Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[AdMan]

Not only that, but the mere fact of remembering an event can cause it to degrade. When a person remember something, the brain calls the memory back up into the processing areas as though the person were reliving it. New stimuli can change the memory. It is then put back into storage in its rewritten form, like overwriting an old version of a document with a new one. The original memory is gone.

This is quite true--human memory is fallible and malleable--every time we remember or recount a memory, we are molding it into something perhaps slightly different.

I find studying how memory works (and often doesn't work) fascinating. For anyone else interested (not Patrick--I doubt given his biases, prejudices and sloppy thinking that he would get much out of it), the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is recommended, for starters.

 

[fess]

Actually it would seem that I am riding several horses at once...Feel free to comment on my posts relating to my latest interest fess, Apollo 13 fraudulence. It has become my favorite subject. You'll find me eager to mix it up with reference to my ideas on the subject, such a rich topic and one with so much of the evidence heavily favoring my side.

I think I brought up the Borman poop thing again because slyjoe accused me of not having chops adequate to bust Armstrong's chops, and so I thought it appropriate to remind slyjoe that I did have the requisite chops and that Armstrong's were in fact already busted as a consequence.

But it is true, I do like to go from one topic to the next. It keeps it interesting for me and sometimes helps me connect things, one to the other.

Trying to ride more than one horse at a time is quite dangerous, which can be proven by how many times you have fallen off your horse in this thread.

And once again you try to switch horses by changing the subject to get away from having to answer pertinent questions. Why is this? Do you think your answers may expose you as being a fraud?

Speaking of being a fraud, why is it that you refuse to accept the invitations submitted to you to confront those you make libelous statements about?

I have other questions about the Apollo 8 mission, but I’ll wait until you answer the most recent ones.

 

[Robrob]

Yep, if someone were an actual medical professional they might have the knowledge or integrity to admit 31 year old events recounted for a TV special might be colored by time and hindsight.

He's told the story about the O2 leak so many times over three decades, you think it might have invaded his memory enough that he recalls completely "knowing" something before he actually knew it?

I am in law enforcement. Nine years ago while approaching a house on a search warrant, a guy came running out the front door at me while waving an aluminum baseball bat over his head. He was shot by others and the bat sailed over me. In my statement at the scene, I described seeing what I thought was a steel machete. Years later, with the benefit of hindsight, I can clearly see him in my mind's eye - waving a baseball bat.

 

[abaddon]

Check out this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPb4GZhW60s&feature=fvst

A little over one minute in, Gene Kranz makes the statement that Lovell said the the gaseous substance that was venting from the Apollo 12 service module was oxygen. Of course this is a falsehood.

And why would nobody make this conclusion?
Lovell identified that something was actually venting, and the gauges identified that everything (gaseous wise) was OK except for O2 tank 2 and O2 tank 1. Not a huge leap to that conclusion.

Kranz is intentionally misleading as he needs to push the story that everyone knew oxygen was venting and it was lifeboat time early on, 14 or 15 minutes in when Lovell makes the call about something "venting".

There's your problem. In the previous para. you claimed Lovell said O2 was venting, now you claim Lovell said "something" was venting. You can't keep your own story straight.

Kranz had opened up his mouth too soon and so this was/is his way of covering his tracks by saying Lovell said at that time it was SPECIFICALLY OXYGEN that was venting. Of course were the mission real, there would be no way to tell at that moment that it was oxygen that was venting even if an oxygen tank had been blown and was lost. Other substances could have vented from the service module as well.

But they didn't. Telemetry showed that. Onboard readings showed that. The only thing leaking was O2 according to both telemetry and onboard readings. The missing piece was the "why". Meteor?, tech failure?, something else? That could not be identified for sure until later.

And most importantly, Lovell of course never did say they were venting oxygen at that time, 14/15 minutes in. He only said they were venting what looked to be a "gaseous substance". It could have been anything. The point is subtle , but it is indeed a point that is clearly damning.[/QUOTE]
Indeed it is damning, of you, because you very first paragraph of YOUR post to which I am responding says:

A little over one minute in, Gene Kranz makes the statement that Lovell said the the gaseous substance that was venting from the Apollo 12 service module was oxygen. Of course this is a falsehood.

While it is clear this is said by Kranz in hindsight, you are attempting to portray this as so sort of foreknowledge on Kranz's part. Fact is, actual venting is really occurring, and telemetry indicates O2 is on the floor. It is not a huge leap to conclude that O2 is venting.

Kranz would do well to keep his mouth shut.... Then again, it is way too late.... The guy is simply a terrible perp. If I knew how bad he was, what an easy target he was, I would have started with him....

And once again back to childlike insults. Why will you not confront Kranz face to face? You have been offered the opportunity.

 

[Multivac]

And the backpedaling begins.

Because he runs a bike shop.

To contribute:

Jim Lovell and his coauthor Jeffrey Kluger point out on page 343 of my 30th anniversary edition of APOLLO 13, published in the year 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, that it was not until AFTER examining the photographs of the blown out service bay brought back to earth by the Apollo 13 crew that NASA's forensic specialists(Apollo 13 disaster investigation committee) were able to determine that the spaceship was not hit by meteor or other rogue projectile. The pictures once examined revealed to the Apollo 13 investigators that there must have been an explosion in the oxygen/cryogenic tank itself. This point cannot be overemphasized. No one knew untill the astronauts "returned " from cislunar space that an O2 tank, or cryogenic tank explosion of any sort, was responsible for the Apollo 13 staged disaster. It was not not not until the astronauts returned from their feigned mission that such a determination was made.

As a consequence, one may conclude with unmitigated metaphysical certainty, that the Apollo 13 Mission was ever so fraudulent as some of the story's principals including Flight Director Gene Kranz himself knew how the story would end before it had ever begun. Kranz had foreknowledge of an INTERNAL cryogenic tank explosion, and so as surprising as it may be to some, one may confirm Kranz's perpetrator status with utter confidence.

You are missing the point Patrick. Gene Kranz, and others, could tell from the telemetry and observations by the crew, that the O₂ tank had exploded. The photos, and further analysis, showed that the explosion had been caused by an internal source, rather than an external source such as a meteor or debris from previous spacecraft.

Saying that there was an explosion is describing an effect. Determining that the explosion was inside the O₂ tank, caused by a spark from components within the tank that had been damaged years earlier when the tank was tested at the wrong voltage, is descrbing the cause of the explosion.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I don't.... I think the scam is rather ingeniously subtle.....

True enough, once one begins to look at actual source materials, Mission Reports and do forth, well then it is obviously FAKE. But how many docs, engineers, scientists do that? Read those things with great care to find the inconsistencies?

Apollo is probably the single most studied Engineering Project in history. Data from APollo isstill used across the industry.

Scientists and Engineers study reports with great care. Are you saying that every scintist and engineer for more than 30 years has just skimmed the headlines?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Actually, I don't think this was one of the case studies we had when I took Introduction to Engineering Design several years ago. (Note to wiseguys from Apollohoax: I don't want to apply for a t-shirt. ) We had the Titanic (one of the guys who did a presentation on this one started, "For the two people in America who don't know the story . . ." ), American 191 (Chicago DC-10 crash), Challenger, and several others.

One that we did study, and that has been well covered in several other classes I've taken (both in mechanical engineering, and after I switched to mechanical engineering technology), is the Hyatt Regency skywalk collapse. I suspect this is because the principles involved are applicable to several subjects (mechanics, statics, strength of materials), and because the design flaws are easy to understand.

I think if I had college to do over from the beginning, without mistaking my then-undiagnosed learning disability for lack of engineering aptitude, I'd want to be a forensic engineer. Once when I was reading the textbook for my aforementioned design class, another student walked by and asked, "So, are you sick of reading all those case studies yet?" I replied, "You're talking to the guy who TiVos and watches every episode of Engineering Disasters."

One final note to any lurkers who might not get it: The "I corrected JayUtah" t-shirt joke is actually a sign of how much respect people have for Jay over at Apollohoax (and Bad Astronomy); he's so seldom wrong that when it does happen, it's a notable event.

 

[Patrick1000]

You miss one of my main points

Apollo is probably the single most studied Engineering Project in history. Data from APollo isstill used across the industry.

Scientists and Engineers study reports with great care. Are you saying that every scintist and engineer for more than 30 years has just skimmed the headlines?

Captain_Swoop, of course 99.99999999999999% of Apollo is real. I have never claimed that the stuff does not work. On the contrary. I have emphasized it all does work, did work, and quite well.

