Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

I would be happy to debate Kranz and Lovell Jay, bring them on....

You said that before, yet I still do not have your contact information. How can I endorse a meeting with you if their offices have no way to contact you?

 

[JayUtah]

The hard evidence begins to mount and mount and mount. Thank you Sy, THANK YOU!

No, this is just a rehash of already-debunked claims.

You are on the hook to tell us about PTFE flammability and you've had nearly two weeks to do your research and make your computations. I suppose I should not consider you worth you word on this point, since I've been waiting well over a month for your computations on the orbital problems associated with your military hardware. I declare the point conceded -- you admit are unable to prove that PTFE will not combust in the Apollo 1 tank environment.

Regarding Sy Liebergot, you have an offer on the table from me to facilitate a meeting between you and him, and between you and others. I require your contact information so that I can contact these individuals (or their offices) and set up that meeting. Since you seem to be getting so much rhetorical mileage out of Liebergot's statements, I'm curious at why you're dragging your feet on the possibility of an in-person summit.

Please supply your contact information so that we can get these meetings set up.

 

[Garrison]

I would be happy to debate Kranz and Lovell Jay, bring them on....

Well you knw the terms,you give JayUtah your contact details and then you bravely tell those men to their faces that they are 'perps'. Why hold back? This is your chance to show the world the truth and silence your critics. Could it be that you are only the 'mighty Patrick1000' so long as no one looks behind the curtain?

 

[JayUtah]

Before the "explosion", the pressure in both O2 tanks was telemetered back to Houston at a little over 900 PSI in both tanks. In the readout at the time of the alleged fire, the PSI in O2 tank 2 read 996 PSI. The tank was said to have been capable of retaining its structural integrity up to internal pressures of 2000 PSI. Hard to believe that would have been viewed as an adequate margin of safety.

Compute the appropriate safety margin. Use the appropriate method and the standard references and best practices. Show your work.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you mean 'debate' as in meet and actually debate, or do your mean anonymously post insupportable garbage then scamper away?

I echo this question. I'm not sure where Patrick1000 seems to have gotten the idea that I've offered to bring the people I named here to JREF to debate his anonymous throw-away identity. I will not embarrass myself by calling Kranz's secretary and saying, "There's an anonymous poster on a web forum who's calling Mr. Kranz a liar. I'd like Gene to come defend himself." Why should that rise to the level of his attention? It barely rises to the level of my attention.

The offer is, and only ever has been, to facilitate an in-person or other direct form of contact (e.g., telephone) between Patrick and any or all of the people I have worked with from Apollo. I have been very explicit about that from the beginning. I am offering Patrick the chance to accuse his identified "perps" directly and the reciprocal chance for them to answer their accuser in a way that holds him answerable for those accusations.

 

[Patrick1000]

Same point to you that I made to Jack by the hedge Ravenwood....

Jay is 100% correct here, Patrick has shown an absolute refusal to accept any evidence from proven experts in the field, & like the usual paranormal believer, refuses to back up his claims, expecting us to take is word for it, in spite of his blatant dishonesty on the subject.
Jay has given you the means to test your conviction in the real world, and you refuse to do it...why is that? Acta non Verba, Patrick...The time is here for you to put up or shut up, and in my opinion, that is the only response from the forum you should receive to any more of your attempts to obfuscate or distract from the matter at hand. You have libeled professionals in the field from behind your various sock puppets & hide behind your monitor. Face them in the real world where your actions will have consequences. Show us that you really believe the garbage you are spewing...

Put up or Shut up.

Same point to you that I just made to Jack by the hedge Ravenwood. Just who pray tell is calling the kettle black?


Anyone of you is plenty smart enough to look up the facts regarding influenza vaccine efficacy, the circumstances regarding the Hong Kong Flu Pandemic of 1968/1969, the reasons for concerns regarding astronauts huddled together in the confined quarters of a CM, basics regarding the work up of garden variety infectious diarrhea, the implications of any given diagnosis. Take a look at what professionals in the relevant fields have to say about these things. They are telling you that Charles Berry is a big fat fraud. There are no two ways about this.

I would suggest that H. David Reed is not spewing garbage Ravenwood. He was and is the most qualified PROFESSIONAL to make a determination with regard to the situation regarding the Eagle's position on the morning of 07/21/1969. H. David Reed says no one knew where the Eagle was within 5 miles. AGS, PNGS, MSFN, Mapping and Targeted Landing site coordinates were all solutions at odds with one another to the tune of 5 miles distant from one another. Yet, the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors suggest nothing could have been further from their imagined version of an ever so bogus made up and make believe "truth". According to the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors, the AGS, PNGS, MSFN solutions were not five miles from one another , but were all very very very very very very very close to one another. Were they professionals that wrote up that bogus report Ravenwood, the Apollo 11 Mission Report?

Now who are we to believe Revenwood, the honest and competent PROFESSIONAL FIDO AND LAUNCH SPECIALIST H. David Reed, or the merchants of fraud?

Don't give me your bogus jive about not accepting the opinion of professionals. Since when has H. David Reed been proven wrong on this important point? Since when does an influenza vaccine guarantee immunity? Your side's position is based on nothing more than a big fat LIE that does not fly, and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the opinion of qualified professionals. I encourage you to read what PROFESSIONALS do have to say about all of this.

You guys need to wake up. You are all being gamed big time...

 

[R.A.F.]

I would be happy to debate Kranz and Lovell Jay, bring them on....

How often have you made this pointless boast?


You seem to think that any "debate" would take place on your terms. It will not. If you really were serious about debating, you would come into the light and debate, not "hide" on an internet forum.

Like I have posted, you are NOT debating this topic in good faith.

Since you will not provide Jay with your contact information, it stands as an admission that you are incapable of debating this topic rationally.

 

[SUSpilot]

No, this is just a rehash of already-debunked claims.

You are on the hook to tell us about PTFE flammability and you've had nearly two weeks to do your research and make your computations. I suppose I should not consider you worth you word on this point, since I've been waiting well over a month for your computations on the orbital problems associated with your military hardware. I declare the point conceded -- you admit are unable to prove that PTFE will not combust in the Apollo 1 tank environment.

Regarding Sy Liebergot, you have an offer on the table from me to facilitate a meeting between you and him, and between you and others. I require your contact information so that I can contact these individuals (or their offices) and set up that meeting. Since you seem to be getting so much rhetorical mileage out of Liebergot's statements, I'm curious at why you're dragging your feet on the possibility of an in-person summit.

Please supply your contact information so that we can get these meetings set up.

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is sadly comical that during this video Liebergot refers to Aaron as someone smarter than he is. Aaron is no smarter than Liebergot. A fraud insider he is. That is the source of Aaron's "genius", pathetically so.

The only thing that's "sadly comical" and "pathetic" here is your attempt to get people to take you and your claims seriously.

One last point. In the Liebergot book, the EECOM provides us with actual replicas of the screens he viewed at the time of the "failure" . These can be found in the book's appendix.

Before the "explosion", the pressure in both O2 tanks was telemetered back to Houston at a little over 900 PSI in both tanks. In the readout at the time of the alleged fire, the PSI in O2 tank 2 read 996 PSI. The tank was said to have been capable of retaining its structural integrity up to internal pressures of 2000 PSI.

I already gave you this information up-thread (though the NASA report says 2200 psi burst pressure at the approximate temperature at which the problem occurred). Speaking of which, when are you going to demonstrate that you're "quite good" at thermodynamics and combustion problems?

Hard to believe that would have been viewed as an adequate margin of safety.

Exactly what do you believe would have been an adequate factor of safety, and upon what do you base that determination? Also, please discuss how the factor of safety might have been increased, and what effects such methods would have had on other aspects of the spacecraft's operation.

 

[Garrison]

I encourage you to read what PROFESSIONALS do have to say about all of this.

You guys need to wake up. You are all being gamed big time...

And I encourage you to contact these professionals and see if one of them agrees with the conclusion you've drawn from their work. The only person trying to game anyone is you Patrick1000 and frankly the above smacks of desperation.
You've been offered the chance to make your case face to face; you haven't taken it. You've been asked to admit your errors, you try and pretend they didn't happen when they are preserved for all too see in this forum.
You're the one who needs to wake up Patrick, you have no credibility, and your current efforts aren't going to change that.

 

[Garrison]

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye & aye

 

[JayUtah]

I would suggest that H. David Reed is not spewing garbage Ravenwood.

Reed was covered months and months ago. Please address the refutations that were made back then.

Don't give me your bogus jive about not accepting the opinion of professionals.

We accept the work of professionals. That doesn't mean we agree with what you're doing with it. As with most conspiracy-theory appeals to vicarious authority, you deny your own involvement in the line of reasoning you propose. As long as you continue to try to shift responsibility for your conclusions onto the authorities you are misinterpreting, you will not prevail -- or even be taken seriously.

Since when has H. David Reed been proven wrong on this important point?

It's not his point; it's your point. And when have you ever been right, or even submitted to any test of your skill or correctness? Why are you supposedly the only person who can put Reed's statements in the truthful context?

I encourage you to read what PROFESSIONALS do have to say about all of this.

The professionals all say we went to the Moon. That's the uncomfortable fact that cuts you off at the knees every time. You want us to respect these professionals, but you don't respect them at all. They all explicitly dispute your principal findings. Deal with it.

You guys need to wake up.

No, you need to wake up to the fact that waving your hands wildly at people you are terrified to face will not produce a convincing argument. You can allude to the work of professionals all you want, but in the end it's you -- a confirmed and admitted amateur -- who are interpreting the work to fit your beliefs. Just because you make reference to professional work doesn't mean the professionals endorse what you do with it.

It is your (lack of) expertise that is the problem. Always has been.

You are all being gamed big time...

Yes, we're being gamed by a notorious proven liar with a multitude of identities and sock puppets, who believes that his, and only his interpretation of the historical and technical record should be taken as truth. I assure you we're not being fooled.

 

[JayUtah]

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

Aye

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye

 

[Tomblvd]

Anyone of you is plenty smart enough to look up the facts regarding influenza vaccine efficacy, the circumstances regarding the Hong Kong Flu Pandemic of 1968/1969, the reasons for concerns regarding astronauts huddled together in the confined quarters of a CM, basics regarding the work up of garden variety infectious diarrhea, the implications of any given diagnosis. Take a look at what professionals in the relevant fields have to say about these things. They are telling you that Charles Berry is a big fat fraud. There are no two ways about this.

Who are these professionals and what are they saying? Do you still say the vaccine should be 100% effective?

You also failed to answer my questions regarding this issue, "doctor".

I'll repost the issues for you to cowardly ignore again:

Originally Posted by Patrick1000
Claiming that I backpedal is more than a little ridiculous Jack by the hedge....

There is not a single point of mine that I do not still stand by;

2) Apollo must be fraudulent because in the case of a real program physicians would have addressed the Borman illness in a very different way than it in fact the matter was addressed.

And what "different way" would that have been? You MUST be specific here.

Also, do you still stand by this statement?

Quote:

This false claim of course was necessary in a sense because were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure.

(emphasis mine)

You guys need to wake up. You are all being gamed big time...

So says they guy pretending to be a doctor....

 

[grmcdorman]

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye, aye. Again. He seems to be avoiding the last round of support for this notion.

 

[threadworm]

Same point to you that I just made to Jack by the hedge Ravenwood. Just who pray tell is calling the kettle black?


Anyone of you is plenty smart enough to look up the facts regarding influenza vaccine efficacy, the circumstances regarding the Hong Kong Flu Pandemic of 1968/1969, the reasons for concerns regarding astronauts huddled together in the confined quarters of a CM, basics regarding the work up of garden variety infectious diarrhea, the implications of any given diagnosis. Take a look at what professionals in the relevant fields have to say about these things. They are telling you that Charles Berry is a big fat fraud. There are no two ways about this.

I would suggest that H. David Reed is not spewing garbage Ravenwood. He was and is the most qualified PROFESSIONAL to make a determination with regard to the situation regarding the Eagle's position on the morning of 07/21/1969. H. David Reed says no one knew where the Eagle was within 5 miles. AGS, PNGS, MSFN, Mapping and Targeted Landing site coordinates were all solutions at odds with one another to the tune of 5 miles distant from one another. Yet, the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors suggest nothing could have been further from their imagined version of an ever so bogus made up and make believe "truth". According to the Apollo 11 Mission Report authors, the AGS, PNGS, MSFN solutions were not five miles from one another , but were all very very very very very very very close to one another. Were they professionals that wrote up that bogus report Ravenwood, the Apollo 11 Mission Report?

Now who are we to believe Revenwood, the honest and competent PROFESSIONAL FIDO AND LAUNCH SPECIALIST H. David Reed, or the merchants of fraud?

Don't give me your bogus jive about not accepting the opinion of professionals. Since when has H. David Reed been proven wrong on this important point? Since when does an influenza vaccine guarantee immunity? Your side's position is based on nothing more than a big fat LIE that does not fly, and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the opinion of qualified professionals. I encourage you to read what PROFESSIONALS do have to say about all of this.

You guys need to wake up. You are all being gamed big time...

H David Reed was more than happy that the astronauts were on the surface of the moon, as the ALSJ reports:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.launch.html

[In a 2010 book, From the Trench of Mission Control to the Craters of the Moon, H. David Reed, who was Flight Dynamics Officer (FIDO) for the Apollo 11 LM liftoff, details the story behind this unscheduled request for a P22 one orbit before liftoff. Briefly, he and his support team needed an accurate LM position so they could pick a liftoff time that would minimize propellant usage. The various estimates available at that time were scattered over a considerable area. They needed something better. After extensive discussions within the team, Reed choose a method suggested by Pete Williams, the COMPUTER DYNAMICS officer: they would track the CSM with the LM's rendezvous radar and, then, using a separate, accurate determination of the CSM's orbital track over the landing site (as discussed at 121:07:37), work backwards to find the LM.]
[In a June 2011 e-mail, Reed adds: "For Apollo 12 (and subsequent), as you know, we wanted to do a 'pin point' landing, which we had discovered would be impossible without a real fix in LM position before landing. This was accomplished by implementing a post DOI (Descent Orbit Insertion), doppler-tracking scheme devised by Emil Scheisser of MPAD (Mission Planning and Analysis division). The ground would compute the predicted downrange error and send that correction to the crew prior to powered descent ignition. It allowed us to land within a few hundred feet or less of the desired landing site."]

Here is Reed again proudly proclaiming his Apollo credentials:

http://www.uwyo.edu/ceas/hall-of-fame/hreed.html

Here is Reed describing how he collected autographs in mission control from his colleagues to celebrate the safe return from the moon of the Apollo 11 crew:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525269,00.html

Reed was one of many thousands of PROFESSIONALS in their field who worked on the Apollo missions and have no doubt that they were on the moon. If you believe he is honest and true, then obviously you will accept his word that Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

He turns up here, discussing his role during the early stages of launch:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/4317016

He crops up all over the place discussing his job as FIDO for Apollo. Go ahead and find one single quote anywhere from this honest PROFESSIONALl whose word you trust that he believes they were not on the moon.

 

[nomuse]

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye.

He stopped saying anything sufficiently amusing since he abandoned the "airplanes are just like bicycles, only simpler" line.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye, and aye.

 

[abaddon]

I see two motions here, that I will second:

All those in favor of Patrick supplying the requested information regarding PTFE and liquid O2 before he changes the subject again, please say "aye".

Aye.

All those that believe that Patrick should agree to publicly confront Kranz, Liebergott, et al for attribution, please say "aye".

Aye.

Time to put up Patrick, and face those you accuse.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...Take a look at what professionals in the relevant fields have to say about these things. They are telling you that Charles Berry is a big fat fraud. There are no two ways about this.

Unhappily for you, no professional has ever said that. Only you are saying that and your opinion is worthless. You are not a doctor. You are a thoroughly biased conspiracy nut. There are no two ways about that.

I would suggest that H. David Reed is not spewing garbage

Nor would the rest of us. It is plainly you who is spewing garbage. As you've abandoned your previous point about the NASA PAO I assume you concede defeat again.

'Aye' to the vote for you to show your working on the oxygen tank, and 'aye' to your putting up or shutting up about Kranz et al.