Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[R.A.F.]

Experts don’t “agree” on this NASA nonsense. Not in the sense that NASA’s bogus fairy tale was/is vetted by competent professionals outside of the agency and found to indeed be true.

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this, but that is simply not the truth.


...but go ahead and present those "competent professionals" who think that Apollo was faked...I dare you.

 

[JayUtah]

In my work toward fully elucidating the nature of Apollo fraud, I am more than entitled to post on multiple subjects.

Yes, so long as you can maintain all the discussions you start. When you change subjects to avoid uncomfortable questions, you make it more likely that you're evading an honest debate rather than trying to be comprehensive. You've attempted this defense before, and it got thrown back in your face. You drop subjects when they get too hot, and when you pick up a subject later, you "reset" it back to the state it was before all the refutations had been posted. That is clearly evasive, not just some master plan for spending your time wisely.

It is quite simply a quite simple fact.

Yet it is a "fact" that you cannot substantiate by your own means to the level of rigor you say is required for such things. It is a "fact" that you are as yet reluctant to attach to your real identity. It is a "fact" that you consistently decline to present in person to those whom you've anonymously accused of heinous acts.

In short, your dismissal and false bravado falls flat.

Apollo as history, as fraud is complex...

That would matter if you haven't simply been spinning your wheels for eight months repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

Fasten your seat belts.........

Send me your contact information. I'm offering you the wild ride you seem to want. Let's see just how committed you are to your version of the facts.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...Lovell said in his book(Apollo 13 page 350)that "MOST" of the Teflon burned off the wires when the O2 was heated up and floated off. That would mean, according to Commander Lovell anyway, there was considerably less Teflon available for combustion than the Cortright Commission claimed there was. IF they started with 0.13 lbs and "MOST!" of it burned away according to Commander Lovell, then there was less than 0.13 pounds of Teflon available at the time of the alleged spark...

<futile repetition snipped>

Oh my. There was less Teflon available for combustion, because some of it had burned. Did he really write that? <closes eyes, counts to ten, opens eyes - still there> Yes. Apparently he did. Several times over so there was no mistaking his point: There was less Teflon available for combusion after some portion of it had already combusted.

Wow.

And Patrick is trying to teach us school-level science.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NASA’s chief physician and evaluating clinician, Dr. Charles Berry, claimed “astronauts” Borman, Lovell and Anders could not have had influenza in cislunar space because they had received Hong Kong Flu vaccines.

No he didn't. That is merely your obviously biased misinterpretation of a newspaper report. This has been pointed out before. Repeating it as if it were fact looks like unresponsive trolling in my opinion.

 

[Tomblvd]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Experts don’t “agree” on this NASA nonsense. Not in the sense that NASA’s bogus fairy tale was/is vetted by competent professionals outside of the agency and found to indeed be true.

Allow this to be another request for at least one "competent professional".

In the latter case, the Apollo 8 case, NASA’s chief physician and evaluating clinician, Dr. Charles Berry, claimed “astronauts” Borman, Lovell and Anders could not have had influenza in cislunar space because they had received Hong Kong Flu vaccines. This complete jive was repeated in real-time reports ad nauseam in newspaper articles, not to mention respected publications like National Geographic. In the May 1969 National Geographic, none other than Lt. General Sam Phillips USAF himself wrote that publication’s cock and bull account of Apollo 8’s pretended first journey outside the earth’s gravitational reach. Even in that account, National Geographic’s report, one finds this idiotic BULL emphasizing how it was known with certainty that the “astronauts” did not have influenza because they had been vaccinated.

Once again Patrick is caught making things up. Here is a contemporary news article from the AP, which says the exact opposite of what you are alleging:

Gettysburg Times: The astronauts were shielded as much as possible from the Hong Kong flu. They were vaccinated, as were as many as 1600 persons who might have had contact with them.

Note, there is no absolute certainty in that statement. You are wrong yet again Patrick.

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch:

Gettysburg Times: But the persistent virus that attacked Borman was rampant at Cape Kennedy, among the space workers. Other astronauts with whom the Apollo crew met in the last 10 days have come down with the same illness.

But you continue to blather....

So let’s not get confused here . Every first year, wet behind the ears new grad, first day on the job medical intern knows that influenza vaccines are NOT 100 % efficacious, not even close.

Which is why you wrote:

I found it comical that once the NASA/Apollo script writers realized they had botched this by concocting this unbelievable story about infectious diarrhea in outer space and couldn't undo the nonsensical story they had told, they decided to deal with the fraud exposure so created by claiming the astronauts could not have contracted influenza in the midst of the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/1969. 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. So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated?

Note nowhere in that blather does Patrick shout his now overused phrase "vaccines are not 100% effective!!!!". It isn't until much later in the thread that Patrick starts with his vaccine histrionics because it wasn't until then that he was TOLD that vaccines are not 100% effective.

Proof positive he's just making it up.

And we are also waiting for you to justify the statement bolded above: "would be expected to get if for sure". How can you possibly say someone is "sure" to get flu if exposed?

Proof positive Patrick is not a doctor.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is not a reference to INFLUENZA Tomblvd

Allow this to be another request for at least one "competent professional".



Once again Patrick is caught making things up. Here is a contemporary news article from the AP, which says the exact opposite of what you are alleging:



Note, there is no absolute certainty in that statement. You are wrong yet again Patrick.

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch:



But you continue to blather....



Which is why you wrote:


Note nowhere in that blather does Patrick shout his now overused phrase "vaccines are not 100% effective!!!!". It isn't until much later in the thread that Patrick starts with his vaccine histrionics because it wasn't until then that he was TOLD that vaccines are not 100% effective.

Proof positive he's just making it up.

And we are also waiting for you to justify the statement bolded above: "would be expected to get if for sure". How can you possibly say someone is "sure" to get flu if exposed?

Proof positive Patrick is not a doctor.

"intestinal-flu", "gastrointestinal flu" does not translate to INFLUENZA. I have read this article of yours previously as well as many others. Obviously, this is one of my favorite Apollo fraud interests.

Here in the case of your article Tomblvd, as in the Apollo 8 Mission Report, what is being claimed is/was that Borman had garden variety viral gastroenteritis. This is VERY DIFFERENT from having INFLUENZA. Check your facts again Tomblvd and you will see that I am correct with regard to this point.

Perhaps this would be helpful for you Tomblvd, Google search "viral gastroenteritis" and then do the same for "influenza". Finally, search and read about the "Hong Kong Influenza Pandemic of 1968/1969", and if you are really motivated, read a bit about influenza vaccines and in particular their efficacy.

I've mentioned this before in a previous post. It is a bit counterintuitive, but it is not uncommon for the "healthiest" individuals of a population to get hit the hardest in the context of epidemic influenza. Not to go into too much detail here, but it is one's own immune system that may account for the worst aspects of the illness. An eighty year old lady might fare better than a 39 year old astronaut in some situations for this reason. Infuenza is a challenging problem. Even recently, within the last several years, there were problems with nonseasonal influenza out-breaks that lead to some deaths in very young people.

Whenever one reads about the Apollo 8 situation, the principals, Berry, Phillips, and the others, are always careful to emphasize that the astronauts DID NOT HAVE INFLUENZA, and they indicate such was the case because the astronauts were vaccinated. From what I have discussed already, it should be apparent why this was the case, the strong lie about influenza. I'll cover that in more detail in a later post. I have actually learned a few new things about the NASA medical program and perhaps will present several interesting new fact together.

 

[SUSpilot]

Allow this to be another request for at least one "competent professional".



Once again Patrick is caught making things up. Here is a contemporary news article from the AP, which says the exact opposite of what you are alleging:



Note, there is no absolute certainty in that statement. You are wrong yet again Patrick.
<snipped for brevity>


Proof positive Patrick is not a doctor.

Patrick, while you're working on the PTFE stuff and contemplating whether you'll send Jay your contact info, there's something else in the AP article that tomblvd linked that you'll like - it has to do with the efficacy of the environmental system. After seeing it, I gotta say that the engineers that did the testing were far more thorough and clever than I thought or for which you'd give credit. It's a small detail that a hoax wouldn't have included.

 

[Patrick1000]

Here is another way to look at it Tomblvd that might be helpful....

Allow this to be another request for at least one "competent professional".



Once again Patrick is caught making things up. Here is a contemporary news article from the AP, which says the exact opposite of what you are alleging:



Note, there is no absolute certainty in that statement. You are wrong yet again Patrick.

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch:



But you continue to blather....



Which is why you wrote:


Note nowhere in that blather does Patrick shout his now overused phrase "vaccines are not 100% effective!!!!". It isn't until much later in the thread that Patrick starts with his vaccine histrionics because it wasn't until then that he was TOLD that vaccines are not 100% effective.

Proof positive he's just making it up.

And we are also waiting for you to justify the statement bolded above: "would be expected to get if for sure". How can you possibly say someone is "sure" to get flu if exposed?

Proof positive Patrick is not a doctor.

Here is another way to look at it Tomblvd that might be helpful....

Imagine if you were correct with regard to your point, that what this article was in fact saying was that astronaut Borman was thought by Dr. Berry et al to actually have contracted INFLUENZA, right there in the zero G cabin of Apollo 8, with Borman's vomiting and diarrhea, with Anders and Lovell trapped inside with Borman, 100,000 miles away from earth, not a doc in site. Imagine if that was what the newspaper article really WAS saying. Pretty scary no? That should put the article and the Borman illness/influenza connection fraud relevance into perspective for you and the others.

It is a huge issue. Right here, with nothing else, all of Apollo is proven fraudulent. It is indeed nothing less than an absolutely sensational find.....

 

[Patrick1000]

Actually, that is a point the perps are ever so clear about....

No he didn't. That is merely your obviously biased misinterpretation of a newspaper report. This has been pointed out before. Repeating it as if it were fact looks like unresponsive trolling in my opinion.

Actually, that is a point, the adamant denial of INFLUENZA as a cislunar player, that the perps(Berry, Phillips, other Apollo fraud players) are ever so clear about.

Same point to you that I just made to Tomblvd Jack by the hedge. Imagine if Berry were to have seriously entertained a diagnosis of INFLUENZA, what would the NASA Borman illness fire drill have looked like then? Pretty enlightening when one looks at it that way, no?

See how they botched it? Now they are damned if they do admit INFLUENZA was in the differential, and all the more so damned if they don't. Which they didn't as it turned out, didn't include INFLUENZA in the differential as any genuine physician on the other hand of course would have.

The perps should have never tried this staged medical illness nonsense, to be sure, more than a very difficult thing to pull off convincingly, neigh impossible really. It is perhaps the single most significant error the perps made as the problem they created for themselves here is a medical one, not an engineering one, not a physical sciences issue, and it is a problem very much not amenable to Berry's lying his way out of. More gruesome details to follow...

For the time being, give this a try Jack by the hedge, you will find it rather enlightening. Search the NY Times archive, the Texas paper archives, and by all means, read the National Geographic article by Phillips(May 1969) for references to the Borman illness and NASA's INFLUENZA scare denial. The fictional piece by the Lt. General appearing in National Geographic in particular is a must read, extremely incriminating given Phillips' "overreacting" to the possibility of INFLUENZA. Obviously, they were worried somebody was going to do then, THE VERY THING that I am doing now. Better late than never for our side, but too bad some docs didn't get hip beforehand and whail on 'em back in '69. We coulda' saved a buck or 125 billion.

By the way, another important/worthwhile read is the 1969 LOOK/LIFE Magazine article written by Borman himself in which he claimed that HE TOOK SECONAL A SECOND TIME INTENTIONALLY to make himself sick while in cislunar space, half a pill, UNBELIEVABLE STORY. Borman claims the half pill did make him sick again, mildly so, in a sense confirming his suspicion that it was the seconal to begin with. Borman's intent in his presenting the story this way, implying it was seconal that made him sick to begin with, is to divert attention away from readers/J.Q. Public thinking about an infectious etiology underlying the mystery of Commander Borman's diarrhea and vomiting. Even a lay person's mind might start wandering, ever so dangerously so, wandering/WONDERING about the life threatening health risks of going to the bathroom in cislunar space, wandering/WONDERING ever so dangerously if the National Geographic article, or Borman's LOOK/LIFE article acknowledged that INFLUENZA, or the passing of other pathogens was a concern. All of this stuff is over the top inculpating, exceedingly incriminating.

Fasten your seat belt Jack by the hedge. I have already posted details regarding these issues previously, but it would appear another dose of reality is in order........I'll cover some of these points again in all the more detail in future posts. I don't believe I have previously shared much in the way of the specifics, or lack thereof, as provided by Dr. Berry in his aerospace textbook chapter on human space flight/Apollo medical considerations/illnesses.

 

[Patrick1000]

One Last Comment To Make About The INFLUENZA Issue

INFLUENZA, in its pandemic guise, was more than a trivial concern in 1968 and 1969. The Hong Kong Flu killed a million people, or so some say, and many millions more became incredibly ill due to infection with the virus. Vaccinating astronauts, or anyone for that matter was/is by no means a guarantee of conferring immunity.

So all of the astronauts on Apollo 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12 were at risk. For those not familiar, the outbreaks started in the summer of '68 in Asia, INCLUDING VIETNAM.

But the risk to/for astronauts was/is never discussed. The reason of course is an honest assessment of the situation may have resulted in NASA's waiting until the epidemic had passed, or at least considering this option. At the very least, the reason as to why the Apollo Missions were viewed as safe, despite the pandemic, should have been given. That is, were any of this real, which it is not. The fact that INFLUENZA was/is never discussed in this sense was/is actually subtle proof of Apollo fraud. Berry's and Phillips' comments that vaccination guarantees immunity is not so subtle, actually it is rather clumsy, and indeed confirms Apollo fraud in an absolute sense.

So one sees that NASA's solution to the INFLUENZA pandemic "problem" generally, the fraud perpetrators general solution, was to say/imply that vaccine conferred immunity, imply immunity was guaranteed by vaccination.

One sees now that for the Apollo fraud perps the INFLUENZA problem was a wider one, it was not just Apollo 8 specific. This is why the overreacting by Phillips, by Berry.

Pandemic INFLUENZA was more than a little inconvenience. Rather, it posed a risk to the entire fraudulent scheme were someone perceptive enough to have pressed the point back in '68, ''69, "So, is it safe to send those guys up with this INFLUENZA thing going on?"

 

[Patrick1000]

This is rather interesting Tomblvd with regard to INFLUENZA and Apollo 7....

Allow this to be another request for at least one "competent professional".



Once again Patrick is caught making things up. Here is a contemporary news article from the AP, which says the exact opposite of what you are alleging:



Note, there is no absolute certainty in that statement. You are wrong yet again Patrick.

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch:



But you continue to blather....



Which is why you wrote:


Note nowhere in that blather does Patrick shout his now overused phrase "vaccines are not 100% effective!!!!". It isn't until much later in the thread that Patrick starts with his vaccine histrionics because it wasn't until then that he was TOLD that vaccines are not 100% effective.

Proof positive he's just making it up.

And we are also waiting for you to justify the statement bolded above: "would be expected to get if for sure". How can you possibly say someone is "sure" to get flu if exposed?

Proof positive Patrick is not a doctor.

This is rather interesting Tomblvd with regard to INFLUENZA and Apollo 7....



http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...scpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xooDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1198,5023464



Might go a ways toward explaining a thing or two.....To be sure, I'll be looking into this, such as details might be available......



By the way, in case you haven't the time to dig into the flu vaccine efficacy business; as a general rule of thumb, clinicians believe that 60%, 70% maybe, of healthy adults under 65 years of age will develop antibodies against INFLUENZA upon vaccination. However, for various and sundry reasons, vaccines are far less CLINICALLY efficacious. 60% may develop antibody by way of a vaccine's promptings, but even if vaccination evokes a vigorous antibody response, the individual may nevertheless still acquire an infection, and a very serious one at that. This, despite their having received modern state of the art CDC approved and encouraged prophylactic treatment.

The subject is rather controversial, but just by way of giving the group a reasonable ballpark figure, perhaps half or so of those vaccinated and developing antibodies as a consequence of that vaccination will be fortunate enough to be protected from clinical illness. So that translates into 30% of all those healthy adults under 65 years of age receiving a vaccination.

In the case of our Apollo astronauts, as they come in sets of 3, if all three were to be vaccinated, it would be unrealistic to view them all as protected from clinical illness by virtue of vaccine administration. One astronaut might find himself immune, two rather unlikely, all three protected very unlikely.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/164/1/41.full

Again, there is no uniform agreement on this subject even today, and in 1968/1969, the efficacy of influenza vaccines was all the more open to doubt. It is well worth reviewing the contemporaneous medical literature for those interested in such level of detail.

