Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

Not to be patronizing, but I shall spell this out for you....

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 shall spell this out for you SUSpilot, though I am not sure how anyone could have previously made it any more clear than I have already. Teflon is combustible. It does burn BY DEFINITION. NASA published the relevant chemical equation with part of the relevant thermodynamic data. The reaction OCCURS SUSpilot. It is exothermic. I am not denying that. I never did. It would be no different than trying to deny that gasoline or wood burns/combusts. I said that I accepted NASA's presentation of that fact. You keep writing that I denied/am denying what I specifically claimed/claim I accepted without question, NASA's Teflon combustion equation. The stuff burns SUSpilot. How many times to I need to write this myself?

Teflon burns. The question is not whether it "does burn" BUT DID IT BURN IN O2 TANK NUMBER TWO THAT APRIL 1970 DAY IN CISLUNAR SPACE.

No one, least of all me, is denying the fundamental reality of the basic thermodynamics. NASA would have to crazy to lie about something like that.

The desk you are sitting at now SUSpilot burns, combusts. Why is it not burning now? The very same question is the relevant question with regard to Teflon and aluminum in the Apollo 13 O2 tank April 1970. The question is not were the relevant reactants present, but did combustion in fact occur?

It does not matter how "cold" the tank is to begin with, whether the O2 is "cryogenic/frozen" or "hot" from the get go. In any and every case, the reactants must achieve activation energy for the burning to begin. Once that is achieved and burning is initiated, the reaction must propagate. In order for the reaction to propagate, the reaction's free energy profile must be favorable. That is, in addition to the reaction's being exothermic, the free energy of the event must favor ongoing combustion. And there are other considerations with respect to propagation such as the presence of catalysts. A catalyst's presence would also be relevant with respect to the achievement of the activation energy at the time of the combustion's initiation. Additionally, in order for all of this damage to be done, the reaction must propagate in such a way that a 7 lbs' worth of TNT explosion is ultimately realized.

I never denied the Teflon/O2 reaction occurs any more than I would deny the fact that the desk at which you sit burns, would combust with oxygen of any sort were the activation energy of the reaction to be achieved.

This point you keep raising SUSpilot makes no sense as it is the one thing I have quite explicitly NOT DENIED.

 

[Patrick1000]

That is the photo from the advertisement.

this was easy

That is the photo from the advertisement.

Hospitals for the most part do not put signs up like that in a patient's room. To emphasize, YOURS NOT A HOSPITAL PHOTOGRAPH. It is an advertisement.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

So you've given your contact info to Jay so he can hook you up with Gene?


Although I suspect that if you were to do so that you would. E proven wrong on every point an that you would still claim "victory" by ignoring what you have been told in favour of your own ignorance.

 

[BaaBaa]

Gene Kranz awaits, Patrick......

bump

 

[Garrison]

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.

Really? Then what was this comment from your post #6521 meant to convey(my bold):

Keep in mind Teflon is specially designed to not burn, to not combine with oxygen.

 

[Garrison]

I believe I have discussed this several times already....
I never claimed that "LM as lifeboat" was never drilled/simulated as an option.

Again this contradicts your statement in post #6162 (my bold):

This is BEFORE any formal decision is made to move the astronauts into the LM, BEFORE any technical assessment has been made with respect to the LM's capabilities.

The meaning of that statement seems quite clear to me, you were indeed denying the prior existence of the 'lifeboat scenario'.

 

[R.A.F.]

As above Jay, Kranz or anyone else is more than free and WELCOME to take a shot at me here...

Do you comprehend that you would NOT be able to "name call" Kranz if he were a poster, here? That you would NOT be able to make unsubstantiated claims about Kranz if he were a poster here??


The last thing you "want" is to discuss this topic rationally, and in "good faith"...and Kranz's presence on this board would require you to do that.


As has become "typical", just a meaningless "boast".

 

[SpitfireIX]

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....

If you'd been paying attention, you'd have seen that I have "Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA" listed as my location. Further, in my post I hyperlinked to the web page of the hospital where my cousin works (Parkview main campus; also the hospital where I was born, in the mid-1960s).

Last year I visited people in the hospital on several occasions; I also took someone to the ER a few times. These were all at Parkview's North Campus. None were on supplemental oxygen, and I don't recall whether there were signs on any other rooms I passed. I'm reasonably certain there were signs in the ER, but I don't recall the exact wording.

I also took another cousin to see her mother who was in the ICU at a different hospital; I believe there was a sign on the ICU door, but again I don't recall the wording.

I drive right by Parkview North on my way to and from work; when I have a chance I'll stop and see what signs I can find, and exactly what they say.

 

[JayUtah]

There is absolutely no question that Teflon can burn. At least I have not made such a claim.

Yes, you made exactly that claim. You made it, emphasized it, belabored it, and tried to take us to task in your typically childish way for not agreeing with us.

Then after the deluge of refutation, you softened your position into saying it may burn, but that it would depend on the specifics of the situation. You made a vague reference to "activation energy" and promised to investigate and calculate it. That was seven days ago.

The question is not can they burn, but do they burn under any given set of circumstances.

And you've dragged your feet for seven days rather than prove that these given circumstances do not support combustion, as you claim.

The circumstances with respect to the Apollo 13 alleged Teflon burning are so exotic...

Why is it any more exotic than any other chemistry problem? The proper models use the actual figures in all cases, even when the circumstances are familiar. That the circumstances are unfamiliar merely implies that certain variables simply have different values. It doesn't render the process now somehow "exotic." Just run the standard models with the appropriate numbers.

No, it looks to me like you're setting up the standard conspiracist backpedal: "This problem is so hard that no one can solve it, therefore I'm probably right."

I have yet to see specifics...

Yes, that's the problem. It's been a week and you still haven't done your homework.

These details I will look into in due time.

Too late. Your homework was due before you drew your conclusions and tried to make everyone seem silly for not accepting them.

 

[JayUtah]

Does that mean patient rooms? Ask her specifically if she see O2 warning signs in patient rooms.

More hair-splitting.

You said you would "accept anything from our side." That was obviously a lie. Now you want more and more and more -- shifting the goalposts. You remain the only person who seems to believe that hospitals don't take special precautions around elevated concentrations of oxygen. What reality do you live in?

 

[nomuse]

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

Yes and no. It is germane because of the essential point you keep trying to wriggle away from; that an oxygen-enriched environment is a recognized fire hazard. And that unusual materials will burn, and burn readily (explosively!) under those conditions.

It is a diversion because you have tried to drag it into a discussion of specifics of hospital signage, as part of your off-and-on pose as a medical authority.

And it is important even if not on topic that this idea that one can behave cavalierly around even something as innocuous-looking as portable oxygen concentrators leads to hundreds of fires, injuries, and death every year. It this site is about anything, it is about relieving dangerous conditions of ignorance.

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.

But why not? Imagine this; here I am, a conspiracy with a billion dollars in operating costs and thousands of top-notch scientists and engineers on staff. Why would I reach for something unlikely or impossible when I made up a story for Apollo 13? Why wouldn't I go to those same experts and ask them to make up something entirely plausible?

What is the bonus, in short, of going with a story the public is unlikely to believe? What conspirator would possibly sign off on a story that would require that every person with actual training (right down to hospice care nurses) believe something that goes against their own experience?

(Accepting for the purpose of this exercise that the "public" would react to learning of the mechanism of the Apollo 13 explosion just as you, Patrick, have. And also accepting for the purpose of this exercise the ridiculous assertion that the mechanics of the Apollo 13 disaster are indeed physically implausible.)

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.

Stick a couple of gasoline-soaked rags in that bucket instead, and put it in a nice cool corner of your basement.

Then please, please, tell me you live close to the local fire station. Because from this post and others, you are going to need it.

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.

They were provided for you multiple times. Perhaps you should say you haven't gotten around to the calculation.

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.

Semantics. I say my car engine pushed my car up to 130 on a deserted rural road, even though it was really tiny gasoline explosions pushing against pistons that pushed my car.

Well, actually, more than semantics. This wasn't a teflon explosion. This was an explosion within an oxygen tank. Thousands of different combustible materials might have been inside and at fault; the important element is the concentrated oxygen environment and the presence of an ignition source.

Which brings us right back to your dangerously blase disregard of the hazards of medical oxygen.

 

[JayUtah]

This is not a place of unassailable safety Jay...

Yes it is. In the real world there is damage to one's reputation when he is repeatedly, egregiously wrong. In the real world there are consequences to false accusations. You suffer none of that because you rant from a position of anonymity and deception. You never have to face the consequences of your actions. You can just walk away any time.

The people you are libeling are real people with real identities. They don't get to hide behind sock puppets, false identities, and anonymity. They live in the real world, not a fantasy online world. You want to lash out at them from your fantasy bubble, retaining the ability to retreat back into it. That is not an approach taken by credible scholars. It is an approach suitable only to charlatans.

I find my position strong and my confidence level is quite high, high as the stars.

That's very easy to achieve when you are completely insulated from the consequences of your behavior. We're going to see how confident you are when there are real consequences to failure.

I am more than prepared to debate Neil Armstrong himself here were he to chance an appearance. Nobody is preventing anyone else from participating.

What part of my offer sounded anything like inviting your victims to this forum to debate you anonymously and perpetuate your sick fantasy?

My offer was, is, and has always been to place you in direct contact with your victims. As in personally, in-person if possible, under your real identity so that they can face their accusers. We are going to take this to the next level. They are going to know who it is who is accusing them of being "perps."

There is no offer on the table to entice them to waste their time here with an anonymous blowhard. You will either send me your real, verifiable contact information so that I can facilitate these meetings, or you can continue to be a laughingstock.

It looks like there's a whole page of people endorsing the idea that you should be made personally (not your anonymous proxies) to take responsibility for your claims. Such a spontaneous outpouring of sentiment should reach even you.

