Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Tomblvd]

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.

And here the good "doctor" really steps on his "thing".

Note how he is giving the likelyhood of the astronauts coming down with Hong Kong flu. However, what the good "doctor" is doing here is only considering the immunity conferred by the vaccine. He completely forgets the fact that only a relatively small percentage of people will come down with the virus even if exposed.

Patrick, the Hong Kong flu, IIRC, only had an infection rate of fifteen percent!!!

That is prior to any vaccine. Kinda throws all those numbers you googled out the window, huh?

How could a real doctor actually think a virus had a 100% transmission rate?

Another EPIC FAIL Patrick.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, that is a point, the adamant denial of INFLUENZA...

Several walls of text from the non-doctor rehashing long debunked medical diagnosis claims having, and not one single equation in the promised computations. All you did there was elaborately restate the problem.

Where are the computations you promised? Where is your contact information?

 

[JayUtah]

Much of the "Apollo 13 Explosion Investigation Story" simply doesn't hold water RAF.

False. You simply pile it down with naive layman's expectations.

As a matter of fact the analysis stands up every day in engineering schools all over the world. You have claimed that experts disagree, but you have failed to provide the name of even one single expert that agrees with you.

Straw man -- rejected.

If such was the case, don't you think it would have been important...

Begging the question -- rejected.

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".

Why should we believe this when we're still waiting on your detailed computations regarding the "Teflon question?"

Quit stalling and post the computations you promised.

The material covered in these posts will demonstrate how very obvious Apollo 13 fraudulence is...

Stating it's obvious implies that someone other than you believes it. As has been belabored, the experts unanimously disagree with you. By calling it "obvious" you're trying to deflect attention away from the validation of your expectations. Since you are a layman, you don't get that validation for free. You'll have to work for it.

...if one simply considers the Cortright Commission's bogus, intentionally unscientific handling of the "aluminum question".

You are not qualified to determine whether something is "unscientific" in this context. You have further presented no evidence of wrongdoing, much less for any motive of wrongdoing. Therefore I reject your claim as predisposed and biased.

Assuming this adventure were a real adventure, a real cislunar voyage, what should one say/think?

Begging the question -- rejected.

When looked at from this simple...

Translation: oversimplified.

...and ultimately accurate perspective...

You are not qualified to determine its accuracy.

...it becomes quite obvious that this Apollo 13 Cortright Committee investigation and the the Apollo 13 Mission itself were/are both 100 % fraudulent.

Yet all the experts continue to disagree. Explain that, and by an argument that doesn't reduce to, "They're not really experts," if possible.

 

[Patrick1000]

If JAmes Lovell was coorect, if MOST of the Teflon WAS burned off....

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?

If James Lovell was/is correct, if MOST of the Teflon WAS "burned off" on earth when the O2 tank was "emptied", then Apollo must be fraudulent as there is not fuel in adequate supply to generate heat adequate to blow the tank. That is how my point is different. The 0.13 pounds of Teflon is germane to the commission's claims and so must be supported empirically, by relevant experiment, and details of those experiments must be provided so that others may confirm this all to be true, otherwise, this is simply not science, which as it turns out, given the lack of experimental support, it is NOT....

 

[Patrick1000]

So is that what Lovell means?

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.

Teflon does not "flow" when melted. Not to any appreciable degree anyway. So if it did simply melt and flow off the wires(Teflon's melting point is roughly 600 degrees), but was still present, that needs to be demonstrated. If all 0.13 pounds of the Teflon wire insulation remained available for combustion, this needs to be proven experimentally. It is not acceptable to simply claim this to be the case as it is unlikely to be true. If one claims this to be the case, an experiment must be done to show this to in fact be so. The same concern applies in the case of the commission's claims regarding aluminum as a potential fuel that served to provide the requisite energy to blow the tank, a much more complicated situation than the Teflon one and a huge problem for NASA which I shall elucidate in due course.

As a scientist one cannot simply claim the tank was heated to 1000 degrees, the wires exposed, and at the same time ALL OF THE ORIGINAL TEFLON INSULATION WAS AVAILABLE FOR COMBUSTION. That is NOT NOT NOT something to be intuited, but a fact to be experimentally demonstrated, especially given the amount of energy alleged by the investigators to have been involved in the cooking of the tank up to 1000 degrees, this cooking requiring well over the purported energy of 10-20 joules alleged by commission investigators to have been applied and available for Teflon combustion initiation. An experiment must be done, with details provided so that it can be repeated, showing how it was determined that all 0.13 pounds of Teflon remained after the terrestrial 1000 degree cooking of the Apollo 13 O2 tank number two contents.

And so, you should see now, at least I would hope so, that you are misinterpreting my point. I believe Lovell is full of it. I do not believe ANY Teflon is available. This, not because the tank contents were ACTUALLY cooked at 1000 degrees, but rather because I believe none of this in fact happened. That said, the Cortright Commission is in a position to prove me wrong, counter my audacious challenge, at least in part, by simply doing good science, performing repeatable experiments that support their claims and then going on to document publicly the results of those experiments.

This, the Apollo 13 Investigators DO NOT DO, and so Apollo must be fraudulent, can only be viewed as fraudulent. There is no modern science without appropriate and repeatable experimentation to support one's claims.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

'Known', but not 'suspected', maybe. Do you always take as factually accurate and reliable what's reported in the press?!

 

[Southwind17]

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".

Do you see where this line of argumentative logic, which you repeatedly apply, is fundamentally flawed? You insist on inferring massively sweeping conclusions from selective (not to mention unproven) minutia.

When looked at from this simple ... perspective ...

Not to mention the problem that this presents in your approach.

 

[nomuse]

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......

So....

Are you saying your billion-dollar conspiracy carefully hid the truth from almost everyone at Mission Control, but told a local paper on the West Coast?

No, wait...I don't expect you to answer this question. You haven't been doing that of late.

 

[Patrick1000]

OF course not.......

'Known', but not 'suspected', maybe. Do you always take as factually accurate and reliable what's reported in the press?!

Of course not.......The "press", whatever what one may or may not mean by that term, was simply publishing the Apollo fraud perpetrators' contrived story. Kranz's name keeps coming up in the April 15th 1970 newspaper reports where the "Apollo 13 explosion" unbelievably at that very early point was being "possibly" attributed to a fan or heater system short.

Kranz is not explicitly cited in these reports as the source of the statements regarding the fan/heater, though I imagine that he was the source. I imagine that it was Kranz who generated these ridiculous accounts of what might or might not have been the case so early on with regard to a possible fan/heater short.

Excuse me while I laugh my rump off. Can you blame me, the flight director's technical diagnostic acumen here, it is a bit much to buy without giving in to a chuckle, giggle, howl or hoot.

Kranz I suspect was personally responsible for generated this nonsense. He was the fountainhead of Apollo BULL in this instance. I'll give my reasons for this point about "Kranz as source" in a bit of detail in a later post. Regardless, newspapers publish BULL, always have and always will. I never buy BULL, never have, never will.

 

[SUSpilot]

Patrick - documented experiments were done. They can be repeated, I'm sure, by anyone that wants to take the time and spend the resources. This may help:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...=Go&hitsperpage=5&pageno=20&photoId=S70-40850

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...=Go&hitsperpage=5&pageno=20&photoId=S70-41146

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...=Go&hitsperpage=5&pageno=20&photoId=S70-41982

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...toidsearch=Go&hitsperpage=5&photoId=S70-41983

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...4&photoidsearch=Go&pageno=1&photoId=S70-41984

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lucenewe...toidsearch=Go&hitsperpage=5&photoId=S70-41985

The image of the tank rupturing is particularly compelling, since it looks, in small scale, exactly like footage of a tank car letting go in a BLEVE (Patrick, remember I suggested that you look up that term).

Patrick, don't forget your homework, especially since the visual evidence is available - that means you can't fudge your answer. Also, remember that Jay is waiting on your contact info.

BTW, to Jay or anyone else that is actually knowledgeable, I remember seeing the footage from which the stills were taken. Is that available on the NASA website somewhere as motion picture?

 

[Patrick1000]

I beg your pardon?

Do you see where this line of argumentative logic, which you repeatedly apply, is fundamentally flawed? You insist on inferring massively sweeping conclusions from selective (not to mention unproven) minutia.


Not to mention the problem that this presents in your approach.

I beg your pardon?

This is not so very complicated Southwind17. The Apollo 13 Investigators, not me, CLAIMED Oxygen Tank 2 exploded, and the Apollo 13 Cortright Commisssion Scientists, not me, CLAIMED that Teflon provided the energy source for said explosion. Such being the case, it is incumbent upon them, not me, to show us all how it was determined there was adequate Teflon to blow the tank. If they cannot, and indeed they DID NOT, show us that, then their claim is vacuous.

As they did not show us ANYTHING, not anything substantive in this regard, one may conclude, very appropriately, more than rightly so, that there is absolutely no reason to believe any Teflon was available to have served as fuel for the Apollo 13 explosion. I say this because without ANY RELEVANT EXPERIMENTAL DATA, there is no reason whatsoever to believe ANY of this ludicrous story. I did not make up this cock and bull. I need not provide experimental evidence to support it. As matter of fact, I know it is GAS......NOTHING.......BULL.....JIVE......, clear enough? Should be........


With all due respect Southwind17, Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators like any other scientists are NOT NOT NOT entitled to CLAIM whatever they please, ON OUR DIME NO LESS, without supporting those claims with evidence. I want my $433 BACK.

My point about CLAIMS WITHOUT EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT is all the more true in the case of the commission's citing aluminum as a possible source of fuel, the combustion of which released energy/heat ultimately responsible for tank two's rupture. The Apollo 13 Explosion Investigators claims are a JOKE, a JOKE. NOTHING at all about aluminum there that is substantive. And one need only high school level chemistry, the most fundamental of fundamentals, to show this fraud to be indeed nothing more than fraud.

In due course, I will leave the realm of high school level assessment. There is much to be gleaned from subjecting this JIVE to more thorough scrutiny. Suffice it to say, the NASA clowns are in way over their heads.

But back to basics for the time being, I digress. So Southwind17, what happened to the aluminum in O2 tank number 2 that would have rendered any or all of it combustible? Do you know? The Cortright Commission Investigators don't seem to know, though they made a CLAIM that some of the aluminum may have burned and may have been a factor. Perhaps you have access to some secret scientific papers supporting the committee's claims. I am sure the other thread readers would be as interested as I am in reading the details of the committee's experiments substantiating their claims.

 

[JayUtah]

If one claims this to be the case, an experiment must be done to show this to in fact be so.

Begging the question. Not all engineering knowledge is derived through experimentation.

As a scientist...

You are neither a scientist nor an engineer. You are not qualified to make any of the determinations that follow, by your own admission. Your layman's opinion is simply irrelevant.

Nevertheless, when you send me your contact information I will place you in contact with as many NASA engineers as you wish, and you can debate them in person regarding your findings. I'm sure they will find it either enlightening or amusing.

That is NOT NOT NOT something to be intuited, but a fact to be experimentally demonstrated...

Begging the question.

And so, you should see now, at least I would hope so, that you are misinterpreting my point.

Your points are based entirely upon your own uninformed speculation and supposition. It is simply irrelevant in the real world.

...counter my audacious challenge

Your challenge is neither audacious nor relevant. As has been emphasized previously, you cower in a small web forum and argue anonymously through various fabricated identities and sock puppets. You have been given the chance repeatedly to make your "challenge" matter in the real world, but you have declined it. Amen to your audacity. When you are willing to attach actual loss to the specter of being wrong, then you may earn respect.

This, the Apollo 13 Investigators DO NOT DO, and so Apollo must be fraudulent, can only be viewed as fraudulent.

Nonsense. You've been asked countless times to show us an example of proper rigor by providing the computations you say are needed to settle the question of PTFE combustibility. Instead of doing so, you write lengthy meandering tomes that simply belabor the problem without solving it.

You demonstrate no useful expertise. Therefore you don't get to wallow in that bog of incompetence and from it level charges of dereliction against engineers of record, whose findings have held sway in the industry for decades.

Where are your computations? Where is your contact information?

Put up or shut up.

 

[Patrick1000]

I beg your pardon?

Do you see where this line of argumentative logic, which you repeatedly apply, is fundamentally flawed? You insist on inferring massively sweeping conclusions from selective (not to mention unproven) minutia.


Not to mention the problem that this presents in your approach.

I beg your pardon?

What is "fundamentally flawed" as regard my points about INFLUENZA and its relevance to the Borman illness SCAM. Do pray tell Southwind17, what would those "fundamental flaws" be? Specifically? Details please.......

I'm not even warmed up yet, and I have already mopped the whole of cislunar space with the lot of those frauds. Moreover, I have yet to present my strongest evidence, my FACTS!

 

[SpitfireIX]

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 . . .

The report gives the amount of aluminum in the tank, along with its heat of combustion. I gave you this information when I requested that you calculate the increase in pressure that would have occurred in the tank if this amount of aluminum had burned.

. . . 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 . . .

This is question that, as you're fond of insinuating, could be answered by any high school chemistry student simply by consulting an appropriate reference.

. . . 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 . . .

You keep attempting to make the situation out to be "exotic," when, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the tremendous concentration of oxygen simply made combustion of all materials more likely.

. . . . if initiated/activated, to what degree would an aluminum cislunar fire propagate within the fabled tank . . .

See above.

. . . why was Teflon viewed as the more likely fuel, or was it . . .

Because it was in contact with the wiring.

. . . how much energy/heat was released/could have been released by aluminum's combustion . . .

As I mentioned, this is discussed in the report, with which you claim to be quite familiar.

. . . what was done with regard to the tank's structure to remedy any aluminum related combustion problems????????????

Begging the question of whether the solution to the problem required modifying the tank's structure. Yet again you demonstrate your breathtaking ignorance of even the most basic principles of engineering.

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 ignorant, overdramatic, and misinformed walls of text . . .

ftfy

. . . seeking to examine the "aluminum question".

To anyone properly qualified, there is no "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".

You are not even remotely close to being qualified to critique the report, and, as Jay mentioned, it is accepted by aerospace engineers all over the world.

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.

Begging the question of whether such information was required to be provided.

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?

Begging the question.

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.

You clearly don't even understand what the actual defect that caused the explosion is, what steps were taken to correct the problem, and what steps to ensure that the situation didn't recur. Again, so much for your familiarity with the report. Fail.

 

[threadworm]

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......

"Newspaper reports actual events after they happen SHOCKER".

AS with your National Geographic remark earlier, you make a claim as to what was said without supplying the actual quote, or a link to it. Let's see what it actually says.

Here's the front page:

http://newspaperarchive.com/oakland-tribune/1970-04-15/

See the article about the moonquake? How was that recorded?

 

[threadworm]

OK, here's the actual article on page 16:

http://newspaperarchive.com/oakland-tribune/1970-04-15/page-16/

DiD Electrical short cause Blast?

Space Centre, Houston (AP)

Some spacecraft engineers believe an electrical short may have caused an explosion which disabled the Apollo 13 spacecraft.

A short circuit in either a fan or a heater in one of the spacecraft's two ocygen tanks could have caused a rise in pressure which exploded the tank, a source at the Manned Spacecraft Center said yesterday.

The two oxygen tanks in the spacecraft are in teh service module. Each tank has a sort of electric blanket heater on the outside and a fan on the inside.

The heaters force an increase in oxygen pressure by causing the liquid oxygen in the tanks to turn to gas. The fans circulate the oxygen and make the heating uniform.

The source said a short circuit in a heater could have caused a rapid rise in pressure as more oxygen was turned into gas than the oxygen system could use. When this pressure reached 1530 pounds per square inch the tank would explode.

If the short was in a fan the oxygen would heat up unevenly, again causing a rise in pressure.

The explosios of a metal oxygen tamnl could have sent shrapnel-like fragments into the second tank or nearby plumbing. This could account for the slow loss of oxygen which emptied the second tank in three hours.

Pressure in the first oxygen tank which failed rose rapidly, officials said. Within 90 seconds it reached the pount that would normally have caused a relief valve to blow out. Seconds later the major oxygen blowout developed.

Space officials discounted reports that the oxygen leak and explosion might have been caused by the impact of a meteoroid.

Such an impact, they said, would not explain the incrfease of pressure before the explosion.

Officials will not be able to search the service module for the exact cause of the explosion. It will be left in space and will burn up when it re-enters the earth's atmosphere.

Flight Director Gene Ktanz said, however, that he believed enought data was obtained before and after the emergency to permit investigators to determine the cause.

So, it does say what Patrick says it said.

The Oakland Tribune is a west coast newspaper, so for it to be published on the 15th, let's say it needed all its copy in by midnight on the 15th local time. That would be 8 hours behind GMT? This would mean that the data would need to be in by 16:00 GMT on the 14th, give or take.

What was known by that time on the 14th? Did mission control have enough information to determine what was in that news report?

Yes, they did. Notice how many times it says "may", "would" and "could". Notice how it doesn't state specifically what did happen, only could have happened. it is specific about the pressure, but do you no think the design specifications were well known? It makes no mention of teflon, it is not even definitive about where the source of the spark was. The only thing it does that you don't seem to like is be specific about the pressure capabilities of the oxygen tanks.

Here is a document from the ALSJ:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM13_Electrical_Power_Subsystem_pp99-116.pdf

It is dated (according to the ALSJ) 1968.

Have a look at the bit about the Oxygen tanks:

The rupture pressure of the tanks is 1530 pounds per square inch

This document, dated April 1969, also has a great deal of information on the electrical sub-system, including what to do to isolate power supplies in the event of a malfunction:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/SM2A-03-BK-II-%281%29.pdf

It gives the maximum pressure for the relief valves is 1010 psig (not psia), and refers the reader to other documents for more detailed information.

All any journalist needs to do is some basic research and they have the facts. Pity you didn't.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If James Lovell was/is correct, if MOST of the Teflon WAS "burned off" on earth when the O2 tank was "emptied", then Apollo must be fraudulent as there is not fuel in adequate supply to generate heat adequate to blow the tank.

First, as I pointed out in a subsequent post, you're misquoting Lovell; he said the Teflon "cooked" off, which implies melting and/or thermal decomposition. Second, Lovell's book is written for a popular audience; why would you expect scientific rigor from it?

These are both minor issues, however; the main problem is your claim of a lack of fuel. I gave you the information needed to calculate the amount of Teflon and/or aluminum needed to overpressure the tank to failure in this post. You claim to be "quite good" at combustion and thermodynamics, so why haven't you solved this relatively simple problem? You assert that there wouldn't have been enough fuel; it's your burden of proof to demonstrate that. Further, you have repeatedly ignored the issue of another likely failure mode mentioned in the report, namely, that the Teflon fittings were weakened by fire, thus reducing the tank's burst pressure.

That is how my point is different. The 0.13 pounds of Teflon is germane to the commission's claims and so must be supported empirically, by relevant experiment, and details of those experiments must be provided so that others may confirm this all to be true, otherwise, this is simply not science, which as it turns out, given the lack of experimental support, it is NOT....

First, the 0.13 pounds of Teflon was only the insulation. There was another pound of Teflon fittings in the tank. You made this error before, even after I quoted the figure of 1.1 total pounds of Teflon from the report, but you subsequently corrected yourself, so I didn't bother to mention it. But now you're making the same mistake, for some reason.

That aside, your point is not at all different, and I'm rather perplexed as to how you can claim that it is. To reiterate, determining the species and migration habits of the birds struck by US Airways Flight 1549 was crucial to the investigation. Jay can explain why better than I can, unless he'd rather leave you to figure it out for yourself. So why didn't the NTSB publish detailed explanations of how the DNA and feather-identification studies were done, so that they could be replicated?

 

[JayUtah]

Excuse me while I laugh my rump off. Can you blame me...?

Yes. Yes I can.

First, you're simply trying to paste your expectations on history. You've been doing it for eight months, and I believe a rational person would have realized by now that it doesn't work.

Second, your drama-queen approach wears thin very rapidly. The faux disgust and derision that you insist on applying to nearly everything you write is, in my opinion, bravado meant to disguise your utter bankruptcy of fact.

Kranz I suspect was personally responsible for generated this nonsense.

Send me your contact information. I'll facilitate a meeting between you and him for you to discuss that with him.

Unless you're too afraid.

 

[JayUtah]

What is "fundamentally flawed" as regard my points about INFLUENZA and its relevance to the Borman illness SCAM.

Uh, it's right there in his post. You quibble ignorantly and misleadingly about a simple illness, and from that generalize that all of Apollo must have been a hoax -- simply because they didn't do what you would have done when faced with that illness.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why would NASA need to experiment with the Teflon when they would have the data sheets from the manufacturer who would have all the info they needed to hand?