ground zero. They of course would try and draw on their experience, for example hospitalized patients are isolated as mentioned and airline patients are too by the way. If someone is identified with influenza say on a jet traveling across an ocean, the rules say the plane's staff is to try and isolate the patient/passenger such as they can, even back in the 60s they did this. It is covered in the very text book already referenced, and even earlier editions of aerospace texts as well......

I'll write more about this as time goes on. I have covered quite a bit of what relatively little literature there actually is available on the subject of the Borman case. Remarkable really, that they got away with it, so obvious the thing is fraudulent all considered Jay......

 

[Agatha]

I've already gone over the rocks and photos stuff Captain_Swoop and so I won't repeat that rap again.

You have only "gone over" rocks and photos to state that you won't address them. Or is that you can't address them?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg Footprints as well as the LM. How would those footprints (more accurately, bootprints) have got there, if your contention that the lunar missions were unmanned was correct?

 

[Patrick1000]

Well we know the story as it really played out was NOT as advertised.....

Wow.. Still going huh?

Ok Since Patrick has once again wandered into my territory...

Patrick, you have again referred to the astronauts in question as actors. I am an actor. I have an MFA in acting, I've made my living for the past 8 years acting & teaching acting on the university level.

Can you explain how you know they are acting?

Well we know the story as it really played out was NOT as advertised.....

For example, the LAM-2 map is fraudulent, ego, they are acting.......Everything they say about the LAM-2 map is said in the context of a lie, or euphemistically, in the context of an "act"........

 

[Patrick1000]

With regard to judging whether Neil is changing the muffler on the Eagle the oil, ...

So you admit receiving no special training to enable you to judge accurately the work of experts in fields you know nothing about?

With regard to judging whether Neil is changing the muffler on the Eagle, changing the oil, or flat out full on jiving us in that photo, I have no special training. I suspect the latter is true as the Eagle to my knowledge has no muffler, nor does it require motor oil.... At least as far as I know.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Of course they use the Apollo data, how many times need i emphasize, the thing ...

Yes, Patrick claiming that the aerospace community wouldn't know as much about Apollo as he does still has me giggling. Sheesh, it was only the seminal event in the history of the science, and you can't throw a cleco in the industry without hitting something Apollo-derived. It's like accusing a cardiac surgeon of not "knowing" that Christiaan Barnard was really a fraud.

Of course they use the Apollo data Jay and Captain_Swoop...., How many times need I emphasize, the thing is real? Almost all of the data, with rare exception as regards the manned stuff, is al real, so it is all useful, essentially all of it... The LAM-2 map ain't, ain't useful 'cuz that is fake, phony, scammy, but that is of course one of the manned mission related bogus pieces of non science.....

 

[sts60]

Wow.. Still going huh?

Ego gratification - getting the grown-ups to respond - can be a powerful motivating force for some posters.

Ok Since Patrick has once again wandered into my territory...

Patrick, you have again referred to the astronauts in question as actors. I am an actor. I have an MFA in acting, I've made my living for the past 8 years acting & teaching acting on the university level.

Can you explain how you know they are acting?

Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. simply makes up whatever sounds good to support his premises - even the ones which contradict each other. He's tried to appeal to technical argument, such as medicine, but he's not a doctor; spacecraft engineering, but he has no understanding of engineering; and so on for tracking and ranging, military applications, budgeting, cartography, lightning protection, mission operations, simulation, and on and on. Every time he does this it blows up in his face, because he has none of the qualifications he's claimed, and in fact understands much less than the educated laymen, let alone the actual scientists and engineers here. Now, here he wanders into your field - acting - and makes yet another claim, which yet another expert (you) demolishes.

It's no wonder Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. makes so many appeals to "common sense" lately, becuase he gets smoked so badly when he ventures yet another silly claim in any field related to Apollo. The problem is that no one here agrees with him, and despite his grandiose pronouncements of popular support, according to his own words the only person who has is his brother and possibly his mother. So evidently his "common sense" is nothing of the sort; it's simply his ignorance and ego in the service of frequently self-contradictory positions.

His failure to address the claim "Why do all the qualified people disagree with him?" continues. Afer being constantly hammered with this question, he has deployed a flimsy, desperate smoke-screen that they simply don't know what he does. This fails for two reasons. First, he doesn't know what he thinks he does. His characterization of both the illness episode and interpretation of the maps are simply his misunderstanding and ignorant projections as to how these things actually worked, as has been explained to him for months. Second, all this information has been known to the experts all along, and evaluated in far greater detail and with far greater undrestanding than Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. could ever hope to achieve. So, he's simply wrong in his assertion that he has special knowledge that the experts don't.

Worse, this attempted diversion misses the point anyway. Experts in materials and planetary sciences, for example, have confirmed the in-situ collection and lunar origin of the samples returned from the Moon, and this investigation has nothing to do with hygiene, or whether Apollo 11 landed at point A or a couple of nautical miles from point A - especially when considering the much greater and selective and diversified collections from later missions. Experts in space physics and communications know in great detail that the ALSEP plasma analyzers and radiation detectors returned years of data from the Moon, and instrumentation and power engineers know exactly how it was hand-deployed there. And so on and so on.

In other words, Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s desperate handwaving that all the world's experts are wrong because they don't know about his genius work at U. Google is not only wrong, it's utterly irrelevant.

In the course of my work, I too have used data from Apollo and its precursors. It's part of designing systems now, generations after Apollo. My colleagues at my company, and other companies and institutions worldwide, also use said data to design, build, and operate spacecraft. These are relied upon by commercial, civil, and military entities, and insured by other companies, so it's far from just spacecraft enginers and scientists that draw on the validity of Apollo data.

The question still stands unanswered by Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.: "Why do all the experts in spaceflight and space science disagree with you?"

 

[JayUtah]

This is funny Jay.....I think it is up to the NASA guys and not me to prove that the air is safe to breath, don't you?.....

No I don't. You're the only one who thinks it was so unsafe that drastic measures should have been taken. The burden of proof is squarely on you.

 

[JayUtah]

Here is a good way to think of it Jay......If someone has influenza and they are in the hospital with me...

...then the situation is entirely different than being in a spaceship. Irrelevant analogy; argument rejected.

There is absolutely no precident for the Borman case, so were it real, the docs would have reported the case in the medical literature

Supposition.

[/quote]So the bottom line is, docs don't have a crystal ball Jay...[/quote]

Except for you. You seem to be the authority on what everyone should have done. How is that?

... so obvious the thing is fraudulent all considered Jay......

Then why does it seem to be so hard for you to find an actual doctor willing to go on the record endorsing your findings?

 

[R.A.F.]

I think it is up to the NASA guys and not me to prove that the air is safe to breath, don't you?.....

Nope...no one thinks that. Alhough you may not like it, the Apollo missions are established historical fact. In other words, the onus is on you to prove your claim(s) valid, so please stop attempting to shift the burden of proof, as it just makes you appear scientifically illiterate.

 

[R.A.F.]

How many scientists would change their minds if they knew about the fraudulent LAM-2 rotated and falsely gridded map RAF?

Can you answer the question I asked, and not the question you would like to answer?

The full story is simply not known to most.

The why do you ignore those here who know about the Apollo missions?

We are the alternative and REAL MEDIA IN THIS CASE.

How is any of what you post "real"? You continually mischaracterize the astronauts, their behavior, and the evidence.

Jay Barbree the highly respected space reporter.

There...fixed that for ya.

 

[R.A.F.]

...so obvious the thing is fraudulent...

No...not obvious at all. You mischaracterize what established knowledge "is".

Now if you want to say "hey, I think it obvious..." then that is your opinion and that's "ok".

Anything else is unacceptable.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It appears that Patrick's considered medical opinion is that no group of explorers can be permitted to go beyond a few days journey from a hospital, in case one of them gets sick, infects the others and they all die.

I must say I am no more persuaded by this restatement of his case than I was any of the previous times, nor am I pesuaded that his colourful imaginings of a capsule drenched in floating diarrhea reflects in any useful way the reality of what the astronauts had to clear up.

 

[R.A.F.]

Say you are Thomas Kelly, the chief designer/engineer of the LM. Why wouldn't you buy in? Why would you doubt Apollo authenticity for a nanosecond....?... You are not reading all this stuff, the stuff Patrick 1000 scrutinizes..

So it really does "boil down" to Patrick is smarter than mission engineers, contractors, and scientists.

Sure there are no people riding inside of your LM...

No they weren't "riding", they were piloting the LM.

...a LM that has been modified for military purposes, but how would you know that?

No...how would you know that? You have provided no evidence for your military LM idea, yet you post statements "as if" you have.

Unless you can provide evidence, you need to stop making statements like that.

The rocks are probably real..snip...The photos are probably real...snip...All of the science, the rocketry and so forth is very good and very real.

So now your claim is that it all happened, but was military?

Is this the claim you are going to stick with?...or will you once again change it to suit your "whim"?

The Apollo Weaponize Space Program under the guise of peaceful/scientific manned landings is a flat out stroke of deceptive genius if you ask me......

The only thing we have "asked for", is the one thing you been Unable to provide...EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

 

[nomuse]

Don't be ridiculous Suspilot......

Neil Armstrong's not having his picture taken is not an argument for fraud in and of itself. Not fixing the Apollo 8 toilet, losing a spaceship, pretending to not see stars/lasers, having a star sighting system that does not work, flying a manned space ship to the moon that has been hit by lightning, flying, or rather pretending to fly a rotated and erroneously gridded map to the moon, now THOSE are reasons to indict NASA for lying their butts off. This is what constitutes 100% proof positive of Apollo fraud.

Once you know the fraud to be true, once one confirms it, for example based on something utterly irrefutable like the dime store vomit and diarrhea on Apollo 8, then one can look at other "lines" in the narrative and make sense of them.

One cannot point to Armstrong's not having his picture taken as proof of fraud by itself. It is not strong enough in isolation. One looks to other things for vacuum sealed proof of the Apollo charade, things like the Borman illness con job. But once you confirm fraud based on these types of stone cold objective FACTS, this type of good material evidence, another good example being the phony LAM-2 map, then one can go to such insanely bizarre incoherencies like Armstrong checking his Eagle's muffler with his back turned to the camera being the ONLY picture of him with the 70 mm Hasselblad, or the only one commonly shown anyway, and say, "Oh I get it, now I see... It is fake and so that bogus Armstrong changing the oil on the bird shot does make a little bit of sense now because they are trying to hide something about Armstrong, not show his front side". The boy scout must be missing something there and they are worried we'll figure out this is all fake from a full faced , full front on picture of the world's most famous not so very Eagle Scout.....

Ah, yes; the straw method in conspiracy thinking again.

Not a single piece of "evidence" actually stands up on its own. All have deep problems. But if you stack enough of them up, you magically get something strong enough to hold up a theory.

(Otherwise known as the shotgun method...keep firing poor ideas in hopes that one or two will actually stick).

 

[nomuse]

I brought this up ages ago.......You simply missed it Jack by the hedge. Having the CapComs only interact with the astronauts makes for a closed loop.... Nothing undesirable gets into that space rap ya' see?????????????

You really think that's how it works? That CAPCOM is the only man in the room who ever hears an astronaut's voice?

Wow. Just....wow.

 

[nomuse]

I've already gone over the rocks and photos stuff Captain_Swoop and so I won't repeat that rap again.

You mean, you (verbosely) declined to discuss them.

There is little reason to doubt Apollo authenticity Captain_Swoop if you are working from the inside. Say you are Thomas Kelly, the chief designer/engineer of the LM. Why wouldn't you buy in? Why would you doubt Apollo authenticity for a nanosecond....?...

Thomas Kelly gets a salary, right? He is an engineer at the top of his field, right? Why and what do you think this man is being paid to do while the machine he worked on is in the air?

Every single day, professionals report to control stations, monitor stations, cockpits, and the like, with full expectation that the machinery under their zone of responsibility is working the way it was designed to.

And every single one of those people who remain gainfully employed -- and alive, in the more mission-critical cases -- is so because that assumption does jack all to keep them from methodically going through tests and inspections and checklists anyhow.

Every person watching that flight is looking intently at every bit of data that crosses their desk, waiting and watching for that one wiggle of a line that will tell someone with their extensive experience with that very machinery on test stands and in other flights that something is about to go south.

I do this, although my field does not require quite so many years of training and no lives are lost when I miss something. Every single night, and multiple times during that night, I scan to look for those tweaks and twinges that only another skilled person could interpret.

At the very, very least, to fool the people at these consoles you would need to employ ANOTHER full-time engineer -- preferably from the same team -- that could generate the kinds and details of data that will pass this uber-suspicious, ever-careful, looking-for-trouble eye.

You are not reading all this stuff, the stuff Patrick 1000 scrutinizes; the Mission Report, the Press Kit, the Voice Transcripts, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, right. Someone actually working at the upper level of the Apollo Project is less informed about it than you are. Riiiiiiiight.

You are working from the inside and since by and large the thing is 99.999999999% authentic, what's to doubt?, almost nothing.

Sure there are no people riding inside of your LM, a LM that has been modified for military purposes, but how would you know that? It is an awesome piece of machinery. You are focused on that....

Best way to look at this Captain_Swoop is to remind yourself that this thing is REAL. That is how you make this kind of scam go go go go. It has both feet in reality. The rocks are probably real, at least some. The photos are probably real, with the exception of the muffler inspection shot of Armstrong and stuff like that. All of the science, the rocketry and so forth is very good and very real.

