Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
I work quite well without a safety net Jay......

JayUtah said:
Nope. The question, as proven by the multitude of endorsements here, is whether Patrick1000 actually believes the nonsense that he's spewing enough to confront Kranz, Lovell, etc. directly about it.

You have "called out" several important Apollo functionaries, labelling them "perps" for no better reason than their failure to conform to your expectations. Now we will see whether you are willing and able to put any substance behind that callout. I will facilitate direct contact -- not anonymous web tantrums -- between you and the Apollo workers I know. We'll see how well you fare.

You express prodigious confidence when there are no real consequences of failure. Let's see how well you work without a safety net, the way the rest of us in the real world have to work.

Contact info, please?
Click to expand...

I work quite well without a safety net Jay......

I have been more than up front with my accusations/claims/FACTS!!!! I have written personal letters DIRECTLY!!! to Armstrong, Aldrin and others, delivered by certified mail, correspondences which included ever so emphatically my name, phone number and email address. The astronauts had and still have an opportunity to respond to me directly.

As for you Jay, with all due respect, it is none of your business whom I choose to contact directly with regard to my views. By all means, you are free to interact in open forums, but you are not welcome to be a part of my private communications with astronauts or anybody else.

And your side calls me arrogant?
 
If it is already settled to your satisfaction Jay.....

JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it is already settled to your satisfaction Jay why is it that you are WASTING so much time and energy here on JREF debating me Jay? If I have nothing to say Jay, why are you bothering with any of this? As I have written to others, no one is holding a pretend inauthentic worthless nonfunctional Apollo Program ray gun to your head. You seem rather obsessed with my theories Jay considering all the time and effort you invest in your feeble efforts to counter my FACTS.

Are you planning to write a medical text Jay and claim that influenza vaccines are 100% efficacious.....? That might be helpful given the dire straights Apollo is in here.

Oh, and as far as the chem stuff, I have yet to find anything worthwhile regarding the activation energy for that Teflon combustion reaction. I wonder why that is? Perhaps you'd care to provide that to us Jay so that we can all get started.

And as far as dragging my feet goes in a broad sense, I have made more progress researching Apollo, telling the truth about the American Apollo Program in 8 months than all Apollo researchers combined have on both sides of the fence in the last 42 and one half years, so don't give me your bogus jive Jay about dragging my feet. On the contrary, I am writing the book before your very eyes with regard to how it was that this abominable charade played out.

Posterity will thank me.........
 
That's not what McDivvitt thought in real time.....

Erock said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's not what McDivvitt thought in real time.....During the middle of the night Apollo 13 disaster press conference, given early am April 14 1969, McDivitt is asked what it was that happened to the service bay and he emphasized ANYTHING was possible pointing our many systems were under pressure not just the O2 tank, but also the nitrogen system, hydrogen system and the fuel cells themselves. AND if this were real, Lovell would have been thinking the same thing. HE would have said, "I saw gas venting from the service bay and realized it could have been anything coming from any of the tanks/sources, fuel cell mixture, hydrogen, O2, nitrogen".

This thing is so fake Erock , it boggles the mind. Boggles, because once one starts actually reading this BULL, you wonder in retrospect how you could have missed it for a minute as the complete BULL is.
 
Oh one last point about my contacting principals directly.....

JayUtah said:
Nope. The question, as proven by the multitude of endorsements here, is whether Patrick1000 actually believes the nonsense that he's spewing enough to confront Kranz, Lovell, etc. directly about it.

You have "called out" several important Apollo functionaries, labelling them "perps" for no better reason than their failure to conform to your expectations. Now we will see whether you are willing and able to put any substance behind that callout. I will facilitate direct contact -- not anonymous web tantrums -- between you and the Apollo workers I know. We'll see how well you fare.

You express prodigious confidence when there are no real consequences of failure. Let's see how well you work without a safety net, the way the rest of us in the real world have to work.

Contact info, please?
Click to expand...

One last point about my HABIT of contacting principals(astronauts, fight officers, scientists) directly....

Perhaps Jay when all is said and done, my personal communications with Armstrong, Aldrin(admittedly very one sided given THEIR RELUCTANCE TO ENGAGE ME), flight officers and so forth will be made public. Wouldn't THAT be interesting.

As mentioned previously, there are some who have agreed to allow me to make public that which they have shared with me and I choose to keep my personal correspondences private until in my view making such information public would be of value. At this point in time, such is not the case. Not by a light year.
 
Quite honestly, not saying this to be mean or anything....

Garrison said:
You can hardly be serious expecting us to take you interpretation over JayUtah's proven expertise can you?

To recap your recent track record:

Claimed Teflon wouldn't burn, and furiously tried to pretend you hadn't when utterly exposed.
Claimed an Oxygen rich hospital environment wasn't a fire hazard and endlessly hand waved over warning notices.
When offered the chance to confront those who you accuse of perpetrating a hoax you have ducked out.

That's just in the last couple of pages, it would require an essay to cover every mistake you have made so simply repeating over and over your spurious interpretation of NASA data you clearly don't have the skills to understand isn't going to get you anywhere.

Please admit to your mistakes with Teflon and Oxygen and take up the offer to face those you accuse of fraud.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly, not saying this to be mean or anything...You guys do not understand chemistry, why reactions do or do not occur...It is evident from your comments about the Teflon thing here.
 
Just to be explicit Jay so I need not repeat myself....

JayUtah said:
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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

Just to be explicit Jay so I need not repeat myself...

You keep making this point and I have responded already several times, but just to really emphasize the truth in this matter given your strong language here in this particular post of yours, I have contacted my victims DIRECTL. Some have, and some have not chosen to respond and the details of those communications will remain private as mentioned previously.


I am happy to debate anyone.

Again, if you find me a laughingstock, why are you wasting your time calling me one?
 
Mr. Kranz is more than a liar.......

JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mr. Kranz is more than a liar.......

He is party to an act of treason.....

Think about that Jay, encouraging everyone not to blow it and lose the remaining AC Bus and fuel cell while in the same breath reminding everyone they have the LM if/as needed. This is 15 minutes from the time of the first intimations there was a problem.


Who needs a LM if one has a fuel cell, just one fuel cell and an AC bus? Answer, no one, certainly not pretend astronauts in pretend outer space. And certainly not their pretend flight director.

I guess once this all comes out they'll say it was a matter of national security. But for my money, it is treason, plain and simple....

I want my money back!!!!!
 
Oh my, isn't this interesting.......

JayUtah said:
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.



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



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."



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



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

Oh my, isn't this interesting.......Jay thinks "activation energy" is something Patrick1000 might be able to calculate.

Such an erudite group here and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU seems to understand any fundamentals of chemistry.

Better look that up Jay, "activation energy" see what it is and why it is important here. You can read about it in any freshman chemistry text.

Just so you know Jay, it is not something I can calculate. It is something that would be empirically determined. I don't believe I have the proper lab set up. You yourself would not happen to, do you?
 
Should I accept the Department of Defense Map Specialists' Expertise....

Ravenwood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Should I accept the Department of Defense Map Specialists' Expertise with regard to their labeling of the Lunar Area Map 2 and the Apollo 11 Lunar Descent Monitoring Map Ravenwood? They claim to be professionals and they got the ellipse center coordinates wrong Ravenwood.

Maybe you should accept the fact that vaccination does not guarantee influenza immunity and send Charles Berry a note to that effect as well Ravenwood. Berry is another one of your experts that needs some outside help.
 
Because I wrote a 20 page letter to Neil Armstrong 8 months ago .......

Gorgonian said:
Jay has only asked you for your contact information to set this up about a billion times. Why don't you give it to him and let's get this thing started, then?
Click to expand...

Because I wrote a 20 page letter to Neil Armstrong 8 months ago ......Been there, done that. I have written to plenty of the other perps as well. Next question Gorgonian.......
 
No RAF, he was lying about the fact that he was standing behind Sy Liebergot....

R.A.F. said:
John Young flew the first Gemini mission with the late Gus Grissom.

Was he lying about that, too??


Yes or no, Patrick...answer NOW.
Click to expand...

No RAF, John Young was lying about the fact that he was standing behind Sy Liebergot when the Apollo 13 disaster simulation began. That is what I said John Young was lying about and L
iebergot says Young was lying about that as well. So that makes two of us accusing John Young of lying, of treason. Why don't you set up a John Young Liebergot debate since Young doesn't want to debate me.

As a matter of fact, Liebergot also says that the astronauts generally treated the flight officers with contempt, if I may use that word, paraphrase a bit, as did management treat them with contempt. Liebergot says the astronauts for the most part took the flight controllers for granted, did not care about them in any meaningful sense, weren't aware of what they did in any detail. Lovell did once say to Liebergot that the flight guys saved his rump. That was the only compliment Liebergot ever got from an astronaut, the only words of appreciation he ever received from those whom he thought he was safe guarding.

Did you know RAF that when the Apollo 13 astronauts were recovered from their simulated mission , Kranz, Kraft, other managers congratulated one another on the floor of Mission Control, but not a one of them went down to say thanks to the flight controllers, either the guys in the TRENCH or elsewhere?

More proof of fraud, circumstantial, but compelling. Were the thing real, these people would have been genuinely appreciative
 
Tell 'em to meet me here, 02/04/2012, JREF, LOST BIRD at High Noon....

JayUtah said:
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?
Click to expand...

Tell 'em to meet me here, 02/04/2012, JREF, LOST BIRD at High Noon...

Ray guns at 10 paces
 
So if all this is a matter of public record Spitfire.....

SpitfireIX said:
So why do you keep asking questions about it?




Combustion = fuel (Teflon) + oxygen (285 times the normal concentration) + an ignition source (electric arcs are extremely hot).




Frankly, no one cares what you believe. The problem is that you've predetermined your conclusion and you're just looking for ways to twist the facts to fit it.




You have demonstrated no credentials or expertise; why should anyone care?




The combustion of Teflon in oxygen-rich environments has been studied by engineers outside NASA, and even outside the USA. Google "Teflon + autoignition + oxygen" and you'll find several papers and articles on the subject. Why do you feel the need to attempt to reinvent the wheel?




How is a short circuit in the tank not "untoward"?




I gave you all the data you need to answer the very straightforward question of whether the Teflon and aluminum could have generated enough heat to rupture the tank; if, as you claim, you're "quite good" at thermodynamics, it shouldn't take you any time at all. So why haven't you responded? Do you need a hint?




Why don't you try determining whether the reaction would even require a catalyst before you start worrying about whether any was present? First, though, you claim that you at best "doubt . . . very much" that the Teflon and aluminum would have burned with enough heat to have caused the tank to have failed; again, why don't you answer that simple question first?




As noted, many papers and articles have been published by non-NASA sources; a number of these are available online. Why don't you look at those?




As has been explained to you ad nauseam, it was not premature, and no one qualified in aerospace engineering believes it was.




As Jay pointed out, this is nothing but pseudohistorical nitpicking. Real historians understand that eyewitness accounts of true events tend to vary from witness to witness, and even from the same witness over time. You don't have to take my word for this, even though I have a BA in history; just go ask some history professors at one of your local colleges.




That's the only place they're significant. :rolleyes:




Asked and answered, repeatedly, but I'll recap anyway. Most laymen don't care about the details of why the tank exploded; those who are interested mainly care that the explosion happened; that it put the lives of the crew at great risk; and that NASA, thorough skillful engineering and improvisation, was able to bring them home safely.





As noted, you appear to be attempting to set up a scenario where you can reject all of the test results and studies as inapplicable or suspect, so that you can then proclaim the problem to be insoluble and thus "NASA can't prove it happened that way." However, the burden of proof is squarely on you for your clearly extraordinary claim that goes completely against the generally accepted version of events, and is contradicted by an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Apollo missions happened substantially as advertised.







Do you, or do you not, understand that the higher the concentration of oxygen, the more likely it is that any substance will burn?




No, it's not the least bit reasonable. First, despite your claims, there's no reason to believe that NASA lied about what happened. Second, if NASA did lie, how is it that no experts have ever questioned the story? Third, 7 kg of TNT is equivalent to approximately 30 MJ. The amount of energy released when the tank failed is again a straightforward problem in thermodynamics; you should be able to to solve it quickly and easily if you're "quite good."
Click to expand...

So if all this is a matter of public record Spitfire, perhaps you would provide us with a few facts about the reaction in question; its activation energy, its free energy, any relevant details regarding the presence of a catalyst or lack thereof.

Not a one of you understands a single thing about chemistry. I know I sound like a broken record, but to be honest, I am rather surprised. Not an undergraduate level chemical engineering student in the lot? Not a high school level chemist among you?
 
Apollo and Dyna-Soar

Now that I have addressed these rather ridiculous concerns about my fear of direct confrontation with fraudulent Apollo Program principals, not to mention the nonsense about the Teflon issue which I'll continue to investigate as obviously my colleagues here are indeed dependent on me, themselves lacking the tools, relevant background/training, I'd like to introduce a new subject, something I have been investigating for several months now.

In the late 1950s and early 60s, the Air Force was developing a space shuttle like reconnaissance glider, bomber called the Dyna-Soar. The program was highly developed and said to have been canceled in the early 1960s.

Of course nothing could have been further from the truth. Witness the Space Shuttle, nothing other than a Dyna-Soar.

Another example of NASA's/Air Force's Overt Coverts.
 
SUSpilot said:
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".
Click to expand...

Aye and aye
 
Aye & Aye.
Back up your words & face those you libel. Anything less and you show that you do not truly believe the garbage you spew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom