Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

sorry thought you were a doc.

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.

My mistake. I honestly thought you worked in a hospital. Not a big deal issue wise. My apologies,...

 

[Patrick1000]

I guess we actually agreed here

More evidence that Patrick is not a doctor.

Every O2 feed in a healthcare setting has warnings all around about combustion.

In addition, because of the completely different situation (open area vs. closed container, etc., etc.), only an utter fool would expect that an "ICU is going to blow" if the oxygen ignited. It can and has caused very nasty fires, however.

A doctor (or even a hospital janitor) would know that.

It seems you were saying O2 in a container is different, not the same as O2 coming out of a vent or a wall feed. I thought you were disagreeing with me here and was under the impression you were a physician, a medical doctor who worked in a hospital. My apology. Error was all mine.

 

[JayUtah]

Should be easy to settle.

It's already settled for everyone except you. You've been given multiple testimony by people who have been to hospitals. No special expertise is required to notice warning signs, and everyone seems to have noticed them. You're trying to pin the whole question on one guy, whom you've inappropriately tapped out to be some sort of bellwether, and who has already given his report. It does take expertise to know which safety regulations apply, and you've been supplied with those. You've even admitted to the presence of warning signs, just not to one specific location for them. All those are straw-man claims.

You chose to phrase your rejoinder as not having to "walk around on eggshells" or fear that "the ICU is gonna blow." Those are straw men as well.

Threadworm originally pointed to the Apollo 1 capsule as an example of what will burn when exposed to concentrated oxygen. You then brought up medical-gas oxygen outlets in hospitals as "another" example of "100-percent oxygen," although Loss Leader and others were quick to point out that this is an inaccurate description of the stoichiometric equivalent, and an invalid comparison.

Tomblvd also pointed out the difference between an open and closed container, and called you on your straw-man mock fear that the "ICU would blow." He also noted the presence "all around" of combustion warnings.

You're trying desperately to drag this discussion into one obscure corner case where you think you can win. The question has already been decided to everyone's satisfaction but yours: hospitals recognize the danger associated with increased concentrations of oxygen and take appropriate, legally-mandated precautions.

Having established that beyond any reasonable doubt, we can therefore return to your claim preceding, which was to compare ordinary ambient oxygen concentrations with those in the O2 tanks on board the service module. It should be fairly obvious now that such a comparison is invalid: where there is a higher concentration of oxygen, more things burn and burn more rapidly and more energetically.

Now will you finally quit dragging your feet and give us the stoichiometric computations you promised? You've had four days, during which you've presented new material instead of supporting your existing arguments.

 

[threadworm]

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.........

For the 3rd time: the EECOM tape has the a clearly audible statement that oxygen tank 1 levels are fluctuating immediately before the crew report that they heard "a pretty large bang". That sounds like a mention of tank troubles.

 

[SUSpilot]

Thought we were talking about hospitals there....

Fair enough. I was thinking of the MSDS regarding Teflon and cryogenic oxygen when I asked my question. I will ask our hazmat expert in my company (he's the JayUtah of hazmat in my industry) what the specific signage is for the O2 and NO2 outlets in a hospital delivery system. From what I've seen, the words "OXYGEN" or "NITROUS OXIDE" are required.


However, this brings me back to my question. Will PTFE burn in a storage tank of cryogenic oxygen?

 

[SpitfireIX]

I do not know if the Teflon in an Apollo 13 cryogenic tank might be enticed to burn SUSpilot.

Everyone else here knows.

I haven't gotten that far. Obviously, my view going in is somewhat biased to say the least.

To say the least.

That said, and as mentioned, the first thing I have looked at was NASA's own papers regarding this and I accepted/accept at face value their basic thermodynamic claim that the reaction is exothermic. They'd have to be crazy to lie about that, so I accept that.

Yet you reject a large number of other claims that NASA would "have to be crazy to lie about." Why is that, Patrick?

Beyond that, I do not know at this point what my ultimate conclusions will be.

I think you already know exactly what your ultimate conclusions will be.

Is there a 7 lb Teflon equivalent of TNT in the tank? NO, at least I doubt it very much.

I explained to you that most of the force of the explosion was due to oxygen pressure, so why are you repeating the Teflon-TNT canard?

Was there enough Teflon in there plus/minus aluminum to heat things up to the point where it blew O2 tank 2 to the tune of a 7 lb TNT equivalent, NO, at least I doubt it very much.

Here are some thermodynamic tables for oxygen. Please demonstrate how there was not enough aluminum or Teflon to overpressurize the tank. Here is the information you will need, converted to the units used in these tables:

Burst pressure of tank: 150 atmospheres

Heat of combustion of Teflon in tank: 2.5 MJ

Heat of combustion of aluminum in tank: 21.6 MJ

Oxygen pressure at beginning of problem: 60 atmospheres

Oxygen temperature at beginning of problem: 150 K

Oxygen quantity at beginning of problem: 116 kg (estimated)

The quantity is estimated from the amount in the other tank because the quantity sensor had failed earlier in the mission. However, even a large variation from the estimate will not change the answer to the question. So let's see your proof. You may assume that the amount of oxygen remains constant, and that the volume of the tank remains constant (both of these would vary by a percentage point or two due to combustion, but again this won't affect the conclusion. I'm sure I speak for everyone else here when I say we're all looking forward to your answer.

So you'll have to be patient. I suspect I will have much to say about the Teflon/aluminum thing, I am quite good at that sort of science.

It's a very straightforward calculation for anyone who understands thermodynamics; if you're really that good it shouldn't take you any time at all.

 

[Tomblvd]

sorry thought you were a doc.

I AM a "doc".

It seems you were saying O2 in a container is different, not the same as O2 coming out of a vent or a wall feed. I thought you were disagreeing with me here and was under the impression you were a physician, a medical doctor who worked in a hospital. My apology. Error was all mine.

Huh?

The error was all yours, I wasn't agreeing with you. I've spent plenty of time in a hospital, fortunately those days are pretty much (but not completely) in the past. That changes nothing in the discussion though.

Although I'll accept your admission you were wrong.

(Yes, I know he's admitting he's wrong about something else entirely, but context never stopped Patrick from drawing erroneous conclusions.)

 

[Patrick1000]

Geeeeee Jay, how interesting, wonder what thread you are reading......

It's already settled for everyone except you. You've been given multiple testimony by people who have been to hospitals. No special expertise is required to notice warning signs, and everyone seems to have noticed them. You're trying to pin the whole question on one guy, whom you've inappropriately tapped out to be some sort of bellwether, and who has already given his report. It does take expertise to know which safety regulations apply, and you've been supplied with those. You've even admitted to the presence of warning signs, just not to one specific location for them. All those are straw-man claims.

You chose to phrase your rejoinder as not having to "walk around on eggshells" or fear that "the ICU is gonna blow." Those are straw men as well.

Threadworm originally pointed to the Apollo 1 capsule as an example of what will burn when exposed to concentrated oxygen. You then brought up medical-gas oxygen outlets in hospitals as "another" example of "100-percent oxygen," although Loss Leader and others were quick to point out that this is an inaccurate description of the stoichiometric equivalent, and an invalid comparison.

Tomblvd also pointed out the difference between an open and closed container, and called you on your straw-man mock fear that the "ICU would blow." He also noted the presence "all around" of combustion warnings.

You're trying desperately to drag this discussion into one obscure corner case where you think you can win. The question has already been decided to everyone's satisfaction but yours: hospitals recognize the danger associated with increased concentrations of oxygen and take appropriate, legally-mandated precautions.

Having established that beyond any reasonable doubt, we can therefore return to your claim preceding, which was to compare ordinary ambient oxygen concentrations with those in the O2 tanks on board the service module. It should be fairly obvious now that such a comparison is invalid: where there is a higher concentration of oxygen, more things burn and burn more rapidly and more energetically.

Now will you finally quit dragging your feet and give us the stoichiometric computations you promised? You've had four days, during which you've presented new material instead of supporting your existing arguments.

Geeeeee Jay, how interesting, wonder what thread you are reading......Who pray tell would those hospital workers from your side of the debate be? We'll all want to be sure of the EXACT language they see being used at their own hospital's O2 wall feed sites and the EXACT language being used at their hospital warning everyone about the dangers of oxygen being used feeding those dangerous, soon to catch fire ICU ventilators. A fire could break out anywhere and anytime now. One might even hear about this on the news......

Funny, I cannot find anything to that effect going through this thread, a hospital worker or visitor from your side of the debate posting such SPECIFICS about oxygen warning sign labels. I wonder what our respiratory therapists are going to tell me when I speak to them about this issue tomorrow evening? Should be interesting. So much dangerous oxygen everywhere, and so many laws and regulations about this problem that your side knows everything about.

A moment of truth is indeed at hand......

 

[Patrick1000]

You know JAy, another thought just occurred to me with regard to this O2.....

It's already settled for everyone except you. You've been given multiple testimony by people who have been to hospitals. No special expertise is required to notice warning signs, and everyone seems to have noticed them. You're trying to pin the whole question on one guy, whom you've inappropriately tapped out to be some sort of bellwether, and who has already given his report. It does take expertise to know which safety regulations apply, and you've been supplied with those. You've even admitted to the presence of warning signs, just not to one specific location for them. All those are straw-man claims.

You chose to phrase your rejoinder as not having to "walk around on eggshells" or fear that "the ICU is gonna blow." Those are straw men as well.

Threadworm originally pointed to the Apollo 1 capsule as an example of what will burn when exposed to concentrated oxygen. You then brought up medical-gas oxygen outlets in hospitals as "another" example of "100-percent oxygen," although Loss Leader and others were quick to point out that this is an inaccurate description of the stoichiometric equivalent, and an invalid comparison.

Tomblvd also pointed out the difference between an open and closed container, and called you on your straw-man mock fear that the "ICU would blow." He also noted the presence "all around" of combustion warnings.

You're trying desperately to drag this discussion into one obscure corner case where you think you can win. The question has already been decided to everyone's satisfaction but yours: hospitals recognize the danger associated with increased concentrations of oxygen and take appropriate, legally-mandated precautions.

Having established that beyond any reasonable doubt, we can therefore return to your claim preceding, which was to compare ordinary ambient oxygen concentrations with those in the O2 tanks on board the service module. It should be fairly obvious now that such a comparison is invalid: where there is a higher concentration of oxygen, more things burn and burn more rapidly and more energetically.

Now will you finally quit dragging your feet and give us the stoichiometric computations you promised? You've had four days, during which you've presented new material instead of supporting your existing arguments.

You know Jay, another thought just occurred to me with regard to this O2 in hospitals issue. The truth with respect to the facts of it all will inevitably bleed out like phony oxygen leaking from the phony wound of an Apollo 13 Service Module faking an injury.

Here your side is claiming wall feeds and ICU ventilators need to be labeled with some sort of warning about the dangers of O2 use. But as readers of this thread wander into hospitals over time to visit friends and relatives, they'll look up at the wall feed there in Uncle Willy's room , look there at the wall feed to see how wrong Patrick1000 is, and guess what is going to happen Jay? Yes, you've got it. They won't see "DANGER OXYGEN". Alas, they shall only read "oxygen". Over and over and over and over, curious Lost Bird readers will read only "oxygen", nothing else on the wall feed and no danger signs labeling the ventilators either.

Then what Jay? Your side's credibility will bleed away like that phony O2 leaking from the phony wound of an Apollo 13 Service Module faking an injury. Perhaps you guys should reconsider this one. So much credibility at stake over such a silly little point.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Because there were other gases feeding the fuel cell lines.....

Rubbish. The point is you are referring to modern telling of the accounts from knowledge gleaned after the fact. Lovell would quite rightly fear the worst in a situation where his life was at stake. They stirred the oxygen tanks, muffled bang. Venting.

Why in any non biased HB world would he NOT think that!

Because there were other gases feeding the fuel cell lines that could have been venting as well Erock, namely hydrogen and nitrogen. Lovell doesn't say how much gas there is, what it looks like, where it is coming from. None of that. Take a read. Take a listen.

Why do they shut down fuel cells one and three Erock? Because the "leaks" may be there, at least with respect to oxygen tank one. What feeds into fuel cells one and three? O2, H2, N2. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe what was venting was oxygen and only oxygen. Were that the case, EECOMs Liebergot and Burton would have said as much.

What you have here Erock is two scenarios running simultaneously. The bogus scenario contrived and articulated by the Apollo 13 fraud perps and the scenario as articulated by the honest flight officers who are working this simulated drama with the belief that this stuff is really going on. And the honest flight officers(Lunney, Burton, Liebergot etc.) don't bite on the BULL they are being fed. As I said before, GOOD FOR THEM!!!

The line about the venting was a part of the scripted drama delivered at that time to push HONEST flight officers into jumping to an oxygen conclusion, AND more significantly, to push them toward thinking this was hardware, not instrumentational in nature.

As a matter of fact Erock, if you read the relevant section of the Apollo 13 Mission Report, you will learn that the astronauts noted in this staged drama, the nitrogen reading was LOW to one of the fuel cells. You'll also learn they were allegedly having problems with the O2 gauge on one of the tanks. The gauge was reading consistently HIGH before any of this drama even started.

