Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe I have discussed this several times already....

R.A.F. said:
Admitting your previous errors is a good idea...you can start by admitting that you were wrong about the LM lifeboat assessment that was done before A13.
Click to expand...

I believe I have discussed this several times already....

I never claimed that "LM as lifeboat" was never drilled/simulated as an option. As a matter of fact, I have mentioned at least once previously and perhaps more than once that "LM as lifeboat" was actually EMPHASIZED in the Lovell/Kluger Apollo 13 book, and a simulation featuring LM as lifeboat took place actually not too long before the Apollo 13 Mission.

My objection is that Kranz's comment about the LM is premature. It has nothing to do with previous drills in an absolute sense. 15 minutes into the Apollo 13 drama did "LM as lifeboat" apply? NO, not at that time. Kranz was premature. Was the CONTEXT of the problem 15 minutes in assessed specifically as "LM as lifeboat" amenable? Absolutely not.....

Read Lovell's book, listen to the EECOM tapes, in no way can one make such an argument, that Kranz's comment was temporally appropriate. And furthermore, given the comment, there was no analysis at that moment in time, roughly 15 minutes in, articulated by anyone at all, including Kranz himself, that suggested "LM as lifeboat" was appropriate given the situation.

Take a look at Thomas Kelly's writing on the subject. He of all people should/would and did know. He was of course hopeful that the LM could be used as it purportedly was, but he was surprised by the predicament and had never envisioned anything like this himself.
 
I agree, the oxygen in hospitals business borders on the irrelevant....

SUSpilot said:
Sidebar, trivial in this context*, and not germane to the original question: does PTFE burn in the presence of cryogenic oxygen?

-------
*Aside from establishing your credibility.
Click to expand...

I agree, the oxygen in hospitals business borders on the irrelevant....to say the least.....
 
A picture is not necessary Tomblvd.....

Tomblvd said:
Its interesting to note what Patrick considers evidence. For him it's a statement. For us, we must post pictures.

I vote "aye" on the "Send me your contact information and let's take this to the next level."

Since you are so big on evidence Patrick, you have a chance for the motherlode. Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

A picture is not necessary Tomblvd.....If you walk into a hospital and see an O2 warning posted and tell me where it is and what it says, of course I would accept your word for it....The line about photos was my way of emphasizing my confidence in my position.......If you know differently with respect to this rather trivial business with regard to a hospitals and their oxygen feeds in your area, fine, simply give me the specifics about it. I really am quite curious to know what is written/labeled where and about what.
 
So thanks for that, very interesting sign there, "no smoking oxygen in use"

SpitfireIX said:
Here's one from a company that sells hospital signage:

http://www.bodypartchart.com/product/no-smoking-oxygen-in-use-sign/

And several more from another, including door hangers:

http://www.healthcaresigns.com/oxygen-in-use-signs

How is it that these companies offer such signs if no one uses them?
Click to expand...

So thanks for that, very interesting sign there, "no smoking oxygen in use"...

We do not have such signs in our patient rooms, nor do any of the other hospitals in our area have signs in the patient rooms saying "NO SMOKING OXYGEN IN USE".....

Have you ever seen such a sign actually displayed in a patient room in a hospital near you? You need not tell me where you live, just curious.....

I am not sure, but I do not believe there is a single solitary no smoking sign in this hospital....

I am so curious now I will check it out when I get a chance.....
 
Patrick1000 said:
I think that is great. Ask your cousin about the specifics. what do the O2 warning signs say and where are they located? It shall be of great interest to us all I am sure.....
Click to expand...


She said they're in all the patient areas, and she doesn't remember the exact wording but it's not all the same. She said that she frankly doesn't worry too much about them becauise they don't concern her; she never has any potential fire hazards with her.
 
I agree the O2 thing is a diversion.....

Garrison said:
Pure Oxygen is a fire hazard and all this hand waving won't change that. How about you knock off the pointless diversion and take up the offer to be put in touch with Gene Kranz? For that matter why not answer the relevant question about whether PTFE will burn in cryogenic oxygen?
Click to expand...

I agree the O2 thing is a diversion.....

I imagine Teflon can be induced to burn under a variety of exotic circumstances. Given my orientation, I obviously do not believe any Teflon did in fact burn in an O2 tank in Cislunar space back in April of 1970. What I do intend to do is take a look at NASA's argument for this occurring as well as their argument for aluminum possibly having burned as well.

I think you are missing my fundamental point Garrison. The question is not can this or that burn but do they burn, did they burn, under a given set of circumstances in April of 1970. I can put a bucket of gasoline in my backyard on a hot June day and let it sit there. Many days may well pass and there will not be any kind of a fire unless someone is careless in some way, unless something untoward happens.

So, I'll see what I think based on the activation energy of the reaction, what was alleged to be in the tank in terms of something/conditions that would account for the propagation of a Teflon combustion reaction, and what was alleged to have been in the tank with respect to the purported end result.

