Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[JayUtah]

How interesting this has all become, no?......

No, not really.

You specifically disavowed your prior claims to medical expertise, so you have no basis from which to criticize the licensed practitioners who acted in this case. Your layman's expectations and opinions mean nothing here.

Lately you string together meaningless tidbits of this-or-that illness from various reports and exalt them via vigorous handwaving and imagination to some full-blown medical catastrophe that only you are capable of revealing to the world. I'm sure I can rustle up a flight surgeon or two at Ames, or perhaps Moffett. That's only a 20-minute drive from where you live, right? Wanna go toe-to-toe with them in a conference room?

Lastly, the influenza question appears to be largely a diversion from the combustibility questions that have been pending for some time now. You have promised to provide computations etc. in support of your claims, so I find it disingenuous that you are presenting new material on different topics rather than satisfy your promises.

 

[threadworm]

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......

Woah that change of direction almost gave me whiplash!

One of the things most people who aren't medically informed do is claim the have 'flu when in fact they just have a cold. You wouldn't expect a doctor to make that mistake.

One of the things you find when you do search for 'cold' is that the astronauts mostly just complain about using a lot of tissues and feeling a little bunged up. In fact they mostly just complain. They are clearly able to cope with the mission's demands. If they had influenza they would not be able to do anything remotely strenuous. A doctor would know that. Ergo, they did not have influenza. They had a cold. This is not any kind of secret.

Your proof is specious. You have decided they should have had influenza. You have then decided that because no-one diagnosed them with influenza they must have been faking it, and because not once did any of the crew complain that they had influenza they must have been faking it too.

Feeble.

 

[Tomblvd]

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.

No. The very first thing these numerous physicians (there were more than one, Patrick) would have thought of would be, "Gee, his symptoms match identically the 24 hr. bug that half of Cape Kennedy has right now, looks like he picked up the same thing. We'll see how he feels in 24 hours."



As a matter of fact, a contemporary source says just that:

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.

Considering the down time for the Hong Kong flu was around 4-5 days, there was absolutely nothing they could do, other than let it run its course anyway.

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.

Speaking of fraud, I'm still waiting for an explanation or apology for your completely dishonest post about me.

 

[R.A.F.]

Apollo 7, as fake as they come...

This makes no sense. Are you now indicating that all LEO missions were faked?

If not, they why just "fake" this particular mission?

 

[sts60]

I think it's funny that any of you think that a letter from a crackpot - granting such a letter ever existed - would actually be dignified by getting thrown out by Neil Armstrong. Good heavens, he's one of the most famous human beings in all of history - the only man who will ever be the first to set foot on another world. He's also a combat veteran and retired test pilot and astronaut and engineering professor, all of which generate their own ongoing demands on one's time.

Hint: people like that have secretaries to throw out, unread, rambling letters that were written in crayon but didn't come from a second-grader.

I will bet you a shrimp po-boy platter at Pe-Te's that Mr. Armstrong is not even aware of the alleged letter, let alone its alleged writer.

 

[Patrick1000]

If you do not believe I wrote to Neil Armstrong, fine, say it once ......

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.

If you do not believe I wrote to Neil Armstrong, fine, say it once and be done with it rambaldi. It seems rather silly if you ask me for your side to continually challenge me on this issue, and that challenge doing little more than prompting yet again my now favorite rejoinder, "I wrote to Armstrong, Aldrin, fight officers and other principals, all were and are free to engage me directly, or engage me here at JREF if they preferred a "public forum"."

Every email I sent the astronauts, flight officers and Apollo
Program Scientists had my full name attached. I was very clear about who I was, what I did professionally, what my interests were with respect to Apollo. The letters I wrote prominently featured my name, address, email, phone number, qualifications, reasons for writing. Nothing has ever been hidden from those whom I "accuse" of fraud. My intentions have been straight forward. Where fraud was not suspected, it was not proposed. Where it WAS SUSPECTED, I laid it on the line and gave my reasons. I'd say those on the receiving end of my communications were/are the cowards. You fellows have things wrong way 'round when it comes to who is afraid of engagement here.

FYI, the one flight officer I really did mix it up with by way of an extended detailed exchange by way of emails chose to break off contact with me, not the other way 'round by the way. I believe my FACTS made him rather uncomfortable. The substance of our exchange may come out in due course, who knows. He certainly is free to PUBLISH the details as regards our rather intense interaction. It was one indeed proving Apollo fraud beyond any doubt whatsoever. He would not have stopped writing to me were that not the case.

 

[Tomblvd]

FYI, the one flight officer I really did mix it up with by way of an extended detailed exchange by way of emails chose to break off contact with me, not the other way 'round by the way. I believe my FACTS made him rather uncomfortable. The substance of our exchange may come out in due course, who knows. He certainly is free to PUBLISH the details as regards our rather intense interaction. It was one indeed proving Apollo fraud beyond any doubt whatsoever. He would not have stopped writing to me were that not the case.

Please send the name of this "flight officer" to Jay, and since he has a relationship with many Apollo people, he can get in touch with this person and confirm it took place. If he doesn't know the man, he can have someone from Apollo confirm it.

Patrick, you could tell me the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and the morning will find me plastered to my window before sunrise waiting to see if it is true.

THAT is what happens when you make things up as blatantly as you do.

 

[JayUtah]

If you do not believe I wrote to Neil Armstrong, fine, say it once and be done with it rambaldi.

I do not believe you wrote to Neil Armstrong.

It seems rather silly if you ask me for your side to continually challenge me on this issue...

Not silly at all. You claim to have undertaken this correspondence in justification of your refusal of my invitation for in-person direct contact. You say such contact is unnecessary since, according to you, the ball is in their court to answer your charges. However, you have provided no evidence that they know they have been so charged.

If you are going to refuse my invitation, and that the grounds for your refusal is that you have already contacted them yourself, then I require proof of that notification before I consider my invitation honorably declined. As it stands I consider my invitation refused on grounds that seem suspicious.

You are the one who raised the issue of correspondence, in support of your chosen approach. Therefore you have the burden to substantiate that such correspondence has occurred.

...all were and are free to engage me directly, or engage me here at JREF if they preferred a "public forum".

It is your responsibility to inform them -- and prove that you have informed them -- that their actions have been questioned by you.

You may not argue from silence that the reason Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz do not respond here at JREF is that they're quaking in their boots at the awesomeness of your research. You have the burden to prove that their silence is not because you have failed to inform them properly.

My intentions have been straight forward.

I strongly disagree with this.

First, you have relied up countless false identities, and you have claimed and then disavowed here on this forum certain qualifications pertaining to those identities. Given your inherently contradictory claims made under that alias, there is simply no question that you have lied regarding your identity. It is a matter of fact. Lying about your expertise does not suggest that your intentions are straightforward.

Second, you have formerly and lately employed a series of sock-puppet identities to lend credence to your claims by suggesting that others buy your arguments on their merits. Simultaneously pretending to be different people does not suggest that your intentions are straightforward.

Finally, I am privy to the letters you wrote to Eric Jones, the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. You did not disclose to him that you were a conspiracy theorist. You did not disclose that you believed Apollo was a fraud. You did not disclose any of your theories regarding Lick Observatory fradulently reporting the LRRR location, or the LRRR being used for military purposes. You didn't disclose that you were planning to use your association with ALSJ as some sort of validation or historian credential to legitimize your hoax theory. That latter point is especially counterindicative of straightforward motives.

No, I'd say you're about as far from straightforward as it gets.

I'd say those on the receiving end of my communications were/are the cowards.

This is offensive. You are arguing from silence, asserting that the silence of your victims is due to their cowardice and not from the non-existence of any communication to which they should need to respond.

Prove that you have communicated with any Apollo functionary of note.

FYI, the one flight officer I really did mix it up with by way of an extended detailed exchange by way of emails chose to break off contact with me, not the other way 'round by the way. I believe my FACTS made him rather uncomfortable.

Given what you've presented over the past eight months, it's more likely he realized that any sort of rational discussion with you on Apollo is futile. Look at how many people here advertise that they have put you on "ignore." What is your evidence that your interlocutor was so awed by your performance that he resigned the debate in fear, and not simply that he arrived at the same conclusion that so many others here have?

The substance of our exchange may come out in due course, who knows.

Actually only you know. Will you reveal the name of this person and publish the correspondence? Yes or no.

He certainly is free to PUBLISH the details as regards our rather intense interaction.

Send me a private message with his name and contact information and I will ask him about it.

[My interaction with him] was one indeed proving Apollo fraud beyond any doubt whatsoever. He would not have stopped writing to me were that not the case.

No, this begs the question entirely.

First, given your proven track record of inventing whatever fictional characters you require for your fantasy, we have no reason to believe that any such person exists.

Second, you have failed after eight months of effort to provide any substantial proof of any kind for Apollo fraud -- only your layman's supposition and expectations. There is no reason to suppose you are capable of any such argument.

Third, the demonstrated behavior of others as they encounter your claims is to write you off as an entrenched crackpot. This is more likely why anyone would stop writing to you, because it's why people here are saying they stop writing to you.

 

[Erock]

FYI, the one flight officer I really did mix it up with by way of an extended detailed exchange by way of emails chose to break off contact with me, not the other way 'round by the way. I believe my FACTS made him rather uncomfortable. The substance of our exchange may come out in due course, who knows. He certainly is free to PUBLISH the details as regards our rather intense interaction. It was one indeed proving Apollo fraud beyond any doubt whatsoever. He would not have stopped writing to me were that not the case.

Nonsense. Without disclosing the contents of a PM I received from you, there was nothing you mentioned about it that was damning, that prevents you from disclosing it here or now, or in any way points to a fraud of Apollo 11. The excuse you mentioned for not doing so makes no sense at all.

The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later.

Seriously, you need to get a new hobby, maybe fix your bike or banjo, because we've had months of this and it is just embarrassing watching you get creamed.

 

[Hans]

Hint: people like that have secretaries to throw out, unread, rambling letters that were written in crayon but didn't come from a second-grader.

I will bet you a shrimp po-boy platter at Pe-Te's that Mr. Armstrong is not even aware of the alleged letter, let alone its alleged writer.

Finally amongst all the well educated engineers I can forward an expert opinion!

I, as a grad student, was in charge of public communications (cranks) writing letters to the anthroplogy department of the University of Hawaii. I would say that I read and past on to responsible people 1 out of 40 letters. Most where archaeological nonsense, religious crap and insanity. I read letters addressed to Solheim, Boggs and other well known people (well known in their field and time).

They had no time for cranks, occasionally we would get a letter with details about relics found on private land-those got forwarded, the rest had a visit to Mr. trash can.

 

[Patrick1000]

Given the posting, it seems yours is the side that is embarrassed....

Nonsense. Without disclosing the contents of a PM I received from you, there was nothing you mentioned about it that was damning, that prevents you from disclosing it here or now, or in any way points to a fraud of Apollo 11. The excuse you mentioned for not doing so makes no sense at all.

The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later.

Seriously, you need to get a new hobby, maybe fix your bike or banjo, because we've had months of this and it is just embarrassing watching you get creamed.

Given the posting, it seems yours is the side that is embarrassed...

What does my embarrassment or yours have to do with Apollo 7 astronauts not receiving an appropriate medical evaluation?

 

[Patrick1000]

Your questions are not relevant to my point Loss Leader....

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?





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?

Your questions are not wholly relevant to my views so far presented with respect to the NASA physicians involved in the "care" of the Apollo 7 crew Loss Leader...My initial point was/is rather limited here. My point is that the physicians' behavior has betrayed their role as inauthentic, and along with that, the Apollo 7 mission is seen/known to be inauthentic, at least in a limited sense. Nothing "more" is claimed and nothing specific is implied. Aborting this that or the other thing was not a part of my claim.....

I do not know if the astronauts were actually ill or not, victums of coryza. I do know that the Apollo physicians were not competent and this betrays the Apollo 7 Mission as fraudulent in an as of yet to be determined specific sense...I am not saying the astronauts of Apollo 7 were fying an occult Dyna-Soar. I am not saying specifically that the Apollo 7 astronauts were flying a mission of sorts, some place, some where, some how, that should have or should not have been aborted. Rather, I am saying the doctors said to have been helping them do not behave as genuine physicians would have behaved were they to have been genuinely charged with the care of astronauts flying an earth orbiting Apollo Mission, and so from this I can be certain the general public in an as of yet to be determined sense was being deceived with respect to NASA's Apollo 7's true intentions.

The mission was inauthentic. Apollo 7 fraud specifics, motive, goals, details of intent, yet to be determined with respect to this mission in particular....

 

[Patrick1000]

They are most decidedly not dealing in "fake" equipment.....

All this thread proves to me is that the HBs when presented with irrfutable evidence dance convaluted dances to rescue their terminally holed position.

Given that each Saturn V launch cost billions it stretches credability to breaking point to sugget that they used them all up just to put fake equipment up there on the Moon.

And by the way the russians were tehcnolgially behind for a long time only really caught us up in the late 70's early 80s at ruinioous cost, their moon rocket kept blowing up

They are most decidedly not dealing in "fake" equipment Dcdrc.....The LRRR is as real as real gets Dcdrac and was employed to measure the earth-moon distance and so the strength of the earth's gravitational field and so employed to target ICBMs with the greatest of accuracy.

The Space Shuttle IS a Dyna-Soar, a supra-atmospheric, hypersonic bomber Dcdrac. It is a weapon and a very very very real one.

Apollo was indeed FRAUDULENT, fraudulent in the sense that Apollo was not a program to land men on the moon. It was a part of a covert program to weaponize/militarize space. The weapons so deployed were/are as real as real can get.

 

[Patrick1000]

What is "crap" Hans about my pointing out INFLUENZA vaccination does not confer.....

