Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[threadworm]

I also happily stand corrected on the timestamp

 

[R.A.F.]

My objection is not that such contingencies were not anticipated.

Here is the entire post where you made that claim...

I had for the most part thought Kranz was clean, but now I know almost certainly otherwise.

I was watching NASA A RETROSPECTIVE disc 3, the part on Apollo 13. This is all NASA's own material. 7 minutes and 20 seconds or so into the Apollo 13 section, Kranz says even though there is a problem with the Apollo 13 command module, they have the LM and they can count on the lander to get the astronauts most of the rest of the way home.

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM, BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

So here in this regard, we have Gene Kranz, absolutely unqualified to make any determination about such matters, cluing us in on the "script" as it will play out well before the alleged problem for the alleged cislunar ship has even been assessed.

Kranz knows the script BEFORE!!!! the play. He is more likely than not, an Apollo Program Fraud insider. I will add him to my ever growing list of perps. Counting all of the astronauts, I must have 40 or maybe even 50 perps by now. I'll make a new list soon and post it.

Nothing more need be said...

 

[Erock]

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.....

NO! As numerous people have told you, it was the evening.

The evering of the 14th.

Why can't they report something that the available evidence in Mission control points to? This has been pointed out to you as well.

Venting. Oxygen readings going down. Muffled/loud bang when he stirred a cryo switch. Then moving on, unable to stop the escape.

Ruptured oxygen tank. You can huff and puff with your diatribe all you like, but once again, you've been completely busted.

 

[R.A.F.]

...why don't you do something amazing and admit you are wrong.

Because it's easier to just move the "goalposts" than to admit defeat?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

No help from our studio audience, please!

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.

Seriously, though, I'd forgotten that he'd made some statements to that effect when he was called on the lack of originality in his claims. However, I was more thinking of the true experts you reference in your next paragraph; possibly I should have made that clear.

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.

But what about the space experts in China and Russia? How is it that they are hoodwinked, or so emotionally invested in the truth of Apollo?

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.

How do you think his pretending to have expertise that he clearly doesn't (medical, for example) fits into this? Is he just an extreme example?

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.

True, but how's he going to get the word out if all he does is post on Internet forums that are mostly read by people who are strongly disinclined to believe him?

 

[Garrison]

Here is the entire post where you made that claim...



Nothing more need be said...

Well except maybe that nothing in that little rant of Patrick's make sense if he knew that they had studied the 'lifeboat' scenario in advance. So clearly he just tried to retcon that piece of information he leaned from other posters into his argument.

 

[nomuse]

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.....

How does this work?

Although you frequently indulge in theatrics, I don't believe you have a background in drama.

According to the usual Apollo Denialist script, almost everyone in those transcripts was out of the loop; they were reacting to created data. Most directors would call this a risky method, and fewer still would want to do it live, without a chance to edit the results. Be that as it may, it is also technically quite difficult to pull off.

In the real world, you might chose (as the writers of TNG did far too often) to first rough out the dramatic development, the necessary "beats," then take that rough script to the technical consultant who would fill in believable-sounding techno-speak. To achieve this, you need to give everyone the script. Pure and simple.

To present a series of technical puzzles to a group of technicians who are otherwise not in on the plot, you need a puzzle master; you need to add MORE people to your conspiracy, people who can make up all the appropriate details in order to allow the technicians to solve the puzzle on schedule. This is a strikingly difficult endeavor, and one fraught with potential complications, and I simply can not see a billion-dollar conspiracy trusting it to not go wrong.

In any case. Assuming a purely scripted and acted story, either knowing immediately what the specific problem is, or not knowing, are both good dramatic choices. The implications are still there to be explored "on screen"; can we recover, how much power will we have left, what about the fresh drinking water, etc.

During the re-telling of the story by Krantz, years later, there are also multiply good dramatic choices; presenting the information as they knew it as the time, for instance, or presenting the sequence of events in a "Had we but known it then..." manner. None are mistakes, nor intended to mislead.

So there simply is no connection. Whether the people at the time knew exactly what had happened at 00 hours 00 minutes or whether they knew it fifteen minutes later has nothing to do with whether the event has been scripted. And whether Krantz explains exactly what happened in chronological sequence or makes other narrative choices also has nothing to do with whether the event has been scripted.



But I want to leave this and explore something different. Your claim in part is based on the fact that certain magic words do not appear in the transcripts you have studied.

Let's take a different model. I go down to the lumber store.

"I want to look at the #2 first....if it is really knotty I'll have to upgrade to Select."

"We have some appearance in the back, you know."

"Heh. Not doing cabinetry here...just need the strength. Will you let me pull from the stack or do I need to accept what's on the top?"

"You can sort. Here's a cart for when you are ready -- just take it up front."

Notice that not one of us ever said the word "white pine." Heck -- neither one of us once said the word "wood!" So obviously I was lying about buying some sticks of white pine.

Patrick, you are listening to transcripts from very experienced people who have been living and breathing the systems under their care for up to a decade. They are using heavy jargon and abbreviations and in-house lingo as well as jumping over basic overviews to delve immediately into technical details.

Over and over in the Apollo transcripts, entire conversations will take place that are absolutely meaningless out of context. In more than one case in the available transcripts, there are conversational sequences that no-one now has yet been able to reconstruct just what it was they were talking about -- even the people involved!

And you think that you can listen to these, during a panicked fifteen minutes, and decide anything based on the lack of specific subtext "aka 'da oxygen tank done explody'" being made super-text?

Ridiculous.

 

[nomuse]

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

Thank you so much for these. These are wonderful.

(Where's that book, Jay?)

As I was reading your post the Therac-25 jumped out at me. Under-trained operators in a "give the dose, move on to the next patient waiting in line" mentality, a system that presented itself as failsafe, and a far-too-easy way to ignore the alert it did give (aka the meaningless error code, the context of other false alarms, and the ability to hit one button to proceed anyhow.)

(From what I've read, you could teach a whole course from the Therac-25, starting from inappropriate re-use of software in a different engineering environment, all the way through to the criminally reprehensible response of the company when reports of problems began trickling in.)



I wonder if troubleshooter roles predispose towards that "de maximus" thinking you speak of. And, yeah...both can be an inappropriate reaction.

 

[R.A.F.]

My objection is not that such contingencies were not anticipated.

Just so we're all clear here...you are retracting your previous "no LM lifeboat contingencies" claim, correct??

It's something you really need to do...admit your error. It's what an actual scientific researcher would do...so I expect nothing less from you...


Admit your error.

 

[nomuse]

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....

So...your conspiracy requires that no-one working at Mission Control watches TV?

Or have you reversed yourself one more time and now everyone there is also in on it from the start?

 

[JayUtah]

Thank you so much for these. These are wonderful.

Thanks. It's nice to know people read my walls of text.

From what I've read, you could teach a whole course from the Therac-25, starting from inappropriate re-use of software in a different engineering environment, all the way through to the criminally reprehensible response of the company when reports of problems began trickling in.

That sort of thing is part of how I make my living.

I wonder if troubleshooter roles predispose towards that "de maximus" thinking you speak of. And, yeah...both can be an inappropriate reaction.

It depends on the predispositions and the role the troubleshooter plays in the human organization. Some service organizations will intentionally provide a de maximus diagnosis because they are upselling their service (e.g., selling you a new motherboard for your computer when all you need is a new RAM stick). This is generally not what we mean in the context of forensic engineering. Generally we want to discover problems in operator thinking, such as an operator opting to replace a control board because he doesn't want to take the trouble to diagnose it down to a cheaper part. In military contexts, where paranoia helps save your life, de maximus thinking prevails.

 

[R.A.F.]

Well except maybe that nothing in that little rant of Patrick's make sense if he knew that they had studied the 'lifeboat' scenario in advance. So clearly he just tried to retcon that piece of information he leaned from other posters into his argument.

I agree...or to be "brief", Patrick was caught making a mistake, and he doesn't want to be held accountable.

Face it, Patrick, you own this mistake, and admitting it is your only recourse.


Admit your mistake.

 

[Patrick1000]

I simply assumed 06:40 meant am......

NO! As numerous people have told you, it was the evening.

The evering of the 14th.

Why can't they report something that the available evidence in Mission control points to? This has been pointed out to you as well.

Venting. Oxygen readings going down. Muffled/loud bang when he stirred a cryo switch. Then moving on, unable to stop the escape.

Ruptured oxygen tank. You can huff and puff with your diatribe all you like, but once again, you've been completely busted.

I simply assumed 06:40 meant am......

The exact time of the NBC journalist's spiel shall be determined and confirmed soon enough. My point stands regardless. There was no reason to believe the oxygen leak was due to an oxygen tank rupture at the time of the journalist's report. And it is also important to note that despite oxygen leaking in this stage scenario, there were other gases in the staged service module bay, hydrogen, nitrogen , that could have been leaking. And , what was noted to be leaking need not have been a gas in this staged scenario.

The critical, main, undeniable and inculpating point was and remains, details regarding the exact nature of the damage to the imaginary spaceship Apollo 13 such as a tank rupture could not have been known with any certainty whatsoever, not even after the alleged astronauts saw the alleged service module with its alleged blown off panel. Such a determination could have only been made by virure of a virtual postmortem on the ship.

The whole thing is an insane scam beyond belief.......

More FACTS!!!! to follow.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Nothing more needs to be said.......

Here is the entire post where you made that claim...



Nothing more need be said...

Nothing more needs to be said?.......No one was aware of the LM capabilities at that time RAF, despite the bogus "lifeboat drills".

The lunar module aluminum is 12 thousandths of an inch thick. That is 3 sheets of aluminum foil per Ton Kelly the ships's designer. Also per Kelly, one could easily put a boot through it. No one knew how warm or cold a LM would get "sitting in the sun" rotating or not for several days through space relatively powered down as it was being used as a "life boat". This was only one question and there were many others. The scenario is FAKE RAF....

When Kranz makes that ludicrous ra rah rah rah spiel in the first place, when he first makes that ludicrously OUT OF PLACE BOGUS STATEMENT, one knows this whole thing is phony because first of all Kranz is talking about using the LM as a lifeboat when that conversation need not yet occur. For all they know, the fuel cell and O2 tank pressure problems may be instrument problems or fixable hardware/mechanical problems. Remember they wanted to go to the moon. What if what was "venting" in their phony scenario turned out to be something other than O2, and what if the "venting" stopped? Well, it did not because all of this is so FAKE. But in the context of the bogus staged disaster, such was a very reasonable thing to think. And in listening to the tapes, the EECOM tapes, many of the flight officers were thinking this way. The non perp, non Kranz types.

 

[Patrick1000]

I mentioned this at least once before......

Well except maybe that nothing in that little rant of Patrick's make sense if he knew that they had studied the 'lifeboat' scenario in advance. So clearly he just tried to retcon that piece of information he leaned from other posters into his argument.

I mentioned this at least once before......I was/am well aware of the "lifeboat" scenario having been drilled/simmed before. THIS IS EMPHASIZED IN LOVELL'S BOOK FOR GOD'S SAKE. Need I repeat that again...??????

My objection is that Kranz's bringing up the LM as lifeboat scenario 15 minutes in to the staged Apollo 13 drama is out of context, WAY TOO EARLY. It is inappropriate.

I have no problem with lander as lifeboat. I do have a problem with Kranz claiming he knew the cryo tanks blew based on Lovell's mentioning that something was venting. Sy Liebergot did not draw that conclusion though Kranz claimed Liebergot and everyone else did. I therefore have trouble understanding why Kranz is already mentioning using the lander as a lifeboat when Liebergot and others believe there was a reasonable chance still at 15 minutes in that this may have been an instrumentation problem.

Feel free to criticize my point/debate me as you will regarding the point I am making about Kranz's TIMING. Your pointing out that I was unaware of the "lifeboat" ploy is irrelevant, and more importantly simply does not apply. I was and am very well aware of it. I have read Lovell's phony book back and forth 10 times. I am well aware of Lovell emphasizing this in his fraudulent book.

 

[Patrick1000]

John Aaron, Master "Overt Apollo Operative" And Understated Perp

The mellifluous, understated, measured delivery of John Aaron is both disarming and dangerous. Of all the Apollo Program Perps, he ranks high in skill and stealth, and does so for none too obvious reasons.

In a film I acquired, APOLLO 13 THE UNTOLD STORY, from 1995 by Global Science Productions, John Aaron is interviewed and incriminates himself with as much conviction as Kranz, but Aaron is a slippery one, and it winds up that he was just a bit harder to "catch", but catch him, nail him I did.

In the film referenced above , Aaron claims that once all heck broke loose at Mission Control, he was called by Houston personal and informed of the alleged disaster. He claims he was informed that there appeared to be major problems with Apollo 13. Aaron states that the individual who contacted him informed the EECOM that some personal at Mission Control believed the Apollo 13 problems to be instrumentational. That is, problems with the sensors and so forth, not actual mechanical problems, not actual hardware problems.

So Aaron tells the Houston caller to read him some of the data , and then Aaron goes on to claim in his film interview that based on the data he was read over the phone, he can tell these were real/true mechanical problems and not simply sensing/instrumentation problems. By the way astronaut Young claims he was looking over Liebergot's shoulder at the time of the drama's inception and he, like the ever clairvoyant Aaron, was also able to tell this was not an instrumentation issue.

Back to Aaron..... How is it that an EECOM at home and without access to context and all the relevant data can determine that a problem is hardware based and not an instrumentation type problem?

Answer; He, Aaron, is a fraud, a perp, and a slippery and very sneaky one at that.....Remember he is a key player in designing the EECOM aspects of the Apollo 13 phony save.

I had nailed Aaron before, but this one is even better. How's that for a service bay problem John??????

 

[slyjoe]

Very interesting about de minimus vs de maximus thinking.

I wonder how this relates to the general approach that there is a single cause to problems. Almost all major problems seem to never be traced to a single cause - X happens, and by itself no big deal. BUT, Y happens right after X, and then the cascade happens.

Some of this seems to be the approach of "eliminate single points of failure". It is very complex to model multiple points of failure.

My interactions with SATCONS seems to not necessarily be the approach Jay is describing (minimus vs. maximus), but rather, the thought process is that a singular event caused all the problems.

In hindsight, yes, a single event caused the problem, but there is a cascade effect that makes it difficult in the heat of the moment to ascertain exactly what happened.

As Patrick has absolutely no engineering background (see lack of numbers but instead uses to "near", "close", "lost", etc.), the fact that the actual causes of accidents is much clearer in hindsight seems to have made no impact on our OP.

 

[slyjoe]

I simply assumed 06:40 meant am......

The exact time of the NBC journalist's spiel shall be determined and confirmed soon enough. My point stands regardless.

...snip

A few posters have mentioned this already as typical CT thinking (or lack thereof) - doesn't this sound exactly like the argument that the BBC reported WTC 7 was going to fall before it did?

 

[nomuse]

I simply assumed 06:40 meant am......

The exact time of the NBC journalist's spiel shall be determined and confirmed soon enough. My point stands regardless. There was no reason to believe the oxygen leak was due to an oxygen tank rupture at the time of the journalist's report. And it is also important to note that despite oxygen leaking in this stage scenario, there were other gases in the staged service module bay, hydrogen, nitrogen , that could have been leaking. And , what was noted to be leaking need not have been a gas in this staged scenario.

The critical, main, undeniable and inculpating point was and remains, details regarding the exact nature of the damage to the imaginary spaceship Apollo 13 such as a tank rupture could not have been known with any certainty whatsoever, not even after the alleged astronauts saw the alleged service module with its alleged blown off panel. Such a determination could have only been made by virure of a virtual postmortem on the ship.

The whole thing is an insane scam beyond belief.......

More FACTS!!!! to follow.....

So let me get this straight....

The "Lost Bird" proves Apollo was a hoax because no-one would say "Here are the absolutely accurate coordinates, full stop."

Whereas, the "Oxygen Tank Explosion" proves Apollo was a hoax because some sources DID say "Here's what happened to the spacecraft."


In the one case, they made up their minds too late to suit you, in the other, they made up their minds too early. Except that neither case is actually as you describe it, of course. In the navigational case, there were several different methods employed each with a different range of error. In the oxygen tank case, there was ongoing effort to continue ruling out alternate possibilities even as one scenario rose to the fore.

 

[AdMan]

I simply assumed 06:40 meant am......

The exact time of the NBC journalist's spiel shall be determined and confirmed soon enough. My point stands regardless. There was no reason to believe the oxygen leak was due to an oxygen tank rupture at the time of the journalist's report. And it is also important to note that despite oxygen leaking in this stage scenario, there were other gases in the staged service module bay, hydrogen, nitrogen , that could have been leaking. And , what was noted to be leaking need not have been a gas in this staged scenario.

The critical, main, undeniable and inculpating point was and remains, details regarding the exact nature of the damage to the imaginary spaceship Apollo 13 such as a tank rupture could not have been known with any certainty whatsoever, not even after the alleged astronauts saw the alleged service module with its alleged blown off panel. Such a determination could have only been made by virure of a virtual postmortem on the ship.

The whole thing is an insane scam beyond belief.......

More FACTS!!!! to follow.....

No. You initially thought that the counter read 106:40, which you incorrectly (and without looking into it at all, or noticing the "1" was a colon, and that the counter started at 00:00 at the start of the recording) assumed meant this was mission elapsed time. And you grabbed on to this as "evidence" of a hoax.

This is just another example of your extremely poor research skills, and how careless you are when looking for evidence of the supposed "hoax".

And you still expect anyone to take you seriously, Patrick/Dr. Tea?

"FACTS"? Don't make me laugh.