Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually SUSpilot, according to Kranz, he guessed the right thing at the right time..

SUSpilot said:
Two problems, maybe three, Patrick:

1) In the quote from the transcript, Kranz is saying the exact right thing, at the right time. It is a reminder to everyone that options are available and to not rush into doing something stupid. A simple equivalent in flight training is this: when the engine fails, even at a sufficient altitude to troubleshoot the problem, the very first thing you do is find a place to put the aircraft. Then you work the problem.

2) I'll grant the quotes don't match perfectly - this is my "maybe". It's only a problem in that an editor or proofreader probably didn't notice a mistake on their part. The "problem" is that it gives people like you an inconsistency on which to build a false premise.

3) This is yet another derail on your part. Back to where we started: does PTFE burn in the presence of cryogenic oxygen?
Click to expand...

Actually SUSpilot, according to Kranz, he guessed the right thing at the right time..Pretty good guess wouldntcha' say? Again from the April 28 1999 Johnson Space Center Oral History Archive;

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/k-l.htm

KRANZ;

"And we still have no clue what happened
onboard the spacecraft. The other option: we’ve got to go around the Moon; and it’s going to
take about 5 days but I’ve only got 2 days of electrical power. So, we’re now at the point of
making the decision: which path are we going to take? My gut feeling, and that’s all I’ve
got, says, “Don’t use the main engine and don’t jettison this lunar module.” And that’s all
I’ve got is a gut feeling. And it’s based, I don’t know—in the flight control business, the
flight director business, you develop some street smarts. And I think every controller has felt
this at one time or another. And I talked briefly to Lunney, and he’s got the same feeling."


Funny how how Gene's intuition works isn't it SUSpilot? Sure was a good thing for those astronauts. Be a bad thing, stranded out there in pretend cislunar space having just jettisoned a pretend LM. And to think it all was thanks to a good guess on Gene's part. Whew! That was a close one.....
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
In the History Channel Film, APOLLO 13 MODERN MARVELS, Gene Kranz is interviewed. 11 minutes and 30 seconds into the film Kranz makes a statement and claims that Lovell said when looking out the CM window that he thought they were venting their oxygen. This is not true. Lovell says a gaseous substance was venting, no more, no other details. The EECOM did not say it was oxygen. Liebergot made no statement to Kranz that what was venting was oxygen.

Why does Kranz lie here in the interview SUSpilot, why does he tell us Lovell said that he thought it was oxygen that was venting?

I have given you my reason, what is your alternative proposal?
Click to expand...

My answer is simpler.

It was forty years ago, he is speaking without notes, and he is talking to a general audience.

Only a crazy conspiracy theorist would care if the nature of the vented gas wasn't determined until some arbitrary later point. The narrative makes most sense to simply refer to vented oxygen and not drag in alternative hypothesis.


What is this, a court of law? I'm imagining a similar discussion with a patrolman giving testimony:

"We secured the weapon and placed Mr Smith under arrest."

"Objection! At the time you didn't know his name was Mr Smith!"

"Yes, we did; he gave his name at the start of the incident."

"But he could have been lying."

"We also recovered his wallet at the time of the arrest."

"That could have been forged. Really, you had no way at the time of knowing for sure what his name was. Therefor your entire testimony must be considered a pack of lies. I move the case be thrown out immediately."
 
Patrick1000 said:
Another KRANZ quote below from the Johnson Space Center Oral History Archive...
Click to expand...

...followed by another attempt to employ the "chronology versus recollection" method of pseudohistory. Asked and answered -- and ignored by you.

Still don't have your contact info, Patrick. Why are you dragging your feet on this? Why don't you want to face Kranz with your accusations?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Funny how how Gene's intuition works isn't it SUSpilot?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called "expertise," and you consistently demonstrate that you neither have any nor appreciate it when others display it. You still haven't dealt with my own demonstration of the kind of expertise you said was impossible for John Aaron. You just changed the subject.

Contact info, please?
 
Patrick1000 said:
In the History Channel Film, APOLLO 13 MODERN MARVELS, Gene Kranz is interviewed. 11 minutes and 30 seconds into the film Kranz makes a statement and claims that Lovell said when looking out the CM window that he thought they were venting their oxygen. This is not true. Lovell says a gaseous substance was venting, no more, no other details. The EECOM did not say it was oxygen. Liebergot made no statement to Kranz that what was venting was oxygen.

Why does Kranz lie here in the interview SUSpilot, why does he tell us Lovell said that he thought it was oxygen that was venting?

I have given you my reason, what is your alternative proposal?
Click to expand...

As Jay says: asked and answered. He's telling a narrative about something, where, in retrospect, he filled in the blank. If he were writing a strict timeline of the story, then he would say "something venting". In fact, 30 years after the fact, writing a timeline, it would be pretty hard to not supply the answer discovered after the fact. That's why we have transcripts, why witness statements are best taken immediately after the fact, etc.

This horse has been more than beaten, Patrick. It was DOA and you're trying to pound it into dog food.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Funny how how Gene's intuition works isn't it...
Click to expand...

Kranz was the Flight Controller. It was his "job" to be well informed about all aspects of Apollo...the conclusions he made were informed conclusions.

When one is well informed, "intuition" is unnecessary.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Actually SUSpilot, according to Kranz, he guessed the right thing at the right time..Pretty good guess wouldntcha' say? Again from the April 28 1999 Johnson Space Center Oral History Archive;

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/k-l.htm

KRANZ;

And we still have no clue what happened
onboard the spacecraft. The other option: we’ve got to go around the Moon; and it’s going to
take about 5 days but I’ve only got 2 days of electrical power. So, we’re now at the point of
making the decision: which path are we going to take? My gut feeling, and that’s all I’ve
got, says, “Don’t use the main engine and don’t jettison this lunar module.” And that’s all
I’ve got is a gut feeling. And it’s based, I don’t know—in the flight control business, the
flight director business, you develop some street smarts. And I think every controller has felt
this at one time or another. And I talked briefly to Lunney, and he’s got the same feeling.


Funny how how Gene's intuition works isn't it SUSpilot? Sure was a good thing for those astronauts. Be a bad thing, stranded out there in pretend cislunar space having just jettisoned a pretend LM. And to think it all was thanks to a good guess on Gene's part. Whew! That was a close one.....
Click to expand...

Go back to my example. Why do you think we train pilots to first find a place to land before they troubleshoot a problem with a failed or sick engine? Once you figure that out, then you know why Kranz and Lunney did what they did.
 
Patrick1000 said:
<snip>
So the question is more appropriately, "Was the activation energy achieved in any sense for the combustion of Teflon and aluminum in the presence of super critical oxygen, and if activation energy was achieved for the combustion of Teflon and or aluminum, how was it achieved?"

Once that question is answered, one can then move on to other questions such as; how much Teflon was present, how much aluminum was present, assuming the activation energy was achieved, would the reaction propagate given the circumstances, and assuming the reaction was sustained, would enough energy be released to account for the damage done?

You don't happen to know the answer to those questions yet, do you SUSpilot?
Click to expand...

Skipping past your apparent misunderstanding of the term "super critical", I'm the one asking you. You're the one inferring that the competent authorities are wrong: namely the folks that write the MSDS for PTFE (including the manufacturer), the NASA review board, and the engineers that have independently reviewed that data. I'm relying on their expertise.

Ball's in your court.
 
Glynn Lunney's Take A Bit Different From That Of Kranz...

Below freom Glynn Lunney's Oral History, Johnson Space Center Archive 26 February 1999;

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/LunneyGS/lunneygs.htm

Lunney tells the story a bit differently from Kranz's tall tale now doesn't he? Not the same bogus lines/lies that one hears from Kranz.....

LUNNEY;


"I was in one of the back rooms, and when the report came of, "Houston, we've got a
problem," somebody turned to me and said, "Glynn, you'd better get out in the front room.
Something's going on." So that's when I came out and plugged in next to Gene [Eugene F.
Kranz], who was on duty. He and his team were just about coming to the end of their shift.
As a matter of fact, my team was coming in to pick up the sleep shift, when the astronauts
were supposed to be going to sleep. It was an interesting period.
I mean, I think, in retrospect, a number of us describe this and have clearer vision
now of what was going on than we did at the time, or even that they did at the time, because
it was not clear for a while how serious the problem was. And we had spent a lot of time in
our training, learning not to jump off too quickly before you really knew what you were
doing, because if you started to do things and you weren't sure why you were doing them or
what the circumstances were, you might make a given situation worse.And the indications that people were getting on the telemetry were so pervasively
wrong, that the assumption was that there was something wrong with the telemetry system or
the electronics or something, that might be causing all these readings to look funny, and
although it's sort of obvious in retrospect also, I don't think a big connection was made with
the crew reporting the loud bang and then reporting the venting that was going on. There
wasn't a good, solid connection made very quickly. It was made, but it wasn't made as
quickly as you might think, that the venting and the low readings that people were seeing
there, the out-of-limit readings that people were seeing, and pressure in the tank, for example,
all correlated and were really telling us that, yes, indeed, we have this thing happening that
was real.So just as the astronauts upstairs were struggling with trying to understand it, I mean,
they had master alarms and a lot of red lights on their caution warning and so on, they were
struggling trying to figure out what had happened, and, frankly, for a while we were
struggling with how to clear it up and get reset so that we could get everything back to
normal and go back to sleep and go on with the landing mission that was planned. And so
that was sort of the first instinct that everybody had, that there's some funny problem here,
but as soon we get to the bottom of it, we can get all this back on track and we'll be okay.
And I think people struggled with that for a while, and then probably within, I would
say, somewhere like a half hour, thirty, forty-five minutes, it was really dawning on the
people in the Control Center and the astronauts that the command service module was really
dying, in effect"


What happened to putting everything together 15 minutes in when the venting call came through?

Pretty bogus isn't it?
 
Patrick1000 said:
I figured that you would report back about your hospital. Simple enough to do so Tomblvd. Your colleagues are counting on you to shut me down with respect to this issue. Have at it.... Was I wrong in making this assumption? That you would report back about your hospital?

Speaking of which, are there warning signs on your vents and wall feeds? "DANGER OXYGEN" something to that effect? Yes? No?
Click to expand...

As usual you are ignoring the question.

I asked how you can state categorically that I am "quite dependable". Nothing you said above supports that statement. You "figuring" that I would do something is frankly stupid, owing to the fact that you have never met me and have no knowledge of my personal traits.

As I expected, this is a perfect illustration of the immensely flawed mindset of Patrick. He "figures" someone (Kranz, Borman, Armstrong, etc.) should act a certain way based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and then bases an entire argument on that. It's intellectual laziness, IMO, at least, and pathological at most.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I figured that you would report back about your hospital. Simple enough to do so Tomblvd. Your colleagues are counting on you to shut me down with respect to this issue. Have at it.... Was I wrong in making this assumption? That you would report back about your hospital?

Speaking of which, are there warning signs on your vents and wall feeds? "DANGER OXYGEN" something to that effect? Yes? No?
Click to expand...

And if anybody is left with a shred of doubt that Patrick invents facts which he then inserts into his own made-up world, you need only look at my posts on this issue starting at #6582. Nowhere do I say a thing about "my hospital" or "reporting back". You invented the whole thing.

As a matter of fact I stated clearly in an earlier post that I'm a dentist (DMD) and not a physician and, therefore, don't spend all my time in a hospital any more (thank God).

Sound familiar to anybody?

But Patrick, thanks for an spot-on perfect illustration as to how you invent your arguments. No wonder you don't want to get anywhere near the elderly Kranz.
 
Lovell Lies Big Time In His Own Oral History........

From the Johnson Space Center Oral History Archives, Lovell's interview, 25 May 1999;

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/k-l.htm

LOVELL: "It didn’t take much intelligence on my part to realize that the gas escaping from the rear end and the needle on my second and last tank were one and the same, and very shortly we would be out of oxygen."

The EECOMs did not know the O2 in tank number one would be out shortly there, only 15 minutes into the staged drama. Lovell's comment here is absurd. He claims at this time, the time of the venting report, that he not only knew that what was venting was in fact oxygen, but additionally, that BOTH of his tanks would soon be empty. This is simply not true. The pressure in O2 tank one is not even being all that carefully monitored if at all at this time by the EECOMs. Just listen to the EECOM tapes. They are focused on the fuel cells here early on. There is no mention of O2 tank one troubles. It is all there, no question about it. Later, yes, O2 tank one is believed to be losing pressure and so with it, oxygen. The astronauts radio this in 28 minutes from the time of the venting report, that they are concerned about O2 tank one. But that is well down the road from the time of Lovell's venting statement, nearly one half hour later. Lovell is lying big time here and is flat out NAILED .

Oh what a tangled web indeed.........
 
Again, as best I can tell, this seems to apply to tanks, storage, not vents, feeds...

Border Reiver said:
Patrick - your beliefs re gasesous Oxygen and the labelling requirements are most definitely flawed. I refer you to the Material Safety Data Sheet for oxygen (gas). Look at page 2.

If your hospital doesn't label it, the local Workplace Safety folks need to know...
Click to expand...

Again, as best I can tell, your reference seems to apply to tanks/storage, not vents, not feeds..

That said, I am not absolutely positive. Let's see what Tomblvd reports with regard to the set up at his hospital. And, I'll ask our respiratory therapists. They'll have the skinny on this. Should be easy to settle.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Lunney tells the story a bit differently from Kranz's tall tale now doesn't he?
Click to expand...

*yawn*

More pseudo-history. The reason we get accounts from multiple people is that people remember things differently. Perhaps that basic fact is lost on the World's Greatest Apollo Historian.

Instead of providing us with the stuff we asked for about Teflon combustibility, you're giving us a bunch of nonsense we didn't ask for. You're stalling.
 
Patrick1000 said:
LOVELL: "It didn’t take much intelligence on my part to realize that the gas escaping from the rear end and the needle on my second and last tank were one and the same, and very shortly we would be out of oxygen."

The EECOMs did not know the O2 in tank number one would be out shortly there, only 15 minutes into the staged drama. Lovell's comment here is absurd.
Click to expand...

No, I covered this in detail in the very first post I made on this subject. Asked and answered -- and repeatedly ignored by you.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Pretty bogus isn't it?
Click to expand...

#1. No...you have in no way demonstrated that to be true. Not bogus...

#2. No...there is no "isn't it", because NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU.


Apparently you refuse to understand that, since you continue to post these "questions" as if someone here agrees with you...STOP DOING THAT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom