Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[nomuse]

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

They landed the thing on the MOON. How much more testing would you require to "be aware of the LM capabilities?" It had proven itself as a spacecraft capable of functioning independently and maintaining human life.

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.

Oh, give me a.....!

For someone who claims to barely know who Bart Sibrel is, you sure use his playbook a bunch. Patrick, you are the last person to be able to speak knowledgeably about the design and capabilities of the LM. What, next are you going to haul up the venerable AS11-40-5922 and start blathering about "Cardboard spacecraft?"

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....

On the freaking MOON. In the sunlight.

You think they just pulled the thermal behavior out of a hat? You think they just crossed their fingers it wouldn't become a hotbox while on the Moon? Or maybe just, they calculated and tested and knew the thermal characteristics -- how much was picked up by insolation, how many watts were put out by cabin electronics, etc.

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,

In the time you took to compose and type this meaningless insults, you could have quoted his actual words. Oh, sorry -- a REAL researcher would do that. Not you.

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.

This from the man who demands a difficult and potentially dangerous abort be performed before the cause of an astronaut's stomach upset has been determined. The man who demands a difficult and potentially dangerous abort after a lightning strike in which no damage has been detected.

Apparently the goose and the gander are not even nodding acquaintances in your world.

And let me remind you, it is Kranz's job to consider all possible scenarios, including those of low probability. If he wasn't thinking about the lifeboat scenario the moment the CM lost power, he wasn't doing his job.

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?

It seems to have escaped your notice that they didn't leap from their chairs and abandon CM and mission the moment the first alarm hit.

What do you think Mission Control was doing for so many hours? Writing their memoirs? They were nailing down specifics of what had happened and seeing what could be salvaged of the mission. Which, over their developing understanding of the accident, slowly translated into determining the best way to bring the crew home alive.

And that call; the moment that it is decided that an abort has taken place, is the call and the job of the flight director.

Once again I have to ask why you chastise the flight director for not making the decision to abort for an UNDAMAGED spacecraft, but do chastise him for making the decision to abort a spacecraft that has suffered an explosion, loss of power, and is venting!

 

[SpitfireIX]

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?

Because he was extremely familiar with the equipment and the meaning of the readings.

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??????

For more than the hundredth time, you are not the least bit qualified to make any such determination. This is simply another in your long series of extremely lame arguments from incredulity.

 

[nomuse]

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?

Do you understand the difference between signal and noise?

 

[SUSpilot]

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.

Say what?

There's "bang and shimmy" associated with losing the main bus, there's a loss of pressure in the O2 tanks, and the crew reports something venting, and you say it's too early to remind everyone of the lifeboat option? Are you kidding?

Or, to ask the same question everyone else has, what expertise do you have to even make that judgement?

 

[R.A.F.]

No one was aware of the LM capabilities at that time RAF...

This is simply not the truth.

So you've decided instead of manning up and admitting your mistake, you're going to "double down", and make it all the worse.

So be it...my point is made and everyone can see it...

The scenario is FAKE RAF....

I'm beginning to believe that you are "fake". I don't think you believe what you post. No one could maintain such ignorance without learning something.

...and you refuse to learn anything...

 

[R.A.F.]

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...

So when can we expect you to confront Aaron in person regarding these "lies"??

If you are so embarrassed and concerned about all the people that have been fooled by these "liars", then you are going to have to confront these "liars", face to face.

Are you up for that "challenge"??

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Since Patrick appears to have forgotten what he said about Gene Kranz only a few days ago, this might be a good time for a reminder:

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...

So Kranz quite reasonably reminds everyone they always have the LM lifeboat scenario as an option, and naturally this is before any decision to do so is made. How could it be otherwise?

But then Patrick very specifially states that no technical assessment of the LMs viability as a lifeboat had been made, and that Kranz was in no position to declare that this idea of his was practicable.

Goalposts sure can drift a long way in 9 days. Maybe Patrick needs a procedure to check their alignment more regularly.

 

[Erock]

I simply assumed

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

You interpret 'facts' to fit your conclusion, and extremely biased and badly.

NOBODY agrees with you. You are incapable of admitting you were wrong, your assumptions are a joke as are your conclusions.

1. The flight director in the first 15 minutes - aware of venting, a bang and readings indicating oxygen loss - naturally would raise the issue of the LM lifeboat scenario. One that you denied NASA had even pre determined, and now deny saying that. Joke!

2. The TV broadcast was the evening after and the conclusion was after many hours of trying to recover the situation, your insistence that it would not be a correct conclusion are assinine. Joke!

3. You assumed the TV broadcast was 50 minutes after the incident, then you assumed the colon meant it was even earlier, then you assumed it was the morning after, now you are going to check it out?? All this after your Gollum victory dance crowing about your wonderful find. Joke!

4. Your interpretation of Kranz referring to doing things differerently in hindsight are just a ridiculous comprehension error on your part. Joke!

5. Your latest conclusion about the thermal dynamics of the LM after it has landed twice on the Moon, and four times already flown there, whilst perfectly ok for the job, are just uninformed bilge. Joke!

These are just your latest headshaking errors in this thread. Yet, not once have you admitted any of your vast list of mistakes, painstakingly and oh so often pointed out to you.

Your attitude and behaviour are exactly like every other HB I have come across - they are not that of an academic scientific person.

 

[SUSpilot]

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?

To quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."

I'll give you one very simple illustration from my own experience as to how you can diagnose a problem remotely, that it might even help to be slightly removed, but I'm going to leave it with a simple question at the end.

About seven or eight years ago, I'd been doing some pattern work with one of my students in a Cessna at Spirit of St. Louis airport on a bright, sunny Sunday afternoon. As we were taxiing in after the last landing, I heard someone I knew coming into the airport in his family's Piper Arrow. He had gone out the night before with a couple of friends for dinner and an early morning golf outing. His other purpose was to build time towards his commercial certificate (btw, he's now a well-respected airline captain).

As they were entering the pattern, I heard him tell the tower that he had a problem with the gear - he couldn't get a "down and locked" indication. The tower had him do a low pass, and they said "it appears down to us", which is all they can say. He requested permission to climb up high over the airport so he could work the emergency procedures for extending the gear. After a few minutes, he called back and said that he'd done everything and still no indication of the gear being down.

As the tower had him do another fly-by ("still looks down to us"), I had visions of his mom and dad's airplane being damaged, at best, or the plane cartwheeling because the of the gear folding up asymmetrically on landing, causing who knows what injuries. My young friend declared an emergency, as is appropriate, and said he'd circle until the fire department got there.

At that point, it struck me. I keyed up and said "Spirit Tower, this is Cessna so-and-so. Have the Arrow make sure his nav[igation] lights are off". A moment later there was a call from the pilot saying "We don't need the equipment. We have three greens on the gear."

Yep, that solved the problem. So how did I know what to do, and just what do the nav lights on a PA28R-201 have to do with the mechanical down-locks of the landing gear, Patrick? Answer that, and you might get an idea of how John Aaron could tell it was a hardware problem over the phone.

 

[sts60]

...(From what I've read, you could teach a whole course

I'm sure Jay could.

... from the Therac-25,

One of my favorite cautionary [horror] tales of software engineering.

... starting from inappropriate re-use of software in a different engineering environment,...

From the same environment, a good example is what happened when code for the Ariane 4 was reused for the Ariane 5. Oops.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Standard conspiracist backpedal. When confronted with incontrovertible evidence of their own error, they try to make it seem like everyone else made the same error, or it was such a difficult problem to figure out that some error is inevitable and that some degree of ambiguity remains. They eagerly promise that they'll "get to the bottom of it soon enough." When in fact they were just plain wrong from the get-go.

Never a simple, straightforward admission of error and subsequent retraction and abandonment of the claim.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited Rule 12, moderated thread

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.

You mean except for all those reasons being given to you by professional engineers who make their living building and flying spacecraft.

there were other gases in the staged service module bay, hydrogen, nitrogen, that could have been leaking.

And out of those, how many were also shown by telemetry to be depleting? Kranz notes that he put the pieces together. One of those pieces was the oxygen tank parameters. That piece had been interpreted one way during the first 15 minutes, then suddenly reinterpreted based on startling new information.

And, what was noted to be leaking need not have been a gas in this staged scenario.

"Staged this" and "staged that," even when it's awkward to say it that way. You simply cannot resist loading the language of your posts to hammer home your shaky beliefs.

Again, you're like the bad lawyer who grasps at the most absurd straws to defend his case: "Your honor, how do we know that was the defendant? That could have been anyone wearing her leopard-skin pants and pink fur coat, driiving her 1974 special edition diamond-trimmed Lincoln Continental."

The report suggested it appeared to be a gas. The value of this observation to flight controllers does not depend on what kind of fluid it was. The key realization was that something was in fact leaking from the ship, and the indications they had been getting to that effect, but writing off as power-deprived sensors, were real.

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.

Alleged, alleged, alleged, staged, staged, perp, perp, perp. Your language is comically desperate.

I've highlighted the backpedal you probably hoped no one would notice. You are softening your position. In fact nothing says Kranz knew for certain at the 17-minute mark that it was an oxygen tank explosion. In fact, the two other times in that chapter he mentions it -- one before and one after your smoking gun -- he emphasizes that "something, somewhere" had happened to rupture the cryogenics.

You are very slowly, very subtly trying to align your interpretation of Kranz with what we've been telling you all along so that you can gracefully back out of what you now realize is yet another one of your rigid, hyperbolic misinterpretations.

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

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Same reason.

 

[Agatha]

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

And we all know what happens when you assume something, rather than check and confirm it.

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

Bzzzzttt! Wrong, but thanks for playing. You cannot present more facts when you have failed to present any to begin with.

Having been roundly trounced on each and every one of your 11 or 12 supposed gotchas, you now turn to Apollo 13. However, not only are you demanding exactly opposite standards to the ones you demanded for Apollo 11, you have been shown to be completely wrong in all your objections thus far.

Deriding 13 as "bogus" based on your misreading and misinterpretation of Kranz isn't the worst of it, but it's certainly damaging any shred of credibility you had.

What qualifies you to judge that "nobody was aware of the LM capabilities"?

 

[Patrick1000]

I shall make it easy for you slyjoe......

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?

I shall make it easy for you slyjoe......Forget about the television stuff. Just focus on Kranz's own material, you know, BULL straight from the BULL Artist's mouth.

Get a copy of Kranz's worthless History Channel film, PRETENDING TO FAIL IS NEVER AN AUTHENTICALLY INAUTHENTIC OPTION, I think sometimes the film goes by, THE MOON RACE PART ONE. Go to the menu, engage the commentary feature, go one hour and 15 minutes in and have a listen. A producer will challenge Kranz by saying that Kranz et al didn't even know there had been an explosion , and Kranzs affirms the truth in that but claims that uncertainty about an explosion's causing the damage to Apollo 13 was short lived. Kranz says as soon as he heard (BULL ARTIST) Lovell claim a gaseous substance was venting from the Apollo 13 service module 14 minutes into the staged drama, he, Kranz, and everyone at that time became aware that there was an explosion, O2 was gone, fuel cells out and they would have to use the lander as a lifeboat. He confirms this by confirming this is when he gave his (premature) spiel..."Let's keep cool" that included the line about the lander as lifeboat 15 minutes in.

Have a listen slyjoe, it is a great way to start one's day, and no old tv clips required. Kranz does a fantastic job of incriminating himself. He's a master of stepping in it, all on his own, no journalists required, well maybe a niive one asking a rather explosive question......

Poor Gene, he's not so smart......

 

[JayUtah]

No one was aware of the LM capabilities at that time RAF, despite the bogus "lifeboat drills".

Just because you don't know doesn't mean everyone else is similarly clueless.

The lunar module aluminum is 12 thousandths of an inch thick.

A fact entirely irrelevant to its use as a lifeboat.

Also per Kelly, one could easily put a boot through it.

Meaning what? I would love to hear your "expert" engineering analysis for why this well-know fact somehow prevented the LM from being used effectively as a lifeboat.

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".

Nonsense. Extensive thermal design validation was done on the lunar module. They used smaller-scale versions of the same exact methods we use today to validate the thermal designs of spacecraft. In fact, it's one of the services I provide as an engineer. You are simply, exactly, inescapably wrong on this point.

But it's cute what you're trying to do. You had hoped we would all forget that your original claim was that Kranz mentions the lifeboat scenario before it had supposedly been invented. Then after the pre-existence of the lifeboat scenario was revealed, you "suddenly" remember that you had read this several times before and were well aware of it, and that your new claim is that Kranz can't have known the lifeboat was necessary at the time.

Then when R.A.F. points out that this was not even remotely part of your original line of reasoning, you embark on a comical tour of irrelevant and further erroneous technical handwaving to try to show what you "really" meant by "technical capability."

I think it's cute that you conspiracy theorists believe we can't see how transparent your pathetic damage-control efforts are. You were wrong, and you won't straight-up admit it. This is why no one will ever believe you.

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.

Explicitly false. The discussion of the LM lifeboat comes after the report of venting. Instrumentation failure is thereby clearly ruled out. And at this point Kranz does not order the crew into the lifeboat; he merely reminds his flight controllers that the contingency exists should it be needed. This statement comes in the middle of a series of reports on ship systems and is summed up by the famous, "Don't make things worse by guessing." The overall intent of Kranz' statement is to reassure the team that there is time to solve the problems calmly and deliberately and that there is no imminent danger of losing the crew.

Only later, after the EECOMs report that they cannot staunch the flow of oxygen and that they have only minutes of electricity left, does Kranz order the crew to abandon ship.

Patrick, you need to understand something very clearly: the Apollo 13 accident is a case study in every single engineering class in the civilized world. It is studied, studied again, dissected, endlessly debated, and becomes the subject of innumerable term papers on every subject from spacecraft design to psychology assessments in high-risk scenarios. This is one of the most carefully studied incidents in all of engineering history.

There is zero chance that a bike shop owner from California has suddenly stumbled upon some terrible secret. None at all. None.

 

[Patrick1000]

I don't claim to have engineering skills requisite to nail Neil Armstrong.......

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.

I don't claim to have the engineering skills requisite to nail Neil Armstrong.......I DO DO DO EVER SO DO claim to have the medical skills required to crucify Armstrong.....Matter of fact, I have crucified him already.....

I never claimed to be an engineering expert slyjoe......

But I am a physician slyjoe, a medical expert, a diarrhea expert, and Frank Borman's diarrhea is some FAKE DIARRHEA. And fake diarrhea means all of Apollo is fake.

Read Frank Borman's phony book COUNTDOWN and his phony essay in Life/Look wherein he wrote that he purposely took MORE seconal to intentionally make himself sick. Don't forget to read perpetrator and fraud insider Dr. Charles Berry's accounts of everything.

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, ZERO BULLOFF, WE HAVE BULLOFFF........This rocket done blowed up.........

 

[Patrick1000]

Sure I am qualified, plenty qualified.....

Because he was extremely familiar with the equipment and the meaning of the readings.




For more than the hundredth time, you are not the least bit qualified to make any such determination. This is simply another in your long series of extremely lame arguments from incredulity.

There is a difference between one's car really having run out of gas and the car's gas gauge not sensing correctly. John Aaron claims he can tell one from the other, what's what, by way of somebody merely reading him what shows numbers wise on a car dashboard. John Aaron claims he can tell us if the gas tank is really empty simply by being read the numbers.......

Pretty "smart" guy that John Aaron....

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, ZERO BULLOFF we have BULLOFF.....

 

[R.A.F.]

...Kranz quite reasonably reminds everyone they always have the LM lifeboat scenario as an option...

Yep...that is an undeniable FACT.

That Patrick continues to deny that, is all we need to know about him.

 

[Patrick1000]

I knew the incident was from the preceding night Erock

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.



Baffling ignorance.

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

I had been watching other videos featuring a running time of the mission...I admitted the error. It does not impact my argument in

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.



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

I had been viewing videos that featured a running time of the mission. I acknowledged the error. And of course the error does not appreciably impact the substance of my ever so ever so ever so excellent point.


Some were reporting things, details, about the "accident" before they could have been known were it the case all this nonsense were not scripted. Ergo, it was most decidedly scripted in point of FACT Erock

 

[Patrick1000]

what kind of mistake might that be RAF???????

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.

I believe I mentioned in a post above that when Captain Kirk, I mean Gene Kranz, was logging in real time he didn't write in the log book at 15 or 30 minutes even into this ridiculous charade that there was an explosion. NOW THAT!!!!!! would have been incriminating.

Regardless, he claims he knew, and it is not logged, and despite Jay's objection, I am sure the rest of us would agree that a flight director would be obligated to write in his log book the time of cryogenic tank explosion when he became aware of it. An exact replica of Kranz's log book is provided in the beautiful book by Pyle, MISSIONS TO THE MOON,foreward by Kranz himself.



Thanks for the incriminating evidence Gene....

 

[Patrick1000]

It finally came to me 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 impactn our OP.

I figured out the perfect way to help you understand. Forget about x and y for a moment. Ask yourself if you think it is "safe" to inhale and ingest infected stool????



There you go....it's gotta' be fake. ALL OF IT....