Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[SpitfireIX]

I think it is rather obvious.....Kranz and the other preps obviously are arrogant and foolish enough to think that whatever they say will be believed and not questioned, and for the most part, employing that strategy worked out pretty well for them.

This is the standard excuse used by conspiracy theorists to attempt to explain away illogical behavior by their purported conspirators. Fail.

That said, making a claim on April 15 1970 that "a heater or fan circuit may have shorted and that lead to the explosion" won't get you in trouble in an up front real-time fashion. The Cortright Commission had not yet convened. There had been no determination of "cause" made at the time of the bogus April 15 1970 newspaper reports. The explosion was but a day, perhaps a day and a half old, even taking relativistic considerations into account.

Was there an explosion aboard the spacecraft or not, Patrick? If there was, why didn't "they" report the actual details of the problem? If there wasn't, why didn't "they" script a realistic scenario?

It is only AFTER the Cortright Report came out that making a statement about a short or circuit in a heater or fan on April 15 1969 should be viewed IN RETROSPECT as more than suspect. It should as a matter of fact in retrospect be viewed as more than flat out damning, more than full on incriminating. It is only in light of the commission findings that the April 15 report's insane accuracy can and should be viewed as preposterous.

As has been noted several times, you are not qualified to critique either the accident report or the initial news stories, and your assertions about both are flat-out wrong.

A meteor hit would have required a different type of phony photo, one showing damage imparted by an external energy source.

No, you're absolutely wrong about this. A meteor the size of a 5.56 mm (.223 in) bullet, impacting with a relative velocity of 20,000 m/s could have easily penetrated the service module's skin and ruptured an oxygen tank. For comparison, such a meteor would have 400 times the kinetic energy of an M-16 round striking at point-blank range. Photos of the damage would be indistinguishable from those of damage caused by a tank rupture due to overpressure, especially if the panel penetrated by the meteor had been blown off the spacecraft, which it likely would have been.

The meteor hit was viewed as not as readily amenable to faking for myriad reasons. It was far easier to come up with this bogus blown O2 tank number two presentation.

No, you're just making this claim because it's the only way you can attempt to paper over this huge hole in your theory. If you disagree, then give some real reasons why a meteor strike couldn't have been faked.

All that said, and again to emphasize, a real forensic investigation would have worked toward a model in which tanks were actually blown. Every alleged step would have been repeated and then BOOM !!!! look everybody!!!! there is our proof and documentation as to how this all occurred. Of course given the real circumstances/fraud, this could not be done.

And yet again, you are not qualified to critique the report, and you are demonstrating an astounding ignorance of forensic engineering.

Actually, someone with enough cash motivation and expertise could rather EASILY blow Apollo Authenticity Claims to smitherines. One only need to first acquire the plans for the O2 tank and build it, or build a hundred, build a thousand, build as many as ultimately necessary. Then the so curious would read/study exactly how it was that oxygen was "boiled off" tank number two so as to empty it and learn how exactly it was and for how long it was in that setting that the tank contents' temperature climbed and eventually reached 1000 degrees. Repeat all of that, heat the tank(s), heat them exactly as they were alleged to have been heated, and then study the contents, study the Teflon and the aluminum. SCRUTINIZE THE TEFLON AND ALUMINUM. One probably could and would wind up being able to stop right there. One would probably find there was not 0.13 pounds of Teflon left and available for combustion as the Apollo 13 Investigators alleged. If there was 0.13 pounds, or roughly that amount, then the rich, motivated, technically adroit 21st century experimental team would move on and perhaps ultimately reach a point where they would actually attempt to blow a tank, or many of them. Step by step, they would proceed with that as a goal, to prove that was how things actually happened. That is, were the Apollo Investigators' story worth its salt of combustion. Of course it is all SPACE BULL.

Why do you keep parroting the thoroughly debunked "0.13 pounds of Teflon" claim, and why do you keep ignoring the fire-weakened fittings failure scenario?

What I am/have been pointing out and which quite understandably is making everybody on the Apollo apologist side squirm like mad, which of course it should, it must, is that the Apollo Investigation crew has nothing to show us like even step one above, documentation of tank heating to 1000 degrees under the exact conditions the Apollo 13 tank was allegedly heated to 1000 degrees and then studied for the presence of Teflon and aluminum that was combustible. In addition , that combustion vulnerable Teflon and aluminum would have to be precisely quantified as its enthalpy of combustion would have to be sufficient to blow the tank.

First, you're the one who seems to be squirming uncomfortably, and you appear to be attempting to cover that up with your histrionics and bluster. Second, you are begging the question of whether ordinary aluminum would somehow have to be altered in order to burn in an atmosphere with a concentration of oxygen 270 times normal. Third, as has been pointed out to you several times, the heat of combustion of the amounts of Teflon and aluminum are given in the report. Fourth, I gave you all the information you need to calculate how much Teflon and aluminum would have needed to have burned in order to have overpressured the tank. Finally, again, you are ignoring the failure mode where the fittings were weakened by fire, reducing the burst pressure of the tank.

(Again, keep in mind, there are other concerns, and important ones apart from enthalpy per se. I'll continue to reference enthalpy for the sake of convenience here, so the discussion does not become too technical too early on. Additionally, the Apollo 13 Investigators only worked with simple enthalpy, so one loses nothing in that regard by way of simplifying the analysis. I need not bother just now with that which the Apollo Investigators did not bother with. That said, I shall at some point in the future show why dealing with enthalpy alone provides an inadequate model for the explosion. In this regard I have already touched on the activation energy concern. Those familiar with chemistry I am sure are well aware that this is only one additional concern that one would expect to be be examined in greater detail in future posts, posts focusing on the Apollo 13 Investigation/Teflon/Aluminum Combustion FULL ON BULL STORY.

Rather than pontificating, why don't you show us some calculations that actually prove that the electrical short did not provide sufficient energy to ignite the Teflon?

<snip>

The Apollo Investigators claimed that 260 BTU worth of energy was available to blow the tank when perhaps as much as 0.13 pounds of Teflon burned suddenly at the time of a short worth 10-20 joules of activation/initiation energy.)

No. Yet again, you've misread and/or misinterpreted the report. Appendix F, p. F-3:

The energy required to achieve the pressure rise from 887 psia to
1008 psia observed in oxygen tank no. 2 (10 to 130 Btu) can be supplied
by the combustion of the Teflon wire insulation in the tank and conduit
(260 Btu).

Note that "10" is probably a typo; I think it's supposed to be "100". I'll do the calculation to check that when I have time later today.

The point, however, which you clearly missed, is that this amount of Teflon combustion is explained as being able to account for the initial pressure increase before the tank's instrumentation dropped out. The report does not state that this energy was sufficient to overpressure the tank.

The fact that as the temperature and pressure and oxygen quantity are dynamic in a situation such as this, given they are parameters which are moving targets, changing over time as the tank is heated, not to mention at other times changing this way and that during the long chronology of set up and and alleged actual tank blowing, the dynamic aspect of all this makes experiments exceedingly difficult to perform and all the more difficult to monitor. Such data is difficult to acquire. It is very hard to measure things when they "move" like this. That said, this type of thing is/was certainly manageable by competent scientists/engineers/technicians if properly motivated and funded as the Apollo 13 Investigation was said to have been funded.

No. You are unnecessarily overcomplicating the problem. As I mentioned up-thread, only 1-2% of the available oxygen would have been consumed by the combustion of all of the available Teflon and aluminum. Further, the heat leak from the tanks was negligible. The calculation of the increase in pressure due to combustion is therefore straightforward, and I've given you all the information you need to do it. So what are you waiting for?

However, as mentioned, for Apollo Program critics, fraud advocates like myself, the investigators have made it rather easy for us. They have actually provided us nothing to scrutinize. There is no data. Indeed, in my slowly picking my way through the Apollo missions, I have found nothing less than the Apollo Program Critics' Holy Grail. Indeed, "SENSATIONAL" is a google order of magnitude inadequate as a descriptive and quantifying adjective. Fundamentally important claims, without a hint of evidence to so substantiate the claims? No provisions for repeatablility? No support whatsoever in support of the plausibility of the Apollo 13 Investigation Committee's proposed accident scenario, let alone evidence to support the viability, reasonableness, of their plan to have remedied the alleged problems in the case of their having proposed future flights, Apollo 14 through 17?

Here is the National Transportatation Safety Board's report on the crash of TWA Flight 800.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

Contributing factors to the accident were the design and certification concept that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by precluding all ignition sources and the design and certification of the Boeing 747 with heat sources located beneath the CWT with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the CWT or to render the fuel vapor in the tank nonflammable.
The safety issues in this report focus on fuel tank flammability, fuel tank ignition sources, design and certification standards, and the maintenance and aging of aircraft systems. Safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration.

Please indicate the sections where the level of detail allowing the experiments conducted by the Board to be replicated may be found; also, please tell us exactly how many actual 747 fuel tanks the board destroyed during its tests. If the answers are "there aren't any," and "zero," then please explain whether this report is "a complete joke."

Again, I here emphasize how flat out show stoppingly incriminating this all is, so much so, that it without question should settle any doubt in the minds of those with science backgrounds as regards the truth of the matter with respect to Apollo inauthenticity. More of course remains to be gleaned as I turn at some point in the not too distant future to writing in greater detail about the bogus chemistry of the staged Apollo 13 explosion, exploring the topic at a higher than high school chemistry level of analysis.

Again, you are not the least qualified to make any such determination, as your numerous errors and misconceptions amply demonstrate.

 

[Patrick1000]

Link to AP article

Here's a link where one can read the AP article published 04/15/1970 making reference to a sort in a heater/fan circuit perhaps being responsible for O2 tank explosion.

A bit premature would't you say; a day , a day and a half out from the time of the alleged accident? Note Kranz's name at the article's end, not a coincidence.


https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5709793848722615137

 

[SUSpilot]

Patrick: in the "When did the Apollo Hoax Nonsense Start" thread, you said this when discussing a debate:

It would be a royal Mexican standoff actually.......

I would say, "INFLUENZA vaccination does not guarantee immunity", and James Lovell would say, "What does my having received an INFLUENZA vaccine before my Apollo 8 flight have to do with the fight's authenticity? Of course we went to the moon. Didn't you see the pictures"


And there the debate would end, figuratively of course.

Right there at a "debate" forum one could open an Apogee Mission Report volume, flip through some pages and actually show Neil Armstrong the November 1969 Published Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV where the Eagle's landing site coordinates as determined by the the MSFN are listed as 0.631 N and 23.47 east and say, "Look Neil, everyone knew exactly where you were". And he would say, "What do those accurate landing site coordinates have to do with Apollo authenticity? We went to the moon, didn't you see the pictures and haven't you heard about the rocks?"

A "debate" would be far less interesting and dramatic than you might think ixolite. Neither side would give on the critical issues.......

Um?

Patrick, you regularly state that you can figuratively wipe the floor with these people. Are you backing off of this position? Is that why you haven't provided Jay with your contact information (while working on the PTFE homework)?

 

[JayUtah]

A bit premature would't you say; a day , a day and a half out from the time of the alleged accident?

No. If it is believed by then to be caused by an electrical short circuit, there are only three circuits in the tank it could be: fan, heater, or sensor. They have only narrowed it down to two by this time.

Please, for the love of Newton, stop trying to be an engineer. I'm so embarrassed for you.

 

[Patrick1000]

I have mopped the floor with these guys, the entirety of cislunar space matter-o-fact

Patrick: in the "When did the Apollo Hoax Nonsense Start" thread, you said this when discussing a debate:



Um?

Patrick, you regularly state that you can figuratively wipe the floor with these people. Are you backing off of this position? Is that why you haven't provided Jay with your contact information (while working on the PTFE homework)?

I HAVE mopped the floor with these guys SUSpilot, mission accomplished and accomplished quite well. Matter-o-fact the entirety of cislunar space has been mopped. That doesn't mean these gutless cowards are going to concede anything to me face to face, in writing, or in any other way.

What do you think went through Neil Armstrong's head when I wrote to him and confronted him with the MSFN data published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report November 1969, landing site coordinates 0.631 north and 23.47 east? Armstrong knows that I know about his shenanigans, and I imagine he is insanely embarrassed on many levels. So in this sense, with respect to the TRUTH, the floor was/is/has been mopped for a long long time, 8 or nine months ago I mopped up cislunar spce with my letters to the principals. That doesn't mean they are going to admit squat publicly.

Consider this while we are at it, I just noticed something. This April 15 AP article;

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5709793848722615137

indicates the statement by the NASA principal indicating a heater or fan may have shorted was made the DAY BEFORE the article was published, and so made April the 14th, less than a day after the alleged explosion. Now THAT!!!!! is foreknowledge my friend, big time. Talk about clumsy, these guys need lessons in scamming people.

 

[nomuse]

Here's a link where one can read the AP article published 04/15/1970 making reference to a sort in a heater/fan circuit perhaps being responsible for O2 tank explosion.

A bit premature would't you say; a day , a day and a half out from the time of the alleged accident? Note Kranz's name at the article's end, not a coincidence.


https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5709793848722615137

Patrick...how many ignition sources were present in the tank? How many electrical systems were there in the tank? Which electrical systems were activated moments before the explosion?

You strike me as the sort of person that, when your car won't start and the needle on the gas tank is empty, you immediately check to see if there is air in all four tires. Because a flat tire just MIGHT be the reason it won't start, and only a foolish person would rule that out prematurely.

 

[threadworm]

Here's a link where one can read the AP article published 04/15/1970 making reference to a sort in a heater/fan circuit perhaps being responsible for O2 tank explosion.

A bit premature would't you say; a day , a day and a half out from the time of the alleged accident? Note Kranz's name at the article's end, not a coincidence.


https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5709793848722615137

No, it isn't a coincidence at all - he was the Apollo 13 flight director.

What precise and definite conclusions does the article come to? How many "would", "could" and "may"s can you find. Does it make it clear that it is a fan or the heater, or does it speculate one or the other? Does it make the quite reasonable conclusion that, given that by that time in the mission it was known that there had been an electrical event, a bang, a venting of gas and a loss of oxygen that some sort of electrical issue causing an explosion in an oxygen tank had occurred and that the two main sources of electrical power might just be involved?

Have you recovered from your apoplectic indignation about the 1530 psi figure quoted in the paper yet, given that it was a figure available to the press for 2 years? Are you going to retract your claim that the newspaper quoting that figure was somehow proof of a conspiracy and actually it just made you look like a sloppy researcher?

 

[Patrick1000]

With all do respect SUSpilot, I believe I have addressed this matter in several posts

Patrick: in the "When did the Apollo Hoax Nonsense Start" thread, you said this when discussing a debate:



Um?

Patrick, you regularly state that you can figuratively wipe the floor with these people. Are you backing off of this position? Is that why you haven't provided Jay with your contact information (while working on the PTFE homework)?

With all do respect SUSpilot, I believe I have addressed this matter in several posts already.

The astronauts as well as other principals have been given more than ample opportunity to correspond with me DIRECTLY as regards my challenges. And I continue to be open and provide the astronauts and others opportunity to engage me. That said, what goes on between us is rather private, I am sure you can appreciate that, though I may choose to share this or that or the other thing as regards personal communications depending on circumstances.

I hardly need JayUtah or anyone for that matter to serve as an agent for me. I am obviously rather capable SUSpilot. As you know, the editors have offered to put my name in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal giving me credit for providing an important FACT that I made available to them as regards landing site concerns.

With regard to the Teflon issue. It would appear that I am the ONLY one that knows anything about the subject posting on this thread, so it would seem you are all dependent on me regarding the relevant analysis, ditto for the aluminum issue.

If I am mistaken with respect to this, my apologies, I simply haven't seen anything from anyone here so far that addresses the concerns I have raised, nor do I find anything in the Apollo Investigation documents themselves.


So it would appear that it is indeed up to me, taking a look see at all of this silly Teflon/aluminum combustion business, no? Are you a chemist by any chance SUSpilot, don't believe Jay is either? As I said, the NASA boys are in rather over their empty little heads on this one. Your patience shall be greatly rewarded.

Fasten your seat belts.......

 

[Garrison]

With all do respect SUSpilot, I believe I have addressed this matter in several posts already.

The astronauts as well as other principals have been given more than ample opportunity to correspond with me DIRECTLY as regards my challenges. And I continue to be open and provide the astronauts and others opportunity to engage me. That said, what goes on between us is rather private, I am sure you can appreciate that, though I may choose to share this or that or the other thing as regards personal communications depending on circumstances.

No you've repeated the same implausible excuse several times, not the same thing as addressing the issue. Patrick1000 it ceases to be private when you go on an open forum and accuse these people of perpetrating a fraud, you cannot do so and then invoke 'privacy' when it suits you to avoid giving them a chance to respond. You are being offered the opportunity to address these people face to face and present your arguments how much more directly could they 'correspond'?

 

[JayUtah]

With all do respect SUSpilot, I believe I have addressed this matter in several posts already.

No, you have not. No one agrees that you have. Everyone wants you to put your money where you mouth is, but you will not.

But I think based on this latest post, I can confidently say that you have actively and explicitly rejected my offer to put you in direct contact with the people you accuse. I find that extremely revealing, and I think the world needs to be reminded of this explicit refusal every time you boast about the supposed strength of your claims.

The astronauts as well as other principals have been given more than ample opportunity to correspond with me DIRECTLY as regards my challenges.

I promise you that they don't know you exist. I'm offering to correct that for you, but you're patently not interested.

You continue to use your anonymity, obscurity, evasion, and an argument from silence to imply that the ball is and always has been in your victims' court. Not so. We have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that you have made any effort of any kind to contact any of the people you've accused. In the real world, the accuser bears the burden to prove that he has informed people of accusations against them. The accused party is not responsible for scouring every nook and cranny of the universe.

I have never offered to invite Apollo functionaries here to JREF. I would never waste their time and disrespect them to the extent of asking them to address claims made by a faceless, anonymous liar. I will, however, invite them to face a real live human being.

And I continue to be open and provide the astronauts and others opportunity to engage me.

Unacceptable. You "provide" only an opportunity that relieves you entirely of any accountability for your claims against them. You are unwilling to take responsibility for your accusations, therefore your accusations lack credibility. In case it's not obvious, no one here (or elsewhere) takes you seriously.

I'm offering you the chance to improve your credibility, which cannot be attained without risk. You are unwilling to take the risk, therefore you do not enjoy credibility. You are not open in the least. You aren't open to any opportunity that denies you your safety net. You will engage only on terms that are completely favorable to you and completely disadvantageous to your victims.

That said, what goes on between us is rather private, I am sure you can appreciate that...

No, I cannot appreciate it in the least. You make public accusations against the Apollo operators, but in a way that fairly ensures they don't know or care who you are or what you say. The only evidence you can provide that they know who you are and take you seriously are unsubstantiated claims of letters and further unsubstantiated claims of private correspondence and conversations which you will not divulge.

Do you understand that anyone can make those claims? Given your track record, why would we believe that you have secret correspondence with the people you are accusing?

No, if you're going to claim that Apollo insiders know and respect you, then you will have to give verifiable details.

I hardly need JayUtah or anyone for that matter to serve as an agent for me.

Clearly you do. You said you wrote to some of the crews and received no response. You've chosen to interpret that silence as an admission that you're just too powerful an enemy for them. But another interpretation is that they never saw your letters or took them seriously. And still another interpretation is that you never sent any letters in the first place. Given that plethora of possibility, you'll understand why we don't accept your claim that the ball is in someone else's court.

I'm giving you the opportunity to be able to prove to the world that you have well and truly met the Apollo functionaries. I'm giving you the opportunity to say, "No, you can't tell me they threw my letter away; you can't tell me they didn't get the message -- here's proof that I met them."

But you aren't interested, and that speaks volumes.

As you know, the editors have offered to put my name in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal giving me credit for providing an important FACT that I made available to them as regards landing site concerns.

It's there already -- or rather, the name of a sock puppet you used elsewhere. Go look. I know you said you wanted to remain anonymous, but Eric put the name up anyway.

Of course you neglected to tell them you were a conspiracy theorist. You neglected to tell them that you thought the whole operation that their site celebrates was a vast conspiracy. Eric and I are friends, and we talk about what you two talked about. In other words, you were fairly dishonest in your reasons for posting.

I suspect what you really wanted was some kind of external validation that you were the World's Greatest Apollo Historian, and what better way to do that than to supply some innocent small detail, such as the LRRR ranging date. Yes, it was an item that ALSJ had wrong, and you got the credit for correcting it. Important? Not necessary. Eric interviews the primary functionaries directly. He relies on about 200 contributors (you included) to proofread the site.

Don't you recall when you basically said, "My name is now on the ALSJ, is yours?" And others pointed to where my name was prominently mentioned several places and where Eric's site and mine link copiously to each other.

No, Patrick, you are not the world's greatest Apollo historian, and you're not even the world's most successful conspiracy theorist. At least Bart Sibrel puts his face within punching distance. You won't even leave the house.

With regard to the Teflon issue. It would appear that I am the ONLY one that knows anything about the subject posting on this thread...

No. You don't get to arbitrarily define your oversimplifications as the gold standard of knowledge.

If I am mistaken with respect to this, my apologies, I simply haven't seen anything from anyone here so far that addresses the concerns I have raised...

You mean other than pointing out that they are based entirely on your layman's supposition?

You are falling into the common conspiracist trap of assuming that you are generally correct and that any failure in your argument would have to be in some minutia. You aren't open to the fact that you're so far out in left field that we don't know where to start to correct you. You suggest you can't possibly be that wrong. Yes, you can.

As I said, the NASA boys are in rather over their empty little heads on this one.

I'll put you in direct contact with engineers at Ames. That's only a few miles down the road from where you say you live. I'm sure they'd love you to stand in their conference room and accuse them of having "empty little heads."

You game?

Your patience shall be greatly rewarded.

I've been waiting eight months. I'm not impressed.

 

[JayUtah]

I HAVE mopped the floor with these guys SUSpilot...

Prove that they know you have "mopped the floor" with them. Prove that they even know who you are. Prove that this entire eight-month odyssey has been more than your exposition of a fantasy world populated by characters you invent or co-opt out of the real world.

Do you realize I'm giving you the opportunity to silence your critics once and for all? Imagine what you could accomplish if JayUtah were able to say, "Yes, I was present when Patrick met with Gene Kranz and delivered his charges to him face to face." Imagine what you'll be able to do when you can point to the paper you delivered in front of the AIAA and confounded them.

You want to be the world's greatest Apollo historian, but you are unwilling to take these opportunities to achieve greatness. You seem to want some easy way of creating only the illusion of success by flying under the radar and relying on bluster and evasion. Don't you want real success? Aren't you tired of the Stundie being the only accolade you are given?

Equivocation -- rejected.

That doesn't mean these gutless cowards are going to concede anything to me face to face, in writing, or in any other way.

Wow. Just ... wow.

What do you think went through Neil Armstrong's head when I wrote to him...

Nothing. You haven't proven you wrote any such letter. You have not demonstrated yourself in this thread to be an honest person, so I cannot take your word for anything. If you want to enter Neil Armstrong's reaction to you into the record as evidence, you actually have to have something to enter.

Argument from silence -- rejected.

That doesn't mean they are going to admit squat publicly.

When are you going to admit squat publicly?

Argument from silence -- rejected.

 

[nomuse]

With all do respect SUSpilot, I believe I have addressed this matter in several posts already.

The astronauts as well as other principals have been given more than ample opportunity to correspond with me DIRECTLY as regards my challenges.

Posting to someone hiding behind (several) assumed names on various online boards is hardly having a chance to personally confront an accuser.

Keep pretending equivalence. You might even convince yourself, and then there will be one person who agrees.

And I continue to be open and provide the astronauts and others opportunity to engage me. That said, what goes on between us is rather private, I am sure you can appreciate that, though I may choose to share this or that or the other thing as regards personal communications depending on circumstances.

How convenient. I'm sure my friend Brad, who lives in Nob Hill, is so very, very happy that when I meet him for lunch I apologize for naming him here and calling him an incontinent warthog, a gumby climber too dangerous to allow on the face, and an MCSE.

Insulting the astronauts and the flight director and whomever else is target of this day's version of your rambling, every-changing conspiracy is not in any way alleviated by your assurances that you are also exchanging nice letters with them on the side.

I hardly need JayUtah or anyone for that matter to serve as an agent for me. I am obviously rather capable SUSpilot. As you know, the editors have offered to put my name in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal giving me credit for providing an important FACT that I made available to them as regards landing site concerns.

With regard to the Teflon issue. It would appear that I am the ONLY one that knows anything about the subject posting on this thread, so it would seem you are all dependent on me regarding the relevant analysis, ditto for the aluminum issue.

If I am mistaken with respect to this, my apologies, I simply haven't seen anything from anyone here so far that addresses the concerns I have raised, nor do I find anything in the Apollo Investigation documents themselves.

I haven't found anything in the official materials about the deadly danger of color-coded umbilicals on the pressure suits and the possibility that a color-blind astronaut might hook one up incorrectly. What do you mean, the couplings were incompatible anyhow, plus the astronauts were all tested for that (and much, much, more!) Don't confuse me with details! I was the only person to bring up this important!!!! fake danger!!!! so listen to me, listen to me!!!!

So it would appear that it is indeed up to me, taking a look see at all of this silly Teflon/aluminum combustion business, no? Are you a chemist by any chance SUSpilot, don't believe Jay is either? As I said, the NASA boys are in rather over their empty little heads on this one. Your patience shall be greatly rewarded.

Fasten your seat belts.......

Are you a chemist?

Didn't you claim that it only took a high school chemist to disprove it?

How much of a chemist do you need to be to show the high-schooler's proof is in error?

How about you show your "easy, high school" work and let other people critique it?

I know we can't all be Mandarin-speaking bike-designing radar-aligning medical practitioners here, but I think there are maybe one or two professional people on this board with a skill here and there, and maybe even an advanced degree. Or two. Or many.

And some of them are even in aerospace engineering.

 

[CompusMentus]

What do you think went through Neil Armstrong's head when I wrote to him and confronted him with the MSFN data published in the Apollo 11 Mission Report November 1969, landing site coordinates 0.631 north and 23.47 east?

"Where's the recycle bin?"


Compus

 

[threadworm]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000
I hardly need JayUtah or anyone for that matter to serve as an agent for me. I am obviously rather capable SUSpilot. As you know, the editors have offered to put my name in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal giving me credit for providing an important FACT that I made available to them as regards landing site concerns.

I've also got my name on the ALSJ, so everything I post is true: they landed on the moon.

There's a difference between providing a factually supported correction (which I have done for them, as have many others) and unsupported hysterical hyperbole. Acceptance by the ALSJ of the former does not mean they accept the latter.

 

[Patrick1000]

Apollo 7, Phony colds In Low Earth Orbit

This will get the main-streamers a squirming.

Access the Apollo 7 Voice Transcript PDF;

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS07_TEC.PDF

Use your PDF search function and search "cold". You'll get lots of hits. Read about how the astronauts, all three of them were sick with colds in earth orbit for many days. Also try searching the transcript for "doctor". You'll find some interesting stuff as well with that word as a key.

What is wrong with this picture? Well, Apollo 7 "flew" October 11 and splashed October 22 1968. The Hong Kong Flu epidemic reared its ugly head months before, in the summer of 1968 matter-0-fact.

The Hong Kong Flu, pandemic INFLUENZA of 1968/1969, may well have begun or "presented" as a garden variety "common cold". It was/is not always this way with INFLUENZA, but it happened and happens with INFLUENZA not altogether infrequently. People look at first like they may have nothing more than a simple cold.

So in October 1968, one of the first things a "real" doc/flight surgeon would think of if a patient/pilot/astronaut called and said, "hey doc, I have got this bothersome cold", would have been INFLUENZA. More often than not in such a situation, the symptoms of course would turn out to be attributable in fact to garden variety common cold viruses and not INFLUENZA. However, during the time of the Hong Kong Flu pandemic, docs, fight surgeons, genuine medical personal, would be very keyed into this problem, especially given the risks of transmission in close quarters.

This is another one of those issues that I'll be going into in great detail as time goes on, a very rich vein to be mined for proof of fraud here. Suffice it to to say, the astronauts are busted already, at least their doctors are. This is not a real mission because the physicians interacting with these men are not real flight surgeons. By "not real" I do not mean that these people, Charles Berry types, do not have medical licenses, I mean rather that this tale about the colds is all scripted, all phony. Has to be. Were it real, the docs would be worried sick about these guys until they had convinced themselves there was not an INFLUENZA problem on board Apollo 7 in earth orbit. The dialog would have run totally different to that which appears there in the Apollo 7 Voice Transcript PDF.

This is a particularly peculiar "scene" from the annals of Apollo's fraudulent years long script. Why the "colds" for these Apollo 7 astronauts in earth orbit? Not entirely clear at this time. What is clear is that the mission is as phony as a four dollar bill with von Braun's pic on the front and a Saturn V on za' back.....Ain't no doc gonna' let these guys roll around like that without subjecting them to a major major major interrogation...

Apollo 7, as fake as they come......Fake as a von Braun 4 dollar bill......

 

[Patrick1000]

The plot had already thickened.......

The plot had already thickened.......

Recall my earlier post in which I referenced a newspaper article "documenting" astronaut Cunningham had indeed been diagnosed with INFLUENZA. That article from November 18 1968. How interesting this has all become, no?......

 

[rambaldi]

I HAVE mopped the floor with these guys SUSpilot, mission accomplished and accomplished quite well. Matter-o-fact the entirety of cislunar space has been mopped. That doesn't mean these gutless cowards are going to concede anything to me face to face, in writing, or in any other way.

Yeah sure. Why don't you leave your sockdrawer, provide your personal information to Jay, have him set up a public discussion with those you routinely insult form anonymity, and let the audience decide?

If I was so sure of myself as you claim to be, I would be delighted to mop the floor with these perps, traitors, liars etc in public..

Instead you hide here (after your latest socks have been banned elsewhere) and dream about your achievments which NOBODY believes.

Seriously, I can't imagine a scenario where a sane, smart and honest person, who really accomplished everything you claimed, would just live with all the accusations about dishonesty etc you receive, when you could easily prove us all wrong.

 

[R.A.F.]

I HAVE mopped the floor with these guys SUSpilot, mission accomplished and accomplished quite well.

This is just ridiculous....you've done nothing of the sort.

That doesn't mean these gutless cowards are going to concede anything to me face to face, in writing, or in any other way.

Your bravado is amusing. Talk about a bad case of "projection".

 

[JayUtah]

This will get the main-streamers a squirming.

Interesting characterization of your critics. Care to explain it?

So in October 1968, one of the first things a "real" doc/flight surgeon would think...

1. Begging the question -- rejected.

2. You are not an expert in aeronautical medicine -- rejected.

This is another one of those issues that I'll be going into in great detail as time goes on...

Promises, promises. You have yet to provide promised detail on about half a dozen other claims: most recently your promised computations proving that PTFE wold not ignite and sustain combustion under the Apollo 13 conditions. Instead of the promised computations, the "detail" you provided was simply a ponderous wall of meandering text that simply alluded to basic high school chemistry principles and essentially restated the problem in lengthier terms without solving it.

This is not a real mission because the physicians interacting with these men are not real flight surgeons.

You are not qualified (by your own admission) to make that determination. Insufficient expertise -- rejected.

Were it real, the docs would be...

Begging the question -- rejected.

 

[Loss Leader]

I mean rather that this tale about the colds is all scripted, all phony. Has to be. Were it real, the docs would be worried sick about these guys until they had convinced themselves there was not an INFLUENZA problem on board Apollo 7 in earth orbit. The dialog would have run totally different to that which appears there in the Apollo 7 Voice Transcript PDF.

Since Apollo 7 never left earth orbit, how long would it have taken from the decision to abort the mission to the astronauts returning to earth?

How incapacitated would the crew have to be to make landing impossible?

How long, from the onset of cold-like symptoms, would a flu patient have until he was entirely incapacitated by illness?

What would the dollar cost have been of aborting the mission early and relaunching a second mission?

Did the astronauts report an inability to operate the spacecraft?

This is a particularly peculiar "scene" from the annals of Apollo's fraudulent years long script. Why the "colds" for these Apollo 7 astronauts in earth orbit?

Indeed, why? If the mission was fake, what would be the point of including information that helps us determine that the mission was fake?

If you believe the mission was fake, why do you believe the transcript that they had colds?

How can you tell from a mere inconsistency in statements that one statement is true but not the other?

What is the chance that the mission was real but the statements about having colds were false and the astronauts were all perfectly healthy?

What logical rule allows you to disregard that chance in favor of the explanation that the colds were real but the mission was not?

Do you believe that the astronauts suffered from an illnesses that caused them to disregard logic in favor of a cherished delusion?