I believe I mentio0ned this previously, though perhaps I did not fully emphasize it, I have not even gotten around to looking up figures for the reaction's activation energy, nor have I begun to investigate whether or not there may have been anything in the tank that might have served as a catalyst to lower the energy of activation.

The only things I have looked at so far are NASA's own reports on the subject as they appear in the Apollo 13 Mission Report, and additional specialty papers by NASA that they wrote up on the subject. It will be some time before I make any determination with respect to this particular question. I mentioned before, I accept the overall thermodynamics as presented by NASA for the combustion of Teflon. Aside from that, everything else is suspect in my mind with regard to this issue.

I won't turn my full attention to this matter just yet as I am still reviewing newspaper articles, magazine articles and NASA tapes/Mission Control Tapes with respect to the Gene Kranz premature lifeboat call. I also am documenting how Lovell is prone to changing his story. One time he tells it, he says he has no idea as to what happened, another time he tells it, he claims he knew the venting was oxygen right away and he knew there was an explosion more or less right away. In my mind this sort of thing, Kranz's and Lovell's egregious inconsistencies are far more significant and important than the Teflon issue.

As you may recall, I introduced the issue with regard to the Teflon in an effort to emphasize how rarely the subject is touched on, let alone addressed in any meaningful sense. One hears more often than not, "an oxygen tank exploded", and my view is one hears things put that way as part of a program to intentionally deceive/mislead in a rather subtle way.

The issue with the Teflon may not be amenable ultimately to solution as it may not have been a study which has been repeated in any relevant sense.

All this said, my initial point about rarely hearing anything about Teflon and always hearing something about an O2 tank explosion I believe is a good one. And questioning whether Teflon might have actually burned under these exotic circumstances and questioning if such burning could result in 7 lbs of TNT worth of pop one way or the other is likewise more than reasonable.
 
Loss Leader said:
I feel this thread may be coming to an end.
Click to expand...

Since Patrick does not:

Answer specific questions, most recently "does PTFE burn in the presence of liquid oxygen?";

Because he dodges the main issues of a thread, ones he raises himself, most recently by using the sidebar of hospital warning signage;

And because he will not avail himself of the chance of a lifetime to directly confront those he accuses of fraud (heck, I just want another chance to shake Kranz's hand);

I believe you may be right.

Sorry Patrick, you haven't convinced a soul here. But, if it makes you feel better, I for one am grateful in an odd way for this. I've struck a new acquaintance with someone that is truly expert in the field of space exploration in Jay, caused me to re-read, re-explore, and find new material about one of the greatest achievements in my country's and humanity's history, one that I was fortunate enough to have witnessed in my lifetime, albeit via television and other media, and re-affirmed for me the idea that there are heroes in this world.

To paraphrase Gene Cernan: We walked on the moon; no one can take that away from us.
 
I'll say this one more time since the point is so important....

Jack by the hedge said:
So your position now is that you didn't think PTFE could burn in compressed pure oxygen because you flood your workplace with the stuff and you had no idea it was a fire hazard.

Not very impressive.
Click to expand...

I'll say this one more time since the point is so important....

I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding why it is that you are consistently missing my point. There is absolutely no question that Teflon can burn. At least I have not made such a claim. I have written several times that there is no reason to doubt the thermodynamics as presented by NASA.

But my coffee table can burn too, as well as a cupful of gasoline that I place on a kitchen table, or in the tank of my car for that matter. So too can an aluminum coke can burn. The question is not can they burn, but do they burn under any given set of circumstances.

The circumstances with respect to the Apollo 13 alleged Teflon burning are so exotic, it is less than obvious whether the material should/would/could be expected to in fact burn. So as above, I accept the thermodynamics in outline as presented by NASA, but I have yet to see specifics regarding the reaction's activation energy, the reaction's free energy, specifics regarding propagation of said reaction, and have yet to look in any detail at NASA's studies with respect to the overall energetics, how much energy was ultimately released.

These details I will look into in due time. Obviously it is a matter about which I am more than just a little curious.
 
Kranz is more than welcome to log on here.....

JayUtah said:
...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?
Click to expand...

Kranz is more than welcome to log on here.....If he prefers, he can private message me as well. I would be happy to defend my position in response to direct questions from the former NASA Flight Director. My position is more than sound.
 
In our hospital the feeds say "OXYGEN" and nothing else....

SUSpilot said:
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?
Click to expand...

In our hospital the feeds say "OXYGEN" and nothing else....The Teflon thing has been covered....
 
As above Jay, Kranz or anyone else is more than free and WELCOME to take a shot at me

JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...

As above Jay, Kranz or anyone else is more than free and WELCOME to take a shot at me here........By all means, invite whomever you like to participate. I have no problem with that and would welcome any and all questions/challenges either here in the open forum, or privately......As mentioned, my position is strong and I would obviously be prepared to debate Kranz or anyone else for that matter, and do so with the greatest confidence.
 
The oxygen readings on O2 tank one dropping......

Erock said:
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.




Will you just stop with your childishness? How old do you say you are?
Click to expand...

The oxygen readings on O2 tank one dropping were not noted until well after the Lovell "venting comment"....One can confirm this simply by listening to the EECOM tapes and also reading the Apollo 13 Voice Transcript. The quantity in O2 tank two was reading consistently high. Pressure in O2 tank two had read both low and high prior to Lovell's "venting comment". There was no consensus whatsoever at the time of the Lovell "venting comment" that the problem was not at least in part instrumentational. This can be easily confirmed simply by listening to the EECOM tapes.

When Kranz asks Liebergot directly what if anything the EECOM was monitoring might account for the venting, Liebergot answers the Flight Director by telling him he would get back to him with respect to the question. If Liebergot was certain that the venting gas was oxygen, or if he thought it probably was oxygen he would have said so. Instead, Liebergot tells Kranz that he would get back to him. That means he did not know at the time.
 
This is not a place of unassailable safety.....

JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not a place of unassailable safety Jay.....All are welcome here at this forum to debate me publicly or privately were they to prefer the latter. Indeed, that is the whole point of this forum Jay.

I find my position strong and my confidence level is quite high, high as the stars. I am more than prepared to debate Neil Armstrong himself here were he to chance an appearance. Nobody is preventing anyone else from participating.

With respect to your point about my not lasting 5 minutes, you could not be more wrong. If the entire current medical staff providing services to NASA and its present cadre of active astronauts were to engage me in a debate about the Borman illness issue, I'd cut them to ribbons were they to argue the Borman thing was no big deal.

Invite some of them here Jay, NASA doctors. I am itching to get a piece of those clowns. Now THAT!!!! is a debate I would love to have.....And THAT!!! is a debate that would end this whole nonsense once and for all....It would be in a sense subtle, slow paced and perhaps even boring for most, but it would without question be ever so conclusive....
 
Does that mean patient rooms?

SpitfireIX said:
She said they're in all the patient areas, and she doesn't remember the exact wording but it's not all the same. She said that she frankly doesn't worry too much about them becauise they don't concern her; she never has any potential fire hazards with her.
Click to expand...

Does that mean patient rooms? Ask her specifically if she see O2 warning signs in patient rooms.
 
Patrick1000 said:
I'll say this one more time since the point is so important....

I am having a little bit of difficulty understanding why it is that you are consistently missing my point. There is absolutely no question that Teflon can burn. At least I have not made such a claim. I have written several times that there is no reason to doubt the thermodynamics as presented by NASA.

But my coffee table can burn too, as well as a cupful of gasoline that I place on a kitchen table, or in the tank of my car for that matter. So too can an aluminum coke can burn. The question is not can they burn, but do they burn under any given set of circumstances.

The circumstances with respect to the Apollo 13 alleged Teflon burning are so exotic, it is less than obvious whether the material should/would/could be expected to in fact burn. So as above, I accept the thermodynamics in outline as presented by NASA, but I have yet to see specifics regarding the reaction's activation energy, the reaction's free energy, specifics regarding propagation of said reaction, and have yet to look in any detail at NASA's studies with respect to the overall energetics, how much energy was ultimately released.

These details I will look into in due time. Obviously it is a matter about which I am more than just a little curious.
Click to expand...
Then, by all means, please do so. We await your analysis with bated breath (meh). It was one of your central points that the whole accident was faked.
 
Patrick1000 said:
This is not a place of unassailable safety Jay.....All are welcome here at this forum to debate me publicly or privately were they to prefer the latter. Indeed, that is the whole point of this forum Jay.

I find my position strong and my confidence level is quite high, high as the stars. I am more than prepared to debate Neil Armstrong himself here were he to chance an appearance. Nobody is preventing anyone else from participating.

With respect to your point about my not lasting 5 minutes, you could not be more wrong. If the entire current medical staff providing services to NASA and its present cadre of active astronauts were to engage me in a debate about the Borman illness issue, I'd cut them to ribbons were they to argue the Borman thing was no big deal.

Invite some of them here Jay, NASA doctors. I am itching to get a piece of those clowns. Now THAT!!!! is a debate I would love to have.....And THAT!!! is a debate that would end this whole nonsense once and for all....It would be in a sense subtle, slow paced and perhaps even boring for most, but it would without question be ever so conclusive....
Click to expand...

If you're that confident, I can't imagine that you wouldn't want to make arrangements for a face-to-face encounter, wherein your real identity and CV is a matter of record. You've been given that opportunity many, many times, but you won't take it. I'm sure there's a time and place where the encounter could be arranged in a civil, moderated way (no Bart Sibrel stalker tactics). I'd be interested in seeing the result.

Remember, you're the one making the claim, one that flies in the face of accepted fact. You're the one that as to have the courage of your convictions and face the people you have publicly accused of perpetrating one of the greatest scientific and financial frauds of all time. At this point, to them, this whole conversation is down at the Internet crank level. And, in fact, it is. And, before you play your "No one's keeping you here" card, I already know that. I'm here mostly because it's a diversion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom