Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

When Kranz says he knew THAT based on the Loevell report of gas venting, that is what I view as incriminating.

It's not incriminating; it's just engineering.

The report of venting is a second data point that supports the interpretation of the O2 tank sensor readings as an actual loss and not an instrumentation failure. Prior to that, the O2 tank readings had been dismissed as a symptom of an electrical failure.

Now there are only four things that can vent from the service module: fuel, oxidizer, oxygen, and hydrogen. With visual confirmation of venting, and instrumentation readings showing depleting oxygen, the interpretation then takes a giant leap forward. Two independent observations have now pointed to one intermediate conclusion -- we're losing oxygen. The explanation of why the oxygen was departing wouldn't come for another hour, but with the realization that the O2 readings are real, the criticality of that consumable then immediately took over from electricity as the limiting factor in Mission Control's work.

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.

No, that is your personal interpretation.

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

This is the second time you have changed your "main objection." People would take you more seriously if you acknowledged that the reason you change your "main objection" is because it has been refuted by more knowledgeable authority, instead of trying to pretend that you're the master and commander of all things Apollo-historical.

My main objection is that in FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION, both book and film, Kranz claims he knew the details...

At the time he wrote the book and made the film, he did know the details. Therefore in retelling the story many years later, he puts details where they make more sense. When we tell the story of, say, Three Mile Island, we tell the story of what happened -- not the story of determining what happened. When we describe the loss-of-coolant portion of the accident, we say right off the bat that the pressure-operated relief valve stuck. We don't leave that detail a mystery until we get to the part where the investigation determined, much later, that this had happened.

And I gave you another example of how historical narration arranges details in a more logical order in retrospect, not the order in which the details were discovered at the time. So this is not just Jay talking. You have the burden to prove your interpretation is the right one, since other interpretations exist. You don't get to beg that question.

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

Patrick, you stubbornly refuse to see that your argument rests entirely on your interpretation of Kranz' retrospection, not on the authority of the contemporary documentary record. No headway can be made on this point until you abandon the notion that your interpretation is necessarily infallible. Hammering the documentary record as a means of distracting from having to defend your interpretation will not convince anyone.

 

[JayUtah]

Sy Liebergot doesn't know what happened, Craft and the other guys at the press conference don't know...

No, this is too simplistic a summary. You don't get to simplify an hour's worth of highly detailed technical troubleshooting down to a one-sentence summary, interpret that summary any way you want, and then complain because there's an inconsistency between your interpretation and the details when you go back to them.

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

No, this is the typical layman's approach to history when he's trying to trump up some sort of nonsense. The details-to-summary-and-back-to-details gambit is a pretty tried-and-true conspiracy theorist tactic.

Ain't that right Gene?

I still don't have your contact information so that I can arrange a meeting between you and Kranz. You said you were amenable to it. Why are you dragging your feet on this? Were you bluffing?

 

[JayUtah]

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

He isn't even going to know who you are until you get me your contact information so that I can give his people some way to reach you and set up a meeting. Until then, bravado from you just sounds silly.

 

[Patrick1000]

Yes threadworm, it seems you are correct......

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.

Yes threadworm, it seems you are correct......It would appear that Frank M.... the NBC journalist is reporting at 1:06:40, one day, six hours and 40 minutes into the flight. As the disaster occurred 56 hours in, threadworm is correct, Frank M's report on the O2 tank rupture was from roughly 10 hours into the staged drama.

No one knew, no one such as an EECOM or other flight officer of note, 10 hours into this that an 02 tank blew/was ruprured. Huntley and Brinkley have inside information as mentioned above and the Apollo 13 Mission is proven stone cold fraudulent on that basis alone.

 

[JayUtah]

Two questions, Patrick.

The answers to those questions are already there, to those who have read this thread entirely.

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?

The answer Patrick gives is that all other other Apollo alternative history researchers conspiracy theorists are too mired down in the details of photographs, rocks, and other actual evidence to do what Patrick has done: guess why Apollo was hoaxed. That makes his insight so much more valuable, and so unique. He has the Big Picture, and doesn't worry about actual facts or expertise.

And of course the bona fide subject-matter experts fall into two categories. Either we are hoodwinked -- "scammed" in Patrick's terminology -- by the Evil Mainstream, because they are just that crafty and insidious, and only his infallible common sense can see through the fog of deception. Or we are too emotionally invested in our deeply-rooted beliefs of Apollo's success to see the obvious truths he's dishing out.

In other words, this is the standard conspiracy-theory bubble. He creates a fantasy world in which he is the hero saving the sheeple from oppression, and whatever knowledge or expertise he possesses, by whatever virtue, is automatically sufficient to infallibly determine anything that needs to be judged.

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?

They surely would, and that would deprive Patrick of his stated desire to be written up in the history books as the singular scholar that undid Apollo. Conspiracism is not so much about uncovering wrongdoing as it is about pointing lots of praise back to the person who allegedly did all that uncovering.

 

[AdMan]

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.

I don't think that counter is the actual time--it's more likely just counting the time from the start of the broadcast.

If you notice, it starts off at :00:00.

The Huntley Brinkley Report was NBC's flagship evening news program. This wasn't a breakfast news show.

 

[threadworm]

As another confirmation of the timing, President Nixon's visit to Goddard is recorded in his diary is recorded as being at 3:53 pm on the 14th.

My assumption that it was breakfast news relied on them using 24 hour clocks. They clearly weren't, so this news report is early evening news on the 14th.

If anyone cares to look for youtuber zellco321, you can review lots of TV footage of the crisis.

The first one of the series on his channel (I'll be glad when I can post links) shows very clearly that the disaster was covered in detail by the major news networks, and at 01:00 EST on the 14th Walter Cronkite was able to piece together quite substantial amounts of information.

The suggestion that no-one knew what was going on is bogus, and clearly not true.

 

[Patrick1000]

I read his book 4 times and listened to the EECOM tapes 4 times.....

No, this is too simplistic a summary. You don't get to simplify an hour's worth of highly detailed technical troubleshooting down to a one-sentence summary, interpret that summary any way you want, and then complain because there's an inconsistency between your interpretation and the details when you go back to them.



No, this is the typical layman's approach to history when he's trying to trump up some sort of nonsense. The details-to-summary-and-back-to-details gambit is a pretty tried-and-true conspiracy theorist tactic.



I still don't have your contact information so that I can arrange a meeting between you and Kranz. You said you were amenable to it. Why are you dragging your feet on this? Were you bluffing?

I read his book 4 times and listened to the EECOM tapes 4 times.....I think I know what Liebergot said.....

 

[threadworm]

Yes threadworm, it seems you are correct......It would appear that Frank M.... the NBC journalist is reporting at 1:06:40, one day, six hours and 40 minutes into the flight. As the disaster occurred 56 hours in, threadworm is correct, Frank M's report on the O2 tank rupture was from roughly 10 hours into the staged drama.

No one knew, no one such as an EECOM or other flight officer of note, 10 hours into this that an 02 tank blew/wasw ruprured. Huntley and Brinkley have inside information as mentioned above and the Apollo 13 Mission is proven stone cold fraudulent on that basis alone.

You aren't paying attention.

There is no "1". It is not 1:06:40. That would be 30 hours and 40 minutes. It is just :06:40 as in 18:40 EST on the 14th of April.

56 hours would be 2:08:00.

You seem to think that the news channels were reporting it 26 hours before it happened.

 

[Patrick1000]

The point is not that "no one knew"......

As another confirmation of the timing, President Nixon's visit to Goddard is recorded in his diary is recorded as being at 3:53 pm on the 14th.

My assumption that it was breakfast news relied on them using 24 hour clocks. They clearly weren't, so this news report is early evening news on the 14th.

If anyone cares to look for youtuber zellco321, you can review lots of TV footage of the crisis.

The first one of the series on his channel (I'll be glad when I can post links) shows very clearly that the disaster was covered in detail by the major news networks, and at 01:00 EST on the 14th Walter Cronkite was able to piece together quite substantial amounts of information.

The suggestion that no-one knew what was going on is bogus, and clearly not true.

The point is not that "no one knew"......The point rather is that the reporters know more than the flight officers actually know, and the reporters know what they know BEFORE the flight officers could make such determinations.

One as such may conclude with utter confidence that the disaster is staged.

You have obviously not listened to the EECOM tapes threadworm....You are buying into what the reporters are telling you, and the reporters are telling you what Kranz and his perp cohorts told them....

 

[Patrick1000]

This is hardly a standard "CT bubble" Jay......

The answers to those questions are already there, to those who have read this thread entirely.



The answer Patrick gives is that all other other Apollo alternative history researchers conspiracy theorists are too mired down in the details of photographs, rocks, and other actual evidence to do what Patrick has done: guess why Apollo was hoaxed. That makes his insight so much more valuable, and so unique. He has the Big Picture, and doesn't worry about actual facts or expertise.

And of course the bona fide subject-matter experts fall into two categories. Either we are hoodwinked -- "scammed" in Patrick's terminology -- by the Evil Mainstream, because they are just that crafty and insidious, and only his infallible common sense can see through the fog of deception. Or we are too emotionally invested in our deeply-rooted beliefs of Apollo's success to see the obvious truths he's dishing out.

In other words, this is the standard conspiracy-theory bubble. He creates a fantasy world in which he is the hero saving the sheeple from oppression, and whatever knowledge or expertise he possesses, by whatever virtue, is automatically sufficient to infallibly determine anything that needs to be judged.



They surely would, and that would deprive Patrick of his stated desire to be written up in the history books as the singular scholar that undid Apollo. Conspiracism is not so much about uncovering wrongdoing as it is about pointing lots of praise back to the person who allegedly did all that uncovering.

This is hardly a standard "CT bubble" Jay......

Since when has Kranz last been flat out nailed like this? Never... It is a first....

 

[AdMan]

You aren't paying attention.

There is no "1". It is not 1:06:40. That would be 30 hours and 40 minutes. It is just :06:40 as in 18:40 EST on the 14th of April.

56 hours would be 2:08:00.

You seem to think that the news channels were reporting it 26 hours before it happened.

As mentioned above, that counter is simply counting the time from the start of the recording (notice it changes every 10 seconds). It is not the actual time, and it definitely has no relation to the mission time.

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

Actually, this is from the Huntley-Brinkley Report On NBC. If I recall correctly, it was aired at either 6:30 PM or 7:00 PM Eastern Time. For Patrick's benefit, the science reporter was Frank McGee (my favorite of that era) - I've always suspected that Lane Smith based his character in From The Earth To The Moon on him.

Now, Patrick, if you'd really been doing the research you should have, you would have found that this clip was from the Vanderbilt University archives - they apparently started preserving these news shows when they found the networks weren't. That would explain the time stamp at the top; it was from the recorder they were using (I found this by a cry quick reading of the comments on the YouTube page). Further, if you'd been paying attention, the last two digits increments by 10 every 10 seconds. So threadworms has that right: you were looking at a time stamp of the recording that indicated 0 hours, six minutes, 40 seconds.

Now, I haven't dug through everything, so I don't know where Mr. McGee, a respected journalist of that time, got the "ruptured tank" comment. Probably a working hypothesis based on the available facts, either from NASA, or based on his own extensive knowledge of the systems.

When you learn to research objectively and not hand-wave and try to fit the world into your preconceived notions, then I might start respecting you. As I've said before, you can love, hate, or not care about the historical fact that we went to the Apollo program was real - but you cannot deny it.

 

[JayUtah]

I read his book 4 times and listened to the EECOM tapes 4 times.....I think I know what Liebergot said.....

Why aren't you apparently interested in whether Sy agrees with you?

 

[Patrick1000]

I see threadworm.....

You aren't paying attention.

There is no "1". It is not 1:06:40. That would be 30 hours and 40 minutes. It is just :06:40 as in 18:40 EST on the 14th of April.

56 hours would be 2:08:00.

You seem to think that the news channels were reporting it 26 hours before it happened.

I see threadworm.....

You are correct. It IS 6:40 in the am on the morning of April 14. And of course my points still stand regardless. This very important detail about the time of Frank M's reporting does not change the material fact that the television journalists are reporting a ruptured oxygen tank before anyone could have known that an oxygen tank had in fact ruptured.

Thank you for the correction.....

 

[abaddon]

I read his book 4 times and listened to the EECOM tapes 4 times.....I think I know what Liebergot said.....

I doubt it. You couldn't even find Frank McGee's name.

 

[Erock]

Patrick,

Your whole case relies on your interpretation of an older Kranz talking about what he would have done differently. He refers to the oxygen tank explosion, but what he does not do is indicate that that was what was known or assumed at the time. It is patently and stunningly obvious that this is so.

You are totally wrong about the 14th April broadcast - your post was another Gollum dance of triumph, just before you crash and burn yet again.

Now, why don't you do something amazing and admit you are wrong. I can't speak for others, but I suspect they will be far more impressed at you for doing it, than continuing to dig yourself deeper into yet another great big hole of nonsense and denial.

Go on admit it.

 

[vtbub]

Frank McGee, is the reporter you keep fouling up his name. Along with Jules Bergman at ABC, and Walter Cronkite at CBS, these were the top television space journalists of the time. Throw in Roy Neal and Jay Barbarie, who reported for years from Johnson Space Center, and you have a who's who in reporting the story from the start of Mercury through, in Barbarie's case, the whole shuttle program.

These men have probably forgotten more about the space program, along with some of the posters here, than the rest of us will ever know.

I eagerly await the next "theory" to be blown apart.

 

[Garrison]

I see threadworm.....

You are correct. It IS 6:40 in the am on the morning of April 14. And of course my points still stand regardless. This very important detail about the time of Frank M's reporting does not change the material fact that the television journalists are reporting a ruptured oxygen tank before anyone could have known that an oxygen tank had in fact ruptured.

Thank you for the correction.....

What 'changes the material fact' is that the number in question isn't the time of day, as has been pointed out several times to you.

 

[JayUtah]

This is hardly a standard "CT bubble" Jay...

Yes, it is. You're a very run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist, Patrick. Your arguments are the same tired song-and-dance of evasion and layman's fumbling that we've had to suffer through since Bill Kaysing. You've built a little fantasy world where you're never wrong and you don't have to be a qualified expert. This is why your arguments fail to convince people who live in the real world.

Since when has Kranz last been flat out nailed like this? Never... It is a first....

You say "flat out nailed" as if you had ultimate confidence in your findings. Yet somehow my Inbox is still missing your contact information so that you can rub it in his face in person. Why is that? Still in that bubble, I guess.

Your argument is still based wholly on your private interpretation. And when asked to defend your interpretation, your only answer is, "I cannot possibly be wrong." Yeah, that's not conspiracy thinking...