And as I have repeated over and over, Lovell's report to Houston at the time the "venting" was first noted was non-specific. In the Mission Report, he says gas was pouring out of the service module. If that was true, why didn't he tell the flight officers gas was pouring out? The whole thing is so ridiculous.

Disgusting.......

 

[Patrick1000]

That is not how Kranz tells it at all Erock......

Here's the obvious one.

In the log and transcript, Lovell didn't report what he THOUGHT. He reported what he saw - gas venting. Back on Earth he indicates what his thoughts were.

Kranz in retelling, says what Lovell THOUGHT!!

Is there no end to the nonsense spouted on this subject? Tedious.



So, Patrick, when are you going to discuss this with the people who you accuse? Afraid much?

That is not how Kranz tells it at all Erock......

Get a copy of the History Channel Film FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. Go to the menu and activate the commentary. Go to 1 hour and fourteen minutes in and listen for 3 minutes or so.

Kranz repeats the nonsense about Lovell telling Houston in real time 15 minutes into the staged drama that they were VENTING OXYGEN, and that this was to be a LM as lifeboat survival mission. All the more damning, when specifically challenged about the issue of timing by one of the producers, when the question was posed pointedly, when the question was posed directly, Kranz can be heard to say very very explicitly that that THEY all knew they were dealing with an EXPLOSION at the time of Lovell's venting oxygen comment/report.

Since no one else drew these conclusions, not EECOMs Liebergot and Burton, not Flight Director Glynn Lunney, not to mention many many others "working the problem", Kranz and Lovell can rightly be viewed as individuals driven by an altogether different scenario, a bogus one, a staged one, a pretended one..

This is not misremembering Erock, every time one hears Kranz and Lovell tell this idiotic tale they say the same bogus thing. No one else misremembers in this way, says, "as soon as I heard about the venting I knew that was O2 and there must have been an EXPLOSION". No one else says that. They do not say that because obviously it is complete BULL.

Disgusting.....

 

[JayUtah]

Geeeeee Jay, how interesting, wonder what thread you are reading...

The thread I summarized, going back to include the language that you ignored in your rush to focus on one detail you thought you could win. And true to form, you continue to focus on that detail while ignoring everything said about your straw-man tactic.

Why don't I have your contact information yet?

 

[JayUtah]

Get a copy of the History Channel Film FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION.

Asked and answered multiple times.

You have been given the opportunity to quiz Kranz in person on this. Why have you not taken it? Why do you instead insist on trying to bait others into interpreting it?

Please send me your contact information immediately so we can stop this pointless second-guessing. Unless the pointless second-guessing is what you intended to base your argument on.

 

[JayUtah]

Because there were other gases feeding the fuel cell lines that could have been venting as well Erock, namely hydrogen and nitrogen.

Asked and answered multiple times. The diagnosis arose from the integration of several point of data, the sum of which precluded the possibilities you name. This was discussed five days ago. Why are you now trying to raise the topic again?

 

[JayUtah]

Here your side is claiming wall feeds and ICU ventilators need to be labeled with some sort of warning about the dangers of O2 use.

No, that was not the claim. The claim was that such signage was "all around." You're desperately trying to limit that to the outlets themselves just because the word "feed" appeared in Tomblvd's post. As you've done in nearly every thread on every subject you've started here at JREF, you delve so quickly into straw-man argumentation it's a wonder you don't apply for work as a scarecrow.

Then what Jay? Your side's credibility will bleed away like that phony O2 leaking from the phony wound of an Apollo 13 Service Module faking an injury.

I'm willing to take that risk. I've been to hospitals and I've seen the warnings myself. I've read the reports of hospital fires. I'm familiar with the OSHA regulations and the NFPA regulations. The argument was that hospitals recognize the dangers of increased concentrations of oxygen and act accordingly. You're frantically trying to get people to validate your straw man, but it's not working. You don't see anyone suddenly flocking to your side. Instead everyone sees how you twist and writhe to keep from being pinned down on the critical point. Instead you want to see if you can win one insignificant point just so you can escape from the totality of the Fail you've accumulated.

As for credibility in general:

Why have you wasted five days now after admitting that you would need to perform computations to determine whether PTFE would ignite? In that time you've beaten down your oxygen-spigot straw man and rehashed all your vitriol against Gene Kranz, all of which was refuted days ago. Why? Let me vocalize what I suspect all the other readers are thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're dragging your feet on this because you know as soon as you attempt any sort of specific, testable computation, the experts on this forum will tear you to shreds as they have every time you've attempted actual science. You'd rather remain ambiguous and see whether someone will give you the benefit of the doubt than make another colossal, obvious error and remove all doubt.

Why do you insist on insulting, libeling, and generally denigrating the Apollo functionaries anonymously from a place of unassailable safety? I've handed you the golden opportunity to confront these men in person and claim your victory, reducing them to the "perps" you say they are. You claim your case is incontrovertible. Why? Again, let me vocalize; correct me if I'm wrong: You know that you wouldn't last five minutes in an actual encounter with any of the men you've vilified. And your entire fantasy world depends on their inability to refute you in a way that causes you any actual distress.

Prove you're right. Send me your contact information and let's take this to the next level.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here your side is claiming wall feeds and ICU ventilators need to be labeled with some sort of warning about the dangers of O2 use...

There you go again, erecting a strawman. You only know what labelling is required on a wall feed because you have already been told this information, here in this thread, more than once.

The point of all this digression is not whether everyone knows the statutory warning signs required for all uses of oxygen in every jurisdiction. The point is that you started this discussion by displaying a striking ignorance of the dramatic difference in oxygen's behaviour when it's concentrated and held under high pressure compared to normal atmospheric conditions. Any professional required to work with compressed oxygen containers or systems would have been trained in its dangers. You had to have it explained to you, right here in this thread, over the last few days.

So don't go hugging yourself with glee just yet. You don't get to put words into people's mouths and we are not fooled.

Fundamentally all that matters is that you tried to cast doubt on NASA's explanation for what went bang on Apollo 13. You thought it sounded implausible. You were wrong, and wrong in a way which merely cast deeper doubt on your own claimed credentials.

 

[Patrick1000]

Suit yourself Jay, cannot wait to hear back ........

No, that was not the claim. The claim was that such signage was "all around." You're desperately trying to limit that to the outlets themselves just because the word "feed" appeared in Tomblvd's post. As you've done in nearly every thread on every subject you've started here at JREF, you delve so quickly into straw-man argumentation it's a wonder you don't apply for work as a scarecrow.



I'm willing to take that risk. I've been to hospitals and I've seen the warnings myself. I've read the reports of hospital fires. I'm familiar with the OSHA regulations and the NFPA regulations. The argument was that hospitals recognize the dangers of increased concentrations of oxygen and act accordingly. You're frantically trying to get people to validate your straw man, but it's not working. You don't see anyone suddenly flocking to your side. Instead everyone sees how you twist and writhe to keep from being pinned down on the critical point. Instead you want to see if you can win one insignificant point just so you can escape from the totality of the Fail you've accumulated.

As for credibility in general:

Why have you wasted five days now after admitting that you would need to perform computations to determine whether PTFE would ignite? In that time you've beaten down your oxygen-spigot straw man and rehashed all your vitriol against Gene Kranz, all of which was refuted days ago. Why? Let me vocalize what I suspect all the other readers are thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're dragging your feet on this because you know as soon as you attempt any sort of specific, testable computation, the experts on this forum will tear you to shreds as they have every time you've attempted actual science. You'd rather remain ambiguous and see whether someone will give you the benefit of the doubt than make another colossal, obvious error and remove all doubt.

Why do you insist on insulting, libeling, and generally denigrating the Apollo functionaries anonymously from a place of unassailable safety? I've handed you the golden opportunity to confront these men in person and claim your victory, reducing them to the "perps" you say they are. You claim your case is incontrovertible. Why? Again, let me vocalize; correct me if I'm wrong: You know that you wouldn't last five minutes in an actual encounter with any of the men you've vilified. And your entire fantasy world depends on their inability to refute you in a way that causes you any actual distress.

Prove you're right. Send me your contact information and let's take this to the next level.

Suit yourself Jay, cannot wait to hear back about the "signage all around" as you like to say. Nursing stations, patient rooms, Telemetry wards, ventilator sites. Give me something. Doesn't have to be a wall feed, though that was my claim. I'll take anything from you guys at this desperate point to help you save face. DANGER OXYGEN!!!!!!

I am waiting for the SPECIFICS regarding reports on hospitals from your side. I have given mine. And stand by it. Any nurses out there, physical therapists, respiratory therapists , other docs, friends of Jay that might be able to rescue him here and tell us all about the O2 warning signs in hospitals?

Looking pretty bleak for you there Jay, almost as bad as Apollo 13 itself.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Oh my JAy, this one here is lookinmg pretty grim.....

No, that was not the claim. The claim was that such signage was "all around." You're desperately trying to limit that to the outlets themselves just because the word "feed" appeared in Tomblvd's post. As you've done in nearly every thread on every subject you've started here at JREF, you delve so quickly into straw-man argumentation it's a wonder you don't apply for work as a scarecrow.



I'm willing to take that risk. I've been to hospitals and I've seen the warnings myself. I've read the reports of hospital fires. I'm familiar with the OSHA regulations and the NFPA regulations. The argument was that hospitals recognize the dangers of increased concentrations of oxygen and act accordingly. You're frantically trying to get people to validate your straw man, but it's not working. You don't see anyone suddenly flocking to your side. Instead everyone sees how you twist and writhe to keep from being pinned down on the critical point. Instead you want to see if you can win one insignificant point just so you can escape from the totality of the Fail you've accumulated.

As for credibility in general:

Why have you wasted five days now after admitting that you would need to perform computations to determine whether PTFE would ignite? In that time you've beaten down your oxygen-spigot straw man and rehashed all your vitriol against Gene Kranz, all of which was refuted days ago. Why? Let me vocalize what I suspect all the other readers are thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong: you're dragging your feet on this because you know as soon as you attempt any sort of specific, testable computation, the experts on this forum will tear you to shreds as they have every time you've attempted actual science. You'd rather remain ambiguous and see whether someone will give you the benefit of the doubt than make another colossal, obvious error and remove all doubt.

Why do you insist on insulting, libeling, and generally denigrating the Apollo functionaries anonymously from a place of unassailable safety? I've handed you the golden opportunity to confront these men in person and claim your victory, reducing them to the "perps" you say they are. You claim your case is incontrovertible. Why? Again, let me vocalize; correct me if I'm wrong: You know that you wouldn't last five minutes in an actual encounter with any of the men you've vilified. And your entire fantasy world depends on their inability to refute you in a way that causes you any actual distress.

Prove you're right. Send me your contact information and let's take this to the next level.

Oh my Jay, this one here is looking pretty grim. Here's my original post on the subject........


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7961262#post7961262

Here is what I said;

"We have 100% oxygen flowing out of our hospital feeds 24/7/365 with stuff a lot more flammable than teflon available nearby as fuel. Electrical equipment in and around ventilators that could "spark". You don't see us walking around on egg shells worried the ICU is going to blow threadworm."


Looks like I did specifically refer only to feeds and vents Jay. That said, and Like I said, just to be a nice guy, I'll take anything from your side at this point. How about a sign hanging up somewhere at a nursing station? Any takers?

 

[Erock]

That is not how Kranz tells it at all Erock......

Get a copy of the History Channel Film FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. Go to the menu and activate the commentary. Go to 1 hour and fourteen minutes in and listen for 3 minutes or so.

Please don't do that. Don't assume that because you've got a new hobby between the banjo and your bike, that those of us who have been engrossed in this for many years haven't watched the film already, plus numerous other films on the subject!

Again you simply repeat the assertion, which effectively is your total lack of ability to acknowledge the difference between retelling something many years later after the fact, compared to actual realtime events.

'Knowing' something doesn't preclude exploring all possibilities to make sure. Humans make mistakes, that's why there are numerous people on the case working the problem. I expect every person involved strongly suspected it was oxygen.

[repeat]

1. Stir oxygen tanks.
2. Muffled bang.
3. Oxygen readings dropping.
4. Venting.

[/repeat]

I'd chuck the rolleyes at you, but you seem impervious to logic, or any of the expert refutations at your posts. I've never come across somebody so wrong about so many things, but with this baffling mind block stopping them from seeing it or acknowledging any of it.

Disgusting.....

Will you just stop with your childishness? How old do you say you are?

 

[SUSpilot]

Why do you insist on insulting, libeling, and generally denigrating the Apollo functionaries anonymously from a place of unassailable safety? I've handed you the golden opportunity to confront these men in person and claim your victory, reducing them to the "perps" you say they are. You claim your case is incontrovertible. Why? Again, let me vocalize; correct me if I'm wrong: You know that you wouldn't last five minutes in an actual encounter with any of the men you've vilified. And your entire fantasy world depends on their inability to refute you in a way that causes you any actual distress.

Prove you're right. Send me your contact information and let's take this to the next level.

Although not posed as a motion, I second it. All those in favor?