Finally amongst all the well educated engineers I can forward an expert opinion!

I, as a grad student, was in charge of public communications (cranks) writing letters to the anthroplogy department of the University of Hawaii. I would say that I read and past on to responsible people 1 out of 40 letters. Most where archaeological nonsense, religious crap and insanity. I read letters addressed to Solheim, Boggs and other well known people (well known in their field and time).

They had no time for cranks, occasionally we would get a letter with details about relics found on private land-those got forwarded, the rest had a visit to Mr. trash can.

What is "crap" Hans about my pointing out INFLUENZA vaccination does not confer a guarantee of immunity, not on earth, nor in cislunar space?

 

[Patrick1000]

I am more than eminently qualified to critique Apollo

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




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?




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.




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.




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.




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




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?




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.




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?




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




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.




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?




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




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

I am more than eminently qualified to critique the Apollo 13 Investigation Report. The investigators presented NO experimental evidence substantiating their claims about the quantity of Teflon available for combustion, nor about the quantity of aluminum that might have been available for combustion, at the time of the alleged Apollo 13 O2 tank explosion.

This criticism, my criticism, is fundamental, straightforward, just and true. And, it has just begun. There is much much much more for me to say, demonstrate, with regard to pointing out evidence of Apollo 13 Mission fraudulence...

I have spent my life studying sciences. I possess degree(s) in relevant fields. What more could one ask for? One should not be surprised that the astronauts to whom I wrote letters were not willing to respond to my tactful assault on their phony stories ?

Keep in mind, as emphasized, the Apollo 13 investigators limit their assessment to high school level considerations, not that more is/was required. As such, high school level chemistry is all that is needed to see/recognize/understand/appreciate Apollo as fraudulent.

Where there is phony smoke, there is a bogus, ludicrously jive infested fire......

Where there is no experimental evidence, there can be NO SCIENCE....

Apollo is fake, everyone's got to come to grips with this heinous truth......

 

[AdMan]

Finally amongst all the well educated engineers I can forward an expert opinion!

I, as a grad student, was in charge of public communications (cranks) writing letters to the anthroplogy department of the University of Hawaii. I would say that I read and past on to responsible people 1 out of 40 letters. Most where archaeological nonsense, religious crap and insanity. I read letters addressed to Solheim, Boggs and other well known people (well known in their field and time).

They had no time for cranks, occasionally we would get a letter with details about relics found on private land-those got forwarded, the rest had a visit to Mr. trash can.

Yes, I think it's more than obvious why Patrick's letters, if they existed in the first place, would have been sent to the trash bin, if they were anything close to what he has been posting here.

Patrick, your best chance to face those you call perps is to accept Jay's offer to put you in touch with them so that you can face them directly. You'd make history, if you are even remotely close to being right. Why is it that you seem so afraid to face them with your accusations?

 

[Loss Leader]

What is "crap" Hans about my pointing out INFLUENZA vaccination does not confer a guarantee of immunity, not on earth, nor in cislunar space?

Was a person exposed to the flu guaranteed to get it or was the vaccine not completely effective? You've said both things, sometimes in the same post.

Do you think that one of the symptoms of the flu might have been an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality in order to protect a fragile ego?

 

[Erock]

Given the posting, it seems yours is the side that is embarrassed...

What does my embarrassment or yours have to do with Apollo 7 astronauts not receiving an appropriate medical evaluation?

Who says? You? You aren't in a position to determine what medical evaluation they received, and your shoe horning of your ill-informed opinion in, to make your hoax work is just daft.

"The whole reason you contrived for them 'pretending to' land long was to fool the Russians into not finding where the LRRR was located, then by heavens those silly old NASA people then pass it on to LICK (alongside all the other estimates)!! Then by heavens they go and publish the mission reports a few weeks later."

Now, that is just absurd. Got an answer, 'cos you seem (as usual) to have ignored it?

Quite how you repeatedly ignore complete rebuttal from experts tearing your argument to pieces, is beyond me.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Erock]

Given the posting, it seems yours is the side that is embarrassed...

It seems you don't have a firm grasp on reality, based largely in part that you 'seem' unable to read and respond to replies properly. So many questions, so many destroyed posts of yours

Post that stuff you PM'd to me. It made me shake my head in bewilderment at why you think it significant, yet there you are telling everybody that it is so wonderful. It ain't (don't hold your breath everybody - it's just more of the same Lost Bird guff).

 

[Hans]

What is "crap" Hans about my pointing out INFLUENZA vaccination does not confer a guarantee of immunity, not on earth, nor in cislunar space?

I was referring to what happens to letters written by cranks and crackpots who write letters to public figures. They are read by others and discarded instead of being forwarded to the intended target.