Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

Every time they were on NASA's artificial/pretend moon they failed Jay....

This makes no sense. You said, "I claim the astronauts are not skillful enough to reliably sight stars from the lunar surface. They cannot do it every time with the requisite skill."

I'm asking you to substantiate where this judgment of yours is coming from. What is your evidence that they lacked the skill to perform a P52 alignment check? If you have any evidence that they tried and failed, that would be a good start.

Now you're saying that your evidence for their alleged failure is the missions that you say are fake, which you say are faked because they can't have checked their platform alignment. Can you say "circular argument?"

And as I've said at length, the Apollo record reports success. You quote from the Apollo record when you think it insinuates that they can't have done it. But you ignore the Apollo record when they flatly report success. You're cherry-picking.

Just ask Gene Kranz.......

That's just it: I have. You haven't. Awaiting your contact info...

 

[JayUtah]

I just proved ALL OF APOLLO FRAUDULENT Garrison.....

Have you not been paying attention?

You've made this same claim two or three times a day for the past 8 months. Your claims have been roundly refuted. Have you not been paying attention? Purely rhetorical question, since everyone who has expressed an opinion on it agrees that you're simply ignoring almost everything that was said to you.

Kranz claimed to know something only a fraud perpetrator couldd know.

No. Kranz claims to know something in 2000. when he wrote the book, that had been common knowledge for almost 30 years. Once again we have a huge mountain of evidence contradicting your personal, tortured and circuitous interpretation of one phrase taken out of context. You are not infallible.

I just demonstrated that beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

Except you're too scared to confront Gene Kranz about it yourself.

 

[Erock]

Fair enough Erock, how about the Kranz lie issue, am I qualified to NAIL him on that?

If there is foul play afoot in any Apollo mission, then HBs can try to expose it to their heart's content. You need to understand what you are typing and reading, so on that criteria, you don't appear qualified to nail anything. Especially considering your woeful interpretation of Kranz in his book and your biased reference to it.

I just made a post quoting this response (below) that you ignored! It got deleted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7936278&postcount=6273

However Jay has written a much better response in #6317.

Now why don't you break this annoying habit of yours and actually start answering rebuttal.

p.s. You didn't answer my question in the post you replied to btw.

 

[JayUtah]

RAF, for goodness sake, do you realize with whom you are debating?

I do, although I don't remember the names of all the sock puppets. I'm debating with someone who has no discernible understanding of the relevant sciences, but a whoppingly arrogant approach and almost total refraction to fact.

The lifeboat situation is well discussed there. Do I have to repeat this again?

You're being evasive. Your first accusation was very definitely that Kranz had ordered the crew into the LM as a "lifeboat" without concern about whether it was technologically possible. It was very quickly pointed out that the LM lifeboat was a planned scenario. Then, and only then, without any acknowledgement, you suddenly changed your story to say Kranz had ordered them into the lifeboat without first seeing whether it was necessary to do so.

Now you're floundering in a patched-up argument that you won't abandon because it would mean losing face. You're stuck pitting your personal (lack of) expertise against people who run space missions professionally, so that you can try to make it seem like Kranz' judgment was suspiciously premature. And you have to cling tenaciously to your strained interpretation of one sentence from his book, because otherwise you'd have to bow to the overwhelming weight of evidence from primary sources that say you're wrong.

You lose so much credibility (not that you ever had any) when you blatantly move the goalposts and pretend that no one notices you doing it.

 

[abaddon]

I claim the astronauts are not skillful enough to reliably sight stars from the lunar surface. They cannot do it every time with the requisite skill..

Irrelevant to A13 as they were never on the surface.

Liebergot agrees with me, Kranz is the odd duck out....Kranz claims he knew the oxygen tank exploded 15 minutes after the "we have a problem call", Liebergot makes no such claim. As a matter of fact, Liebergot NEVER is aware of an O2 tank explosion until presumably after the astronauts return to earth. At no time during Liebergot's EECOM duties does he make a determination that oxygen tank 2 exploded. You have not read his book, nor have you listened to the tapes.

It does not matter. MCC was aware of the facts via telemetry.

Wasn't a loud bang.......In the PBS special on the subject Lovell referred to the sound as "muffled". Wonder if he is having trouble keeping his facts straight. At any rate, same point to you, show me evidence anywhere in any of the Mission Control tapes that they knew there was an explosion. The controllers never took the bogus bait. As I said before , GOOD FOR THEM!!!!

Now PBS is your primary source? Really?
Try the EECOM loop.

He is still a suspect.....They are all suspects..... The honest Johns and Sys should have no trouble extricating themselves. That said, Sy is still a target. Harland coauthored his book and so Sy Liebergot cannot be fully trusted, not yet anyway, as Harland is a proven perp, confirmed perp and this confirmed perp helped to write Sy's book.

That is just a mess of unfounded accusations. Why will you not accept the offer to address Kranz directly?

I want my $433 dollars back Jay, my charges are more than fair. If Kranz would cut me a check now, I might let him off the hook......

Nonsense.

The tapes are the best evidence we have......

I argue nothing, the tapes speak for themselves as did Kranz. He lied. show me how the situation can be construed any other way given Kranz's own statement and the FACTS as presented in the tapes.

Abusing a cherry picked quote from 30 years after the event in question does not make for a good case.

The EECOM tapes are a primary source document Jay.......And they include Kranz's comment about using the LM as a lifeboat 15 minutes in to the "situation" when at that time there was no reason to be concerned to the point of bailing out of the CM. There were problems, but Kranz's statement is/was way out of context. Everything I am bringing up here is covered in the tapes.

No reasons to be concerned?
At that point the controllers knew:
Fuel cells one and three dead.
O2 tank 2 dead.
O2 tank 1 leaking and soon to be dead.
Venting occurring.
And you claim that there was no cause for concern?
Yet earlier, you claimed that Borman's barfing should have been reason enough to cause an abort on A8?

Fair enough Erock, how about the Kranz lie issue, am I qualified to NAIL him on that?

You are not qualified to do so by your own admission. Each of your claimed (but unevidenced) professions has precisely zero to do with the topic at hand.

Every time they were on NASA's artificial/pretend moon they failed Jay....

Kranz is a fraud/plant, proven beyond any doubt now......

Ego, all of Apollo is bogus, every star sightings was a fake.

Just ask Gene Kranz.......

You have provided no evidence, none.
And your slip up of "Ego" is an epic freudian gaff.

I just proved ALL OF APOLLO FRAUDULENT Garrison.....

No, you have not.

Have you not been paying attention?

Yes, we have. A lot more than you have.

Kranz claimed to know something only a fraud perpetrator couldd know. I just demonstrated that beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. The whole thing is fake Garrison, all of it. January 2012, the face of Apollo has changed....

AND that is a FACT.....

Wrong.

RAF, for goodness sake, do you realize with whom you are debating?

No. Please do tell us with whom we are debating. I am sure that would grab you some attention.
Go on, enquiring minds want to know with whom we are debating.

I read "Apollo 13 Lost Moon", Lovell's book 3 times now since I began this in April of last year. The lifeboat situation is well discussed there. Do I have to repeat this again?

You read a book? That makes you an expert? That confers upon you the requisite degrees?

My objection is not that such contingencies were not anticipated. The flight officers allegedly did sims with the lander as a life boat. So my objection has nothing to do with the concept of a lander as a life boat contingency. My objection is Kranz is talking about using the LM as a lifeboat at a time when such talk was irrelevant.

In the book you quote it was with the benefit if hindsight, as is obvious to any thinking person.

It was his realizing this that got him into more trouble. Get it?

We do, you do not.

Once he realized he had made his mistake, he then had to claim they knew the tank exploded when he made the comment about the life boat 15 minutes in.

Now you claim that a book published in 2000 was not editable.

Just made things words for him now didn't it RAF?

Oh what a glorious day.......

That is plain gibberish. "Just made things words for him"? What does that even mean?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wasn't a loud bang.......In the PBS special on the subject Lovell referred to the sound as "muffled".

Wasn't loud compared to what?

Describing the sound as "muffled" implies first and foremost that it did not sound like it happen inside the CM. A noise can have the quality of seeming to sound muffled yet still be very loud.

 

[Loss Leader]

That is plain gibberish. "Just made things words for him"? What does that even mean?

I'm sure it's a metaphor for, "Just made things worse for him."

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In my edition of Kranz' Failure Is Not an Option...
...in the "Now I was damn angry" paragraph you get to Patrick's smoking gun. "I should have seen it. Somewhere, somehow, an oxygen tank exploded and it caused a lot of collateral damage." (Ibid. p. 314)

This is a retrospective, not a dry technical timeline.

What do you have to say about this, Patrick?

It is abundantly clear in that quotation that Kranz is making a retrospective remark about what he wished he had known at the time. Yet you declared that he claimed he did know at the time, and that no other interpretation of his words was possible. How could you possibly have done so in good faith?

No wonder you adopted the tactic of admonishing people for commenting without having read the book. It must have been obvious to you that anyone who responds, other than by stating flat out that what you claimed is a total travesty of what Kranz actually wrote, cannot have read the passage you were so flagrantly misinterpreting.

 

[Robrob]

Wasn't loud compared to what?

Describing the sound as "muffled" implies first and foremost that it did not sound like it happen inside the CM. A noise can have the quality of seeming to sound muffled yet still be very loud.

Well considering he first claimed Lovell didn't hear anything at all, I guess it's a step in the right direction he now admits it was "muffled."

 

[abaddon]

I'm sure it's a metaphor for, "Just made things worse for him."

IMHO, that is a rather unlikely typo.

 

[nomuse]

You have not listened to the tapes......Your post is out of context. You need to listen to what was going in the Mission Control Room....

Don't blame me for responding to your first post, instead of your "variations on a theme" that all seem to be claiming different things.

My finding Kranz's multiple and clear claims of Oxygen tank explosion knowledge in both the book and film FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, Sy Liebergot's personal account of Apollo 13 drama events in his book, the EECOM tapes themselves and Kranz's own Flight Director Mission Log Book is the most significant event in the entire history of Apollo. More significant even that the staged Apollo 11 landing and phony Apollo 13 tank explosions themselves, as my findings place these staged events in their appropriate fraudulent perspective nomuse.

Meandering text block.

About all I can parse from above is "It was fake because it was fake."

Perhaps if you didn't put "phony" and "perp" and so on every fifth word, you might actually be able to frame an argument coherently.

You really shouldn't comment on this point again until after you have reviewed these materials along with Kranz's book and film as mentioned.

You must deal with my evidence now and it is incontrovertible.

Why? Other people have reviewed the materials and their findings are different than yours. More to the point, other people have reviewed, responded, and you simply (as you have done throughout the thread) ignored them.

Oh, and beg my forgiveness for not seeing the importance here. Once again, a personal (and possibly ghost-written) account given years after the incident is compared with primary sources and it appears to disagree. Wow. That's never happened in the field of non-fiction before. Stop the presses.

Oh, wait. What I meant to say was; "is compared with the INTERPRETATION of those primary sources by someone without any appropriate background or training in the field."

Which is to say; compared with a made-up story by someone who is writing many years after the event but has seen much less of the primary material.

 

[nomuse]

For those engineering students who elect to study forensic engineering as a specialty, occurrences such as Three Mile Island, Apollo 13, and the Challenger accident come to dominate their study of human factors in operator response. That is primarily a psychology study. But these students eat, sleep, and breathe the transcripts of operator activity in connection with these occurrences...

This sort of thing fascinates me.

In my work situation, I gravitate towards the worst possible case for which a repair or work-around exists. I wonder how much this "minimus" assumption is also "what I can fix"?

 

[Patrick1000]

That is not the substance eof my main objection.....

What do you have to say about this, Patrick?

It is abundantly clear in that quotation that Kranz is making a retrospective remark about what he wished he had known at the time. Yet you declared that he claimed he did know at the time, and that no other interpretation of his words was possible. How could you possibly have done so in good faith?

No wonder you adopted the tactic of admonishing people for commenting without having read the book. It must have been obvious to you that anyone who responds, other than by stating flat out that what you claimed is a total travesty of what Kranz actually wrote, cannot have read the passage you were so flagrantly misinterpreting.

Actually I thought the part above that comment about the O2 tank is what is incriminating. The part about the fuel cells and cryos being taken out by an explosion. When Kranz says he knew THAT based on the Loevell report of gas venting, that is what I view as incriminating. Not the bit about the O2 per se.....

If you go to You tube and watch the tv coverage, I was watching CBS Walter Cronkite, start from the beginning and watch all of the Apollo 13 CBS videos.

Roy Neal of CBS was actually in/at Mission Control.

If you watch Cronkite with Schirra(his guest expert), listen to Roy Neal who was relaying this and that from Mission Control, and then listen to the first NASA Press conference, all covered by these YouTube videos, CBS/Apollo 13 numbers one through a lot..... You'll realize that they, the NASA people, had no idea as to what happened early on. At least that is how they presented things. Some of course, the select few on the inside privy to the fraud knew what was up. But the majority of those working the, flight and NASA's public face, was one of "we do not know exactly what happened". This was the case early on, by early on I mean hours into the staged drama for starters.

Kranz is the odd ball out however. He claims 15 minutes in based on Lovell's venting observation , he knew AND EVERYBODY ELSE KNEW that an explosion took out the cryogenics and fuel cells. This EVERYBODY includes the guys in the CBS videos who are saying something else, not committing to any scenario because they do not know. They say it was "violent", a meteor is even discussed and not ruled out as a possibility.

Kranz does say an oxygen tank blew up explicitly in FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, but this is not my main ojection.

My main objection is that in FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, both book and film, Kranz claims he knew the details, explosion taking out fuel cells and cryos way before that could have been known. AND he also gave this rap about using the LM as a lifeboat 15 minutes into the drama. Way way way too early. Very very very phony I must say, obviously so. Hence his desperate ploy to pretend he knew what was going on early. Get it?

So the O2 tank explosion bit per se should not be construed as the focus of my objection. As a matter of fact, when Kranz claims he and everyone knew what was going on, it was still viewed by the Mission Control staff generally as a distinct and definite possibility that this was all an instrument problem, not a hardware problem.

Read my references, listen to the EECOM tapes, now watch the CBS videos as well....

It would seem Mr. Kranz now has a bigger problem than simply a phony stranded spaceship to rescue from pretend cislunar space....

 

[Patrick1000]

It was fake because......

Don't blame me for responding to your first post, instead of your "variations on a theme" that all seem to be claiming different things.



Meandering text block.

About all I can parse from above is "It was fake because it was fake."

Perhaps if you didn't put "phony" and "perp" and so on every fifth word, you might actually be able to frame an argument coherently.



Why? Other people have reviewed the materials and their findings are different than yours. More to the point, other people have reviewed, responded, and you simply (as you have done throughout the thread) ignored them.

Oh, and beg my forgiveness for not seeing the importance here. Once again, a personal (and possibly ghost-written) account given years after the incident is compared with primary sources and it appears to disagree. Wow. That's never happened in the field of non-fiction before. Stop the presses.

Oh, wait. What I meant to say was; "is compared with the INTERPRETATION of those primary sources by someone without any appropriate background or training in the field."

Which is to say; compared with a made-up story by someone who is writing many years after the event but has seen much less of the primary material.

It was fake because according to clear statements made by Kranz in both his book and film FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, 15 minutes into the staged drama, he, Kranz, and everyone else worthy of mention in Mission Control knew that an explosion took out the cryogenics(O2 tanks) and two fuel cells, but this cannot possibly be true because "everyone" in Mission Control, the important people anyway including Kranz himself and EECCOM Liebergot can be heard on the EECOM tapes discussing the problem, and 15 minutes in per Liebergot, Kranz and everyone else worthy of mention that can be heard on the EECOM loop tapes, there is absolutely no clear idea whatsoever as to what has happened. Per the EECOM tapes, 15 minutes into the staged drama, no one has made anything remotely resembling a statement to the effect that an explosion took out the cryos and fuel cells. Kranz made this all up.

This is why it is FAKE nomuse.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Fasten Your Seat Belts!!!!!10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ZERO

I'm sure it's a metaphor for, "Just made things worse for him."

Fasten Your Seat Belts!!!!!10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ZERO, Kranz has got one big mouth that has gotten him into a lot of trouble. If the below link does not work, go to YouTube and search, "The Huntley Brinkley Report On Apollo 13 1970".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwpZAs0MHDs

6 minutes and 40 seconds into the video a television journalist , Frank M...., cannot make out his last name, is seen discussing the "problem" with the Apollo 13 spacecraft. He says that something ruptured an oxygen tank and that rupture lead to the failure of 2 fuel cells.

Note the time of the report in the upper left; 106:40.

The drama began at 56 hours into the mission. So the Huntley and Brinkley crew was reporting to the nation and the world at large details of the space disaster only 50 hours after it had begaun that not even EECOMs Sy Liebergot and Clint Burton knew.

Remember, Liebergot is to work one full hour after the drama begins and at the time of his handing off duties to Clint Burton at the White Team to Black Team shift change, Liebergot has no clear idea as to what has happened. He does not know that an oxygen tank has ruptured. He knows he has probably lost oxygen from tank 2 and is losing oxygen from tank one. He knows he has probably lost 2 fuel cells, but how all this has happened, what exactly was going on, was a mystery. As a matter of fact, Glynn Lunney and Clint Burton don't give up on tank two when they come on duty. If one listens to the EECOM tapes, one hears Lunney and Burton trying to FIX tank two by getting its pressure up. These basic facts remain unchanged until the time at the very least when the sevice module is jetisonned and the "astronauts "look" at the allegedly damaged service module bay. Even then, the "astronauts", no one for that matter, would be able to tell that an oxygen tank blew/was ruptured.

Obviously, this is a sensational find and there will be much for me to say about it. I need to study its details more and review the EECOM tapes again, but the take home message will not change. Someone passed inside information to reporters, information about the nature of the Apollo 13 ship's damage, prior to that information being available in any meaningful sense. In other words, the disaster was scripted as the flight officers themselves did not know what Huntley and Brinkley knew 50 hours into this thing.

Like I said, and Kranz thought he had problems back in 1970..... Wait until he reads this.......

 

[SpitfireIX]

Two questions, Patrick.

First, if Apollo's being fake is so blindingly obvious just from reading books and transcripts, how is it that no one has discovered this before you?

Second, if it's so blindingly obvious, why don't you go find a couple of aspiring journalists and get them to break the story? Do you think they wouldn't jump at such an opportunity for an instant Pulitzer Prize?

 

[Patrick1000]

Note the startling inconsistencies here......

Note the startling inconsistencies here......

As above, Huntley and Brinkley are reporting details of the disaster that the officials giving the first Apollo 13 disaster oriented press conference(Kraft et. al per the CBS videos available on YouTube)are not themselves "publicly" aware of.

Sy Liebergot doesn't know what happened, Craft and the other guys at the press conference don't know, but Frank M....., journalist for the Huntley Brinkley report, he knows an O2 tank has rupruted and this has lead to fuel cell failure only 50 hours in to the disaster.

Pretty FAKE isn't it? And this one is impossible to squirm out of.

Ain't that right Gene?

EDIT/ Per threadworms comment just below, the Huntley Brinkley thing may be from more like 10 hours and not 50 hours into the staged disaster. If such does prove to be the case, it is all the more incriminating.....

Please do not make substantive edits to posts in a moderated thread after they have been approved. That makes more work for the Mods who then have to review your posts again for compliance with a moderated thread.

Posted By: LashL

 

[threadworm]

It's not a "1" in the "106" it's a colon ":"

They talk about the accident the previous night, about 22:15 EST on the 13th (03:15 GMT on the 14th.

This report looks more like it's breakfast news on the 14th, some 10 hours after it happened.

 

[JayUtah]

In my work situation, I gravitate towards the worst possible case for which a repair or work-around exists.

There is a corollary de maximus phenomenon, but it doesn't have reciprocal causes and phenomena as de minimus thinking.

I wonder how much this "minimus" assumption is also "what I can fix"?