Anyway, back to INFLUENZA; elderly people do far less well with vaccines because of "low immunity"/diminished vaccine responsivity to begin with. On the other hand, if an elderly person does become ill with INFLUENZA, for the reason already mentioned, they may do better, in a limited/restricted sense, than would a young vibrant person with a robust immune system. In the case of the latter individual, that young person's own immune system's vigorous response is what oddly enough might really be the factor accounting for the life threatening nature of the problem.

There is no vaccine for the type of viral infection your article refers to Tomblvd. As compared with INFLUENZA, garden variety viral gastroenteritis is a much much much less serious problem. Such pedestrian infections are self limited. They are more like a common cold than anything else, a cold producing symptoms below one's diaphram.

 

[Patrick1000]

As easy as ONE TWO THREE, Reading Old Newspapers Proves Apollo Inauthenticity....

Reading the Lowell Sun, page 46, April 19, 1970, two days after the alleged splashdown, the article refers to AN OXYGEN EXPLOSION IN THE SERVICE MODULE. This is long before any investigation had taken place. Who is telling reporters that there was AN OXYGEN EXPLOSION IN THE SERVICE MODULE? So much foreknowledge nonsense. These people ought to be arrested. At the very least, I want my money back, $433 to be exact.. Class action anyone?

 

[Patrick1000]

You Quite Literally Will Not Believe This, Talk About Priming The Pump

This is beyond anything previously encountered.......

From the Oakland Tribune, Wednesday, April 15, 1970, page 16, under the section entitled "APOLLO OFF COURSE COULD BYPASS EARTH", one reads there was an oxygen tank rupture, and then under that there is an article entitled "DID ELECTRICAL SHORT CAUSE BLAST?". In that second article referenced, one reads that there was speculation as to whether an electrical short in a fan or heater in one of the two O2 tanks might have caused a rise in pressure leading to a oxygen tank explosion.


I SWEAR TO GOD, I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.



I'll go on at the risk of completely blowing the Universe's mind. The NASA source providing this information informed the reporter that the tank would blow at 1530 PSI.



These guys don't know when to quit. Talk about obvious. Can anyone in their right mind imagine that someone would know this, a day, a day and a half at most after the "accident"? A short in a "fan" or a "heater". This on April the 15? It is unbelievable. The whole scenario in outline, just as determined by the Cortright Commission. I am beside myself with disgust......

 

[Patrick1000]

You missed the point.....

Oh my. There was less Teflon available for combustion, because some of it had burned. Did he really write that? <closes eyes, counts to ten, opens eyes - still there> Yes. Apparently he did. Several times over so there was no mistaking his point: There was less Teflon available for combusion after some portion of it had already combusted.

Wow.

And Patrick is trying to teach us school-level science.

You missed the point.....

Lovell's claim per the Apollo 13 book(page 350) was that MOST of the Teflon burned off BEFORE the spark that lead to the "explosion". That is, essentially all of the 0.13 pounds of Teflon wire insulation had burned away PRIOR to the spark that allegedly blew the tank. The Cortright Committeee claim, as best I can determine, is that heating the tank to 1,000 degrees did nothing to reduce the amount of Teflon available for combustion. Contrary to Lovell, the commission's point was that all 0.13 pounds of Teflon wire insulation was available for combustion at the time of the spark. So there is a contradiction here. Lovell says MOST of the 0.13 pounds was NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMBUSTION, most of the Teflon was gone when the short/spark occurred. It had already been burned away when the O2 was "boiled off back on earth". The commission investigators say this was not the case. On the contrary, the commision claim was that essentially all of the 0.13 pounds remained and was available for combustion despite the heating to 1,000 degrees.

I of course believe neither of these stories to in fact be the case as none of this happened. Both stories are of course false.

My point however was that had there been a real investigation, the investigators would have carefully documented and presented publicly, how it was that they arrived at the 0.13 pounds of Teflon figure as the amount of Teflon available for combustion, the amount of Teflon available as seed fuel to blow the tank. As the investigators did not carefully document this, and indeed presented nothing in the way of relevant public documentation in the form of experimental detail/experimental specifics, one may conclude that no genuine scientists were involved in this investigation, and moreover, no genuine science was done.

From that, one may simply conclude rather alarmingly, despite the straightforward nature of the conclusion, that all of the Apollo 13 Mission was fraudulent, not just the bogus post simulated flight investigation.

 

[Patrick1000]

As others will learn when doing this for themselves....

Foreknowldge is the rule not the exception and so I wil not belabor this too much. That said, a couple more examples would seem to be in order, if for no other reason than to hammer home the validity of this point.

The Pacific Stars and Stripes carried an AP report out of the Houston Space Center on 04/20/1970, three days after splash down and well before any meaningful investigative efforts. The article on page two is entitled "APOLLO 13 MISHAP MAY REVAMP LUNAR PLANS" and the article's very first sentence refers to an "oxygen tank explosion" as that which crippled the Apollo 13 craft. This clear proclamation long before anyone could have possibly known that it was an oxygen tank explosion that caused the ship's purported damage.

Flat out idiculous.......

 

[SpitfireIX]

The Cortright Committee Investigators responsible for the study of the alleged explosion's chemistry did no experiments, NONE that they published relevant details with regard to anyway. As such, one rightly concludes the Cortright Committee Report to be fraudulent as it is not science. It features vacuous, bogus, wholly unsubstantiated, claims.......

Both the report and the Apollo 13 Mission itself are fraudulent......

You still haven't answered my question about the NTSB report on US Airways 1549 in this post. The NTSB didn't publish any details about the DNA and feather studies used to determine the species and migration patterns of the birds involved in that accident. Are the report and the accident completely fraudulent? If not, how is this any different from your claims about the Apollo 13 report?

 

[Patrick1000]

What about the ALUMINUM...........?............

I'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this, but that is simply not the truth.


...but go ahead and present those "competent professionals" who think that Apollo was faked...I dare you.

Much of the "Apollo 13 Explosion Investigation Story" simply doesn't hold water RAF. Consider the following. The Cortright Committee Investigators concluded that in addition to Teflon, aluminum may have been a fuel that burned and released energy/heat in the setting of the alleged Apollo 13 O2 tank fire.

If such was the case, don't you think it would have been important to know what was present aluminum wise in the tank that may have served as fuel, what happened to that material when the tank was heated to 1000 degrees in the context of burning off the O2 to empty the tank, how likely was it that an aluminum fire could have been initiated given the exotic chemical environment of the cryogenic Apollo 13 O2 tank 2, if initiated/activated, to what degree would an aluminum cislunar fire propagate within the fabled tank, why was Teflon viewed as the more likely fuel, or was it, how much energy/heat was released/could have been released by aluminum's combustion, what was done with regard to the tank's structure to remedy any aluminum related combustion problems????????????

This is the tip of the proverbial spaceberg RAF. As will be the case with my earlier Teflon posts/considerations in outline, this post will be followed up by serveral progressively more detailed discussions seeking to examine the "aluminum question". The material covered in these posts will demonstrate how very obvious Apollo 13 fraudulence is if one simply considers the Cortright Commission's bogus, intentionally unscientific handling of the "aluminum question".

At this point in time, perhaps the best way to see the significance of all this is first to acknowledge that the Cortright Committee informed us that aluminum combustion may have been a significant factor in the alleged Apollo 13 explosion, and all the more so in the case here with aluminum, and just as in the case with Teflon, the Cortright Committee Investigators made claims about the possibilities of a fuel that may have blown O2 tank two and then the investigators after making said claims provide NOTHING in terms of important facts/details/specifics regarding their experiments studying Apollo 13 O2 tank number two aluminum, the likelihood of its having combusted 200,000 miles from nowhere.

Assuming this adventure were a real adventure, a real cislunar voyage, what should one say/think? How should one respond to the Cortright Commission's DECEPTION, its lack of supporting its claims with experimental evidence as regards BOTH TEFLON AND ALUMINUM?

Let's assume for the sake of argument as the Cortright Commission suggested was indeed a very real possibility, that as it turned out the Apollo 13 explosion's energy source wasn't Teflon combustion after all, or not most of it anyway, what if it was the aluminum combustion/burning that provided the energy/heat, or the aluminum more than the Teflon anyway? What would the Apollo 14 astronauts be expected to think then? They got lucky? NASA fixed the "Teflon problem", but that was no problem after all? What if aluminum were/had been the culprit and that it was just blind luck that a CSM O2 tank did not blow again? When looked at from this simple and ultimately accurate perspective it becomes quite obvious that this Apollo 13 Cortright Committee investigation and the the Apollo 13 Mission itself were/are both 100 % fraudulent.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Oh my. There was less Teflon available for combustion, because some of it had burned. Did he really write that? <closes eyes, counts to ten, opens eyes - still there> Yes. Apparently he did. Several times over so there was no mistaking his point: There was less Teflon available for combusion after some portion of it had already combusted.