The Saturn V is an engineering marvel. The lander is an engineering marvel. I read that if one placed a cryogenic tank filled with O2 in your living room, the contents would not reach room temperature for 9 years.

The stuff is insanely cool and it works. Esentally all of it. Few exceptions here and there, but for the most part, it is all good super cool stuff. Real stuff.


Why risk the lives of 3 guys when you can weaponize space with unmanned equipment.

 

[Patrick1000]

asemphasized

Yeah...go figure that NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU. We've read the transcripts and heard the tapes, and your "interpretation" of those materials agrees with NO ONE familiar with space flight.

Do you understand?....I wouldn't ask, but I'm not sure your understand that NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.

Oh, and when will you be admitting your mistake re. no LM lifeboat assessment before the flight??...the longer you deny your mistake, the worse it "reflects" on YOU.

I do not post for the "benefit" of my detractors. I am happy tontertain your questions, but my enthusiasm for the subject and my confidence in the conclusions I have drawn is not contingent on your positive feedback.

Do you honestly think I am expecting you to agree with me? Seriously now....

 

[JayUtah]

True enough, once one begins to look at actual source materials, Mission Reports and do forth, well then it is obviously FAKE. But how many docs, engineers, scientists do that?

All of us do. We consume that stuff voraciously because it is the history, conscience, knowledge base, and lifeblood of our profession. It is the seminal event of the aerospace industry, and it is widely and deeply studied. What you're claiming is tantamount to saying that if one simply reads JAMA, one will instantly seen how obviously fraudulent the medical profession is, and since no doctor actually reads JAMA, real doctors won't see how insightful you are when criticizing it.

No, Patrick, you don't get to claim you're the only one who has ever studied the Apollo missions.

Kranz hits ya' over the head with his ineptness/clumsiness/OBVIOUSNESS as a perp. Go figure.

No, Kranz hits you over the head -- and you only -- because of your ignorance and bias. To everyone else, including other professional space engineers and operators, he is considered highly competent. You insist on measuring everyone according to your arbitrary and uninformed expectations and your twisted interpretations. That does not make you infallible, only alone.

 

[Patrick1000]

no you are incorrect

And why would nobody make this conclusion?
Lovell identified that something was actually venting, and the gauges identified that everything (gaseous wise) was OK except for O2 tank 2 and O2 tank 1. Not a huge leap to that conclusion.


There's your problem. In the previous para. you claimed Lovell said O2 was venting, now you claim Lovell said "something" was venting. You can't keep your own story straight.


But they didn't. Telemetry showed that. Onboard readings showed that. The only thing leaking was O2 according to both telemetry and onboard readings. The missing piece was the "why". Meteor?, tech failure?, something else? That could not be identified for sure until later.

And most importantly, Lovell of course never did say they were venting oxygen at that time, 14/15 minutes in. He only said they were venting what looked to be a "gaseous substance". It could have been anything. The point is subtle , but it is indeed a point that is clearly damning.

Indeed it is damning, of you, because you very first paragraph of YOUR post to which I am responding says:

While it is clear this is said by Kranz in hindsight, you are attempting to portray this as so sort of foreknowledge on Kranz's part. Fact is, actual venting is really occurring, and telemetry indicates O2 is on the floor. It is not a huge leap to conclude that O2 is venting.


And once again back to childlike insults. Why will you not confront Kranz face to face? You have been offered the opportunity.[/QUOTE]




Because something was venting and simultaneously the O2 gauge on one tank was zero and the other dropping does not mean necessarily that the substance venting was O2.

Note how in real time Lovell did not draw that conclusion. He did not say it was oxygen. I suggest he did not make such a statement because he would have incriminated himself.


Regardless, Lovell says nothing about what he thinks it is. In real time that is, as the bogus drama is unfolding.


Now, were this real, he would have described how much was venting. It could have been a narrow stream of gas at low volume coming out at a high rate of speed. There is more than O2 in the service bay.

Details regarding the volume of the gas, and direction of the venting were not provided emphasizing the fraudulence of this weak charade.


Were this real, Lovell would have filmed it right away sending the images to the ground for analysis.

How about the Color of the gas if any? May have been helpful to the ground.


Lovell does not know what cryogenically contained O2 looks like when vented into space, nor hydrogen or anything for that matter. No one at that time had any first person experience about this sort of thing.


A genuine pilot armed with a movie camera and sincerely concerned for the well being of his ship and CREW would have done far more than Lovell did in terms of providing a description, documenting the event, and asking questions himself of the ground as to what he might be seeing.


Apollo is phony in the air, in space or on the ground.....









Here again is a piece of Apollo narrative that is utterly incoherent and as such, one may conclude with unmitigated metaphysical certainty that the Apollo Missions are fraudulent.

 

[JayUtah]

...the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is recommended, for starters.

Dr. Loftus was a guest lecturer at a course I took as part of forensic engineering, and her book Eyewitness Testimony is required reading in that field. I understand Dr. Loftus also consults on eyewitness testimony in the courts. I heartily endorse Loss Leader's recommendation.

Memory is not a tape recorder. It does not simply replay events upon reflection in the order at which they occurred, or with the same detail that prevailed in fact. The brain functions to create a coherent narrative or picture of memories, fitting them to a framework it invents on the fly and spackling them over with details misplaced or invented. Not only is it not surprising to hear that Kranz has retrofit his memory with the identity of the gas, it is expected. We know this is how memory works.

Once again, medical science disproves Patrick's claims.

 

[Patrick1000]

Glad you brought up Bales

Incorrect.



So the most miniscule, nitpicking detail is all that's needed to prove NASA's story wrong, but the almighty and infallible bike-shop owner Patrick's theory can thumb its nose disdainfully at mountains of direct evidence such as moonrocks and photographs and still survive.

See, this is probably why you don't want to have any direct contact with Steven Bales, Gene Kranz, Jim Lovell, John Aaron, and all the other men you've libeled in order to construct your fantasy world.

Why are you dragging your feet? PM me your contact info so we can get the ball rolling.

The more I study the 1202 alarm issue, the more I think GARMAN was the guy pulling the trigger and gaming Bales. BALES IS PROBABLY CLEAN.



Remember Garman is Bales supervisor in a sense there. Garman and Bales confer before the "GO" is given. I suspect Garman gave the "GO" and allowed the very very wide eyed and ultra naive and clean Steve Bales to take the credit. Not only ingenious, but insanely effective.




I wonder if Lovell remembers getting vaccinated for the Hong Kong Flu????? No matter, one way or the other. Lovell would not last an hour with me in a debate. All he could say would be,"We really went, we really went, we really went". Empty nonsense. I'd carve him up and serve him to the gremlins of cislunar space on a platter sized replica of A Presidential Medal of Freedom.

 

[Ravenwood]

More meaningless posturing & bluster...Jay Has offered to arrange a meeting for you to confront some of these people & you have so far ignored it...

 

[JayUtah]

Because something was venting and simultaneously the O2 gauge on one tank was zero and the other dropping does not mean necessarily that the substance venting was O2.

It doesn't have to mean that "necessarily." It only has to be the best theory so far. You clearly didn't read what I wrote on the subject of operator incident response -- a topic on which I am fairly well paid to be an expert.

Bang + Venting + O2 (and only O2) gauge falling? What better explanation can you come up with? Not other, but better. One that clearly better explains the totality of available evidence. Put up or shut up.

I suggest he did not make such a statement because he would have incriminated himself.

In contrast I suggest that Lovell reported his observation accurate.

Now, were this real, he would have...

How many times are you going to get caught making up new "rules" before you realize that no one accepts your ignorant, inexperienced nonsense as the standard by which reality should be judged?

Were this real, Lovell would have filmed it right away sending the images to the ground for analysis.
[...]
A genuine pilot armed with a movie camera...

Bzzt!

If you mean the television camera, then a real Apollo historian would realize two things immediately. First, the MSFN is not set up for television all the time. The high bandwidth connections from the receiving stations to Houston are leased connections that are not in operation all the time. They must be specifically scheduled and activated. Second, only the SM high-gain antenna was capable of transmitting television signals from the CSM, and it was not operable during this incident.

If you mean the 16mm Maurer DAC motion picture camera, then I think the rest of the readership will enjoy hearing you try to explain how Lovell is going to get undeveloped 16mm motion picture negatives instantly back to Houston for analysis.

...and sincerely concerned for the well being of his ship and CREW would have...

Translation: Patrick and Patrick alone knows what's best for any Apollo crew.

Here again is a piece of Apollo narrative that is utterly incoherent...

Wow, you're really grasping at straws to come up with nit-picky nonsense that you insist "should" have been done, but wasn't.

As usual: begging the question -- rejected.

and as such, one may conclude with unmitigated metaphysical certainty that the Apollo Missions are fraudulent.

Nonsense words. Do you just write this stuff to see how it looks in print?

 

[JayUtah]

The more I study the 1202 alarm issue, the more I think GARMAN was the guy pulling the trigger and gaming Bales. BALES IS PROBABLY CLEAN.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with my post that you quoted.

You incorrectly asserted that all three men were in the LM all the time and therefore couldn't have disrobed as you noted. That assumption was incorrect. Acknowledge, please, that you have been corrected, and kindly admit your error and retract your claim.

Remember Garman is Bales supervisor in a sense there.

Irrelevant. Bales was the operator during the simulation run when the program alarm came up and he made the wrong call in the sim, hence his "Same one we had" comment on the MOCR flight director loop during the actual Apollo 11 descent. Bales himself was briefed on program alarms by the SimSup and wrote "okay if intermittent" on his flight plan as the result of that briefing.

I suspect Garman gave the go and allowed very very wide eyed and ultra naive and clean Steve Bales to take the credit.

No. There is ample documentation in the historical record and transcripts to refute your claim. You're simply making stuff up that you need to be true in order for your theory to hold, and in order to weasel out of being held accountable to Bales personally for your libellous accusations.

The offer stands to put you in contact with Bales so that you can ask him whether he was "wide-eyed and naive" during the Apollo 11 lunar descent. Why have you steadfastly refused my offer to put you in contact with any of the men whom you've now admitted to falsely accusing? Why are you terrified to present your "infallible" claims to them in person?

 

[JayUtah]

Why risk the lives of 3 guys when you can weaponize space with unmanned equipment.

Because Apollo was designed from the ground-up to be a pilot-dependent system, and because you have provided zero actual evidence (merely fantastic supposition) that Apollo was co-opted to be an umanned military program.

 

[Loss Leader]

First you say:

Note how in real time Lovell did not draw that conclusion. He did not say it was oxygen. I suggest he did not make such a statement because he would have incriminated himself. Regardless, Lovell says nothing about what he thinks it is. In real time that is, as the bogus drama is unfolding.

But then in the same post you say:

Lovell does not know what cryogenically contained O2 looks like when vented into space, nor hydrogen or anything for that matter. No one at that time had any first person experience about this sort of thing.

Do you realize that these statements contradict each other?

I heartily endorse Loss Leader's recommendation.

AdMan was the one who mentioned Dr. Loftus. Even so, she does speak extensively in the "Test Your Brain" episode I referred to. She was also featured in the 2004 episode "Don't Forget" on 'Scientific American Frontiers" with Alan Alda.

If you mean the 16mm Maurer DAC motion picture camera, then I think the rest of the readership will enjoy hearing you try to explain how Lovell is going to get undeveloped 16mm motion picture negatives instantly back to Houston for analysis.

Fax machine?

 

[R.A.F.]

I do not post for the "benefit" of my detractors.

The only people reading your posts are your "detractors".

I am happy tontertain your questions...

Irrelevant...you freely ignore any questions which destroy your "argument".

...my enthusiasm for the subject and my confidence in the conclusions I have drawn is not contingent on your positive feedback.

Your "conclusions" have been completely demolished...yet your "confidence" remains irrespective of that.

Amazing...

Do you honestly think I am expecting you to agree with me? Seriously now....

You know why no one here agrees with you....because you have not provided any evidence that any of your ideas are actually valid...fact is, you lied about being a medical "authority" in order to "argue" that there was something "wrong" with Apollo 8.

I "expect" you to argue this topic in good faith...I "expect" you to acknowledge errors when they are pointed out to you. I "expect" you to answer all questions posed to you.

Obviously, my "expectations" will not be fulfilled...



LM lifeboat assessment....you made a mistake...admit your error...

 

[R.A.F.]

Why risk the lives of 3 guys when you can weaponize space with unmanned equipment.

Totally agree with Jay on this...you have provided no evidence for any "unmanned weaponized space program", so you do not get to post "speculations" such as I have boldened.