Research is ongoing. This phenomenon was first formalized in the 1980s (i.e., long after Apollo) and is being developed as a complex psychological model. In complex systems, the designers and operators are conditioned to believe the system is overdesigned and therefore impervious to massive or complex failure by accidental means. This leads to thinking that failures are either minor or catastrophic (i.e., fatal). Engineers don't design against fatal scenarios.

However in the 1990s and into 2000 we started to accumulate knowledge on the nature of complex systems and to characterize a large segment of their behavior as unknowable. Hence since about 2000 we apply a more defense-in-depth approach to governing complex systems, but this is not entirely satisfactory as defense also adds complexity. But the side-effect realization of this new category of unknowable failures is the grown in non-fatal major accidents. Apollo 13 was a major accident in that the coupling in a complex system led to a major unanticipated failure, but the result was not immediately fatal. Ditto Three Mile Island: a stuck valve and a faulty sensor led to an undiagnosable failure in the system and a non-linear response from it. Sy Liebergot and the other EECOMs original felt that if the instrumentation were to be believed and was actually indicating such catastrophic damage to the environment and power systems, that the crew would already be dead.

Trained professionals such as surgeons, airline pilots, and industry controls operators (flight controllers fall into that category) generally err by de minimus thinking in their respective fields for the reasons I've already given. As the operator gains experience, he notes the often anomalous behavior of a complex system, which rarely works as smoothly as laymen believe. The systems tend to be overall resilient, and anomalous sensor readings or control actions are written off as "funnies" -- i.e., transient out-of-tolerance conditions that are absorbed by the design margins and never investigated further. Apollo 13 had suffered several "funnies" in the sensors attached to its cryo system. This factored into the controllers' response and initial troubleshooting. They were conditioned not to trust the tank sensors for that mission.

The other component of de minimus thinking, to which you refer, is a self-preservational response to responsibility. Witness the latest accident in the foundering of the Italian cruise ship in which the captain is now charged with abandoning his ship. The inner monologue in such cases goes, "I'm responsible for the safety of this system, and now that it's not working right I hope it's something minor otherwise I'll get blamed for it." An additional level of this thinking occurs when the operator realizes he has made a mistake -- "Oops, I really screwed up; let's hope the consequences are not egregious." And standing to the side of it is production pressure -- the perceived need to keep the system operational: "When do you want me to launch, Thiokol? Next April?"

All these cognitive responses create perceptual filters that cloud our interpretation of data. Correcting some of it is a matter of training and of managing organizational roles in the human aspects of system operation. Correcting other parts of it require engineering insight. Engineers are responsible for the human-machine interface, and so a great deal of new work is being done along two fronts: first, evaluating designs more aggressively for coupling and non-linearity; and second, taking more care in ESD and instrumentation design.

 

[Erock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwpZAs0MHDs

6 minutes and 40 seconds into the video a television journalist , Frank M...., cannot make out his last name, is seen discussing the "problem" with the Apollo 13 spacecraft. He says that something ruptured an oxygen tank and that rupture lead to the failure of 2 fuel cells.

Note the time of the report in the upper left; 106:40.

Did you listen to the first sentence he said? Did you look at the date in the top right?

Your detective capabilities are worse than your debating skills. It is now April 14th and he is referring to the incident from LAST NIGHT. I have no clue what you think you know, but it's on a par with your repetition of the 15 minute Kranz quote, which everybody but you can see is nonsense.

The drama began at 56 hours into the mission. So the Huntley and Brinkley crew was reporting to the nation and the world at large details of the space disaster only 50 hours after it had begaun that not even EECOMs Sy Liebergot and Clint Burton knew.

Baffling ignorance.

....snip wall of guff.....

Obviously, this is a sensational find and there will be much for me to say about it.

Sensational ignorance, and an inability to read or listen properly. No matter what is presented to you, you just cannot acknowledge you have been painfully and embarassingly wrong in virtually every post you make.

Like I said, and Kranz thought he had problems back in 1970..... Wait until he reads this.......

What you say has no bearing on reality, with yet again a couple of large posts and ignoring the rebuttal. Anybody would think you were trolling here