Wow.

And Patrick is trying to teach us school-level science.

Also he's misquoting, as usual. Lovell actually says, ". . . the last of the troublesome liquid oxygen had cooked away, as the engineers had hoped it would--but so too had most of the Teflon insulation that protected the tank's internal wiring."

"Cooked," not "burned." "Burned" implies combustion of the insulation, when what actually occurred was thermal decomposition. Patrick hasn't been very coherent on this point, but I think he's trying to insinuate that an explosion should have occurred during the process of boiling off the oxygen because the insulation caught fire. But that's not what happened.

 

[SUSpilot]

"Foreknowledge?" Is that your latest complaint?

Patrick, while you're contemplating when you're going to send you contact info to Jat, so you can stop hiding behind your Internet identity and allow those you accuse of lying to face you, and while you're working on the PTFE homework, think about this:

• The O₂ tanks fell to zero rather abrubtly.
• The crew reported a bang and shimmy.
• There's a potential source of spark in each O₂ tank.
• The odds of a micrometeoroid strike causing a leak have been calculated as being pretty infinitesimal, IIRC.

Pending an investigation, what other conclusion would you draw? Or are you saying that an organization that was smart enough to pull off one of the greatest frauds of all time would be stupid enough to give it away?

We went to the moon. Deal with it.

 

[Tomblvd]

You really jumped the shark on this one Patrick....

"intestinal-flu", "gastrointestinal flu" does not translate to INFLUENZA. I have read this article of yours previously as well as many others. Obviously, this is one of my favorite Apollo fraud interests.

Here in the case of your article Tomblvd, as in the Apollo 8 Mission Report, what is being claimed is/was that Borman had garden variety viral gastroenteritis. This is VERY DIFFERENT from having INFLUENZA. Check your facts again Tomblvd and you will see that I am correct with regard to this point.

(emphasis mine)

Either you are the most dishonest poster ever on JREF or you have a serious comprehension probelm.

Here is what I wrote:

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch

I said, and was confirmed by the article, that they did indeed have "garden variety viral gastroenteritis". Once again, being completely wrong you just pretend you said something completely opposite of what you said.

Here is another way to look at it Tomblvd that might be helpful....

Imagine if you were correct with regard to your point, that what this article was in fact saying was that astronaut Borman was thought by Dr. Berry et al to actually have contracted INFLUENZA, right there in the zero G cabin of Apollo 8, with Borman's vomiting and diarrhea, with Anders and Lovell trapped inside with Borman, 100,000 miles away from earth, not a doc in site. Imagine if that was what the newspaper article really WAS saying. Pretty scary no? That should put the article and the Borman illness/influenza connection fraud relevance into perspective for you and the others.

(Emphasis mine)

AGAIN, here's what I wrote, in plain English:

But as I said earlier, and Patrick ignored, as usual, the physicians at NASA were reasonably sure that Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug because it was rampant at the Cape in the weeks prior to launch

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY for you to misunderstand what I am saying here. The physicians were reasonably sure Borman had a simple 24 hr. bug, and that is exactly what I wrote. You are purposely making this up.

And in the rest of Patrick walls-o-text (SIX posts Patrick?? Really? You needed six posts to address this, or is it just an attempt to obfuscate?) we do not see Patrick even address the other mistakes he made.

In an earlier post he stated"

In the latter case, the Apollo 8 case, NASA’s chief physician and evaluating clinician, Dr. Charles Berry, claimed “astronauts” Borman, Lovell and Anders could not have had influenza in cislunar space because they had received Hong Kong Flu vaccines.

My article proved he did not say that. Are you going to retract that misstatement?

And once again we will revisit this statement:

I found it comical that once the NASA/Apollo script writers realized they had botched this by concocting this unbelievable story about infectious diarrhea in outer space and couldn't undo the nonsensical story they had told, they decided to deal with the fraud exposure so created by claiming the astronauts could not have contracted influenza in the midst of the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/1969. 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. So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated?

Do you still stand by that statement?

Your pathetic attempt to get in front of this subject by lying about what I said (sorry, there is no other way to put it) is not going to work. Everybody reading this can see exactly what I wrote, and see clearly that you tried to completely change it.

It won't work. And I would really like an apology.