The Apollo Weaponize Space Program under the guise of peaceful/scientific manned landings is a flat out stroke of deceptive genius if you ask me......

And you repeat. I will not, but just point upwards at my previous reply.

 

[SUSpilot]

This is funny Jay.....I think it is up to the NASA guys and not me to prove that the air is safe to breath, don't you?.....

He didn't ask for that. Since your of the opinion that the air was unfit to breath (actually the particulate Matt in the air), Jay is asking what you would have done differently, in a vey specific manner. In fact, I'd like to see this myself.

 

[SUSpilot]

Don't be ridiculous Suspilot......

Neil Armstrong's not having his picture taken is not an argument for fraud in and of itself. Not fixing the Apollo 8 toilet, losing a spaceship, pretending to not see stars/lasers, having a star sighting system that does not work, flying a manned space ship to the moon that has been hit by lightning, flying, or rather pretending to fly a rotated and erroneously gridded map to the moon, now THOSE are reasons to indict NASA for lying their butts off. This is what constitutes 100% proof positive of Apollo fraud.

Once you know the fraud to be true, once one confirms it, for example based on something utterly irrefutable like the dime store vomit and diarrhea on Apollo 8, then one can look at other "lines" in the narrative and make sense of them.

One cannot point to Armstrong's not having his picture taken as proof of fraud by itself. It is not strong enough in isolation. One looks to other things for vacuum sealed proof of the Apollo charade, things like the Borman illness con job. But once you confirm fraud based on these types of stone cold objective FACTS, this type of good material evidence, another good example being the phony LAM-2 map, then one can go to such insanely bizarre incoherencies like Armstrong checking his Eagle's muffler with his back turned to the camera being the ONLY picture of him with the 70 mm Hasselblad, or the only one commonly shown anyway, and say, "Oh I get it, now I see... It is fake and so that bogus Armstrong changing the oil on the bird shot does make a little bit of sense now because they are trying to hide something about Armstrong, not show his front side". The boy scout must be missing something there and they are worried we'll figure out this is all fake from a full faced , full front on picture of the world's most famous not so very Eagle Scout.....

You do realize, of course, that it looks to us (or me, at any rate), that you're working backward from a conclusion that you've already drawn, that we didn't go to the Moon, and forcing things to fit.

But, more specifically, what would NASA/Neil Armstrong feel they were hiding by not showing a full face photo? You clearly have some opinion on this.

 

[Garrison]

There is absolutely no precident for the Borman case,

In which case how can you judge what the proper response should have been?

the docs would have reported the case in the medical literature

If it was some mysterious 'space bug' yes, a guy having a bad reaction to Seconal? Not so much, though I wouldn't be suprised if there were some sort of articles published that you just haven't bothered to find.

Neil Armstrong's not having his picture taken is not an argument for fraud in and of itself. Not fixing the Apollo 8 toilet, losing a spaceship, pretending to not see stars/lasers, having a star sighting system that does not work, flying a manned space ship to the moon that has been hit by lightning, flying, or rather pretending to fly a rotated and erroneously gridded map to the moon, now THOSE are reasons to indict NASA for lying their butts off. This is what constitutes 100% proof positive of Apollo fraud

No Patrick, the above is simply a mix of your personal incredulity, lack of technical knowldege, and unwillingness to accept the explanations offered by people who have got actual relevant expertise and explain your wrongness in great detail.
To put it simply your argument is neither plausible, credible, nor coherent.

 

[Loss Leader]

The burden of proof is squarely on you.

Not exactly. The positive proposition is that men walked on the moon. The burden of proof fell to those who sought to have that accepted as true.

To a degree far beyond a reasonable doubt and approaching that of a mathematical certainty, that burden has been met. Really, the only way the evidence of a manned landing could be inconsistent with an actual manned landing is if reality itself were an illusion and we were all in a huge, evil, alien simulation that just came online a few minutes ago.

So, what is Patrick's burden? From a legal point of view, he bears the burden of introducing enough doubt to make us lose confidence in the truth of the original proposition. That entails a burden of proving true whatever so-called facts he thinks are inconsistent with the proposition and proving a necessary logical connection between those facts and his conclusion.

Furthermore, we haven't established the standard of proof to use in a historical situation: more likely than not, beyond a reasonable doubt, scientific certainty, etc.

I lack the expertise to know how much evidence historians need before they call something true.

In any case, Patrick is so far from any sort of successful attack on the historical accuracy of the Apollo missions that it hardly matters.