Send me your contact information. Put up or shut up.

 

[nomuse]

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.

But you are NOT public at this forum. You are hiding behind a series of masks and a multitude of stories.

Contrast Kranz, who if this conversation were to take place would be posting under his own name. Or Jay for that matter, who has an easily discoverable public identity.

The point being not that the discussion takes place in public, but that the persons involved in the discussion make themselves public. It's the difference between a cowardly anonymous attack, and meeting someone face-to-face.

 

[Patrick1000]

On the Contrary, The More Pressing Question Is Does Armstrong Think He is Fooling Us.

Do you really believe you are fooling anyone, Patrick?

No one believes you.

Put up or shut up.

On the Contrary, The More Pressing Question Is, "Does Armstrong Really Believe That He is Fooling Us, Fooling Anyone For That Matter?"

Consider this AdMan; You descend to the surface of the moon, missing your targeted landing site by 4 or 5 miles. While you are on the lunar surface, you, your partner Buzz Aldrin, and the supporting staff at Mission Control in Houston, not to mention the crew at Flagstaff, are unable to determine with any certainty where it was, you, the first man to walk on the moon actually landed.

You are now riding back to earth in the relative comfort of the command module and you have time on your hands. You have have maps of the lunar surface including the one your Command Module Pilot, Michael Collins, used in his effort to himself locate the Eagle.

You are a great adventurer, a great explorer, one of the greatest of all time in fact, like Columbus they say, like Magellan they say. Why aren't you yourself then looking at the maps you have in the command module, if for no other reason than simply curiosity's sake, to figure out where it is that you in fact touched down? Where it is exactly that you walked on the moon? You saw the terrain, know it better than anyone. You have been studying the terrain of the landing site ellipse, studying it better than anyone. You perhaps more than anyone are in a position to know, to figure out where it is that you landed. Yet when the CapCom calls you to chat about this, the landing site, the $64,000 question, you sound almost disinterested. Didn't you try to figure out for yourself where it was that you were? No, you did not. From the conversation you had with the CapCom on the "ride back" you gave absolutely no indication that you made any such effort. You cared almost not a whit about the $64,000 question. The whole thing is ridiculous beyond belief.

Now it is August of 1969, the day of the Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference. Everyone wants to know quite obviously where it was that you guys landed, especially given the 1202 alarm and so forth, the story about flying over west crater, the dramatic ride over the boulder field and what not. But in your Apollo 11 Post Flight Press Conference Presentation you make no specific reference to this site in the sense that you do not show a detailed map, the LUNAR AREA MAP 2 for example, and inform us all of how this most interesting of occurrences went down, how it is and where it was that you wanted to land at the ellipse's center, and how it happened exactly that you flew west and south of where you hoped to land and so why it was that you wound up so very dramatically encountering west crater and the boulder field.

Here is another example of applying simple common sense to this incredible tale. Anyone can see the whole thing for what it is, an utterly phony scam. anyone can see this simply by pausing a moment and noting how these characters don't behave as they would were they to have been real explorers, adventurers, men curious about where it was that they went, what place it was exactly that they ultimately found. Anyone can see Armstrong was no Magellan, not even close. Simple common sense is all that is needed, rocket science is even less than relevant here.

 

[fess]

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.....

As a matter of fact, yes I have. The sign says; Warning… Oxygen in Use.

There are “No Smoking” signs all over our hospital. At every entrance, and even at the outdoor break area.

 

[fess]

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.

I can throw lit cigarettes into a container or bucket of gasoline all day long without anything happening, and have done so in various courses. Now, enrich the fumes given off by the gasoline with oxygen and see what happens. Please have a fire extinguisher close by.

 

[R.A.F.]

In our hospital...

What does this mean?? You have admitted that you are not an MD, so please explain what this means.

 

[R.A.F.]

All are welcome here at this forum to debate me publicly...

Irrelevant...you continue to ignore when errors are pointed out to you, so there is NO "debate" here.

 

[Garrison]

On the Contrary, The More Pressing Question Is, "Does Armstrong Really Believe That He is Fooling Us, Fooling Anyone For That Matter?"

No to everyone else I think the pressing questions are why can't you admit you made a mistake claiming Teflon wouldn't burn? Why won't you take up the offer to meet Gene Kranz? Why do you refuse to admit that an Oxygen enriched atmosphere is dangerous?

The rest of you rpost is just basically an attempt once again to impose Patrick1000's views of how people should behave on the Apollo astronauts, and you've given no reason why your opinion in this matter should count for anything. Address the real pressing questions please Patrick1000

 

[R.A.F.]

On the Contrary, The More Pressing Question Is, "Does Armstrong Really Believe That He is Fooling Us, Fooling Anyone For That Matter?"

How in the heck did you translate that out of "no one here agrees with you"??


This is exactly what I am talking about when I post that you are not discussing this topic "in good faith". You post irrelevancies as answers.

When will you stop doing that?