Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

The point was/is, if your side stakes your hopes of my being incorrect as regards....

The 'what then' is are you remotely qualified to make any judgement about Borman's illness? Given your claims and your flip-flopping on your medical qualifications the answer is no.



The X-20 was intended as a recon platform and possibly to engage in satellite repair or sabotage, any notion of it as a nuclear bomber was pure fantasy. As a nuclear bomber it would have been a dead loss; it would have required days/weeks to prep the Titan launcher and the launch would have been impossible to hide, not to mention the pointlessness of using a manned vehicle for an orbital delivery system. I'm still finding it amusing that you keep banging on about the X-20 and the Shuttle being resurrected while being oblivious to current developments.

The point was/is, if your side's hopes of maintaining Apollo's authenticity is based upon my being incorrect as regards the points I have made about INFLUNENZA, your position becomes extremely precarious if I do in fact turn out to be a doc. WOW!!! It would be cislunar curtains for everyone's favorite outer space thespian, Neil......

 

[JayUtah]

Splended Jay....... so what exactly DOES "crumbling" mean?

The point is that "crumble" is an inexact term. Baiting me into making your same equivocation error will not work.

Now indeed I have spent hours combing through the non-layman articles Jay...

Not with any demonstrable level of comprehension. If you have read and understood the engineering reports, why are you trying to get people to quibble with you over the wording in a brief news report?

You come across anything Jay you could reference for we the desperate and desperately interested?

You're indeed desperate. If you want to know what the report meant, go ask him. If you're interested, get a degree in engineering. I'm finished spoon-feeding you information.

Ditto for the aluminum. Didn't read in the New York Times or elsewhere about any aluminum crumbling Jay.....Do you know about that?

That's right; there was no mention in the article of aluminum crumbling. I'm not sure why you think such a thing would be relevant.

Funny how one has to drift over to the Times to get ANY inauthentic "facts" at all.

This makes no sense.

Are you quite finished pretending to be an engineer?

 

[Patrick1000]

Most of the real-time conversations were alleged to have been private...

Since you seem incapable of understanding, I'll repost exactly what I asked for:



Show us all the conversations that took place between Borman and the medical team on this subject.

Most of the real time conversations were said to have been private...I have referenced in numerous posts the Apollo 8 Mission Report, Borman's book COUNTDOWN, Chaikin's book MAN ON THE MOON, the Apollo 7 voice transcript, the May 1969 National Geographic, newspaper articles and the Borman penned personal account in the LOOK/LIFE Magazine article with respect to the deficiencies of the medical evaluation. I need not do this yet again. If you have specific questions with respect to any of these previous posts and the claims I made, the conclusions I drew in light of them, by all means ask away, but I will not repeat all of that again.

I do have an aerospace textbook which features a chapter by Berry that is suppose to cover all of the major medical problems encountered by him and his staff. It is very enlightening(Apollo fraud evidence wise) and I'll be presenting stark raving incriminating material from that work of Berry's at some point.

As best I can tell, with all due respect, you seem to be asking me to do what I have already done.

Take a look at the medical section of the Apollo 8 Mission Report for yourself Tomblvd. Does that present a reasonable assessment of, analysis of, accounting for, the Borman illness? Of course not, and one need go no further. Well I did and do go further being crazy for the details, but the casual Apollo historian need not. Apollo is proven bogus right there.

Because the claim is that most of the real-time interaction between Borman and Berry/docs took place "privately", one reads about the illness in references as above for the most part. There is little in the voice transcript itself, almost nothing in the way of detail.

Take a look at Borman's book COUNTDOWN for starters, Chaikin's MAN ON THE MOON book, and then also Charlie Duke's Book MOONWALKER in which Duke gives a detailed description of getting naked and pooping in a bag. That's a good place to start I think, those 3 books for the details of the mainstream story as proffered by the NASA crew.

Arthralgias anyone?????????

 

[Patrick1000]

Well the point I have been trying to make......

I did not say such a thing. I did not imply it. If you inferred it, it was an unintentional error.





No, it does not matter. You're wrong because you're wrong. You're not a doctor because you're not a doctor. The two have nothing to do with each other.


ETA: For implying that your expertise is valuable while the expertise of thousands of aerospace professionals is not, you owe me a new irony meter.

Well the point I have been trying to make whether you accept it as valid or not is that typically the pro Apollo side, the Apollo apologists, play the "you are not an expert card" so your assessment, your views, are simply not valid.

I am saying that with regard to the INFLUENZA issue, they cannot play this card, because for openers, most of the people arguing the point are not physicians and know little about INFLUENZA, and secondly and even more importantly, NASA's main defense in the covering up of the particularly bad Apollo 8 Mission acting is to claim that INFLUENZA vaccination guarantees immunity, which it most definitely does not, not by a mile, not by a light year.

So NASA is nailed there, Apollo 8 is nailed there, the whole of Apollo is nailed there, nailed hard, nailed bad, nailed utterly, nailed incontrovertibly The whole bogus cislunar jive infested edifice comes crashing down in light of this one fact that they cannot counter with, "you are not an expert", because, matter-0-fact, I am an expert.....

 

[Hans]

We

So NASA is nailed there, Apollo 8 is nailed there, the whole of Apollo is nailed there, nailed hard, nailed bad, nailed utterly, nailed incontrovertibly The whole bogus cislunar jive infested edifice comes crashing down in light of this one fact that they cannot counter with, "you are not an expert", because, matter-0-fact, I am an expert.....

So prove it, the statement of a guy who makes up stuff really doesn't matter now does it?

 

[JayUtah]

The point was/is, if your side's hopes of maintaining Apollo's authenticity is based upon my being incorrect as regards the points I have made about INFLUNENZA, your position becomes extremely precarious...

Then it's a good thing that's not what our "hopes" are based on. Keep in mind that you are a minority of one. You don't get to pretend that your opponents are outnumbered, desperate, and quaking in their boots.

Converting the conditional -- argument rejected.

if I do in fact turn out to be a doc.

No more of this game. You've claimed to be a doctor, then claimed not to be a doctor. Those two concepts being naturally opposed, you are lying one way or the other. Because of those lies, no one believes any claim you make.

WOW!!! It would be cislunar curtains for everyone's favorite outer space thespian, Neil......

Then why hasn't some other doctor blown the whistle in the 40-plus years since Apollo? You know, a doctor who isn't afraid to let his opinion be attached to his name and professional credentials.

 

[JayUtah]

As best I can tell, with all due respect, you seem to be asking me to do what I have already done.

No, he's asking you to post the relevant conversation -- i.e., a transcript. Instead, you post a wall of vague references -- likely so that you don't have to commit to any specific medical analysis that can be tested or overturned by actual medical expertise. And in the midst of it, you conceal the admission he was trying to elicit: that you don't have all the information because some of the conversations were private. Therefore I submit you have no basis to question whether the medical experts' opinions in this case were based on insufficiant or improper information.

 

[Patrick1000]

That was my point too, was looking for something a bit more precise....

The point is that "crumble" is an inexact term. Baiting me into making your same equivocation error will not work.



Not with any demonstrable level of comprehension. If you have read and understood the engineering reports, why are you trying to get people to quibble with you over the wording in a brief news report?



You're indeed desperate. If you want to know what the report meant, go ask him. If you're interested, get a degree in engineering. I'm finished spoon-feeding you information.



That's right; there was no mention in the article of aluminum crumbling. I'm not sure why you think such a thing would be relevant.



This makes no sense.

Are you quite finished pretending to be an engineer?

That was my point too Jay, I too was looking for something a bit more precise than "crumbling" from the NASA boys in their Cortright Report.....

They are not "engineering reports" per se by the way Jay, at least not ostensibly. The Cortright Investigation was a forensic investigation, and a forensic report was submitted to Congress for review, though I gather there were engineers involved in generating the report.

Anyhoo, engineers involved or not, my interest is in the purported mechanism of the tank explosion. Why was there a fire in the tank? What burned? How much? How much energy was released? And was all of this commensurate with the alleged damage to the "ship" pretending to float there in cislunar space".

My interests and posts have focused on the claims made by the investigators with regard to the alleged explosion's chemistry. I have barely got out out of the blocks with my own investigation of the Cortright bogus investigation as the Cortright investigators did no experiments to support their claims as to what burned, how much, and why.

I shall begin in short order to present specifics regarding these deficiencies, my own detailed presentation of the Cortright Commission's considerations regarding the chemistry of the explosion. Those that have reviewed the report already are well aware that the investigators supply no experimental evidence for their claims regarding the state of the Teflon at the time of the spark, no experimental detail regarding how it was they determined 0.13 pounds of Teflon was available for combustion, no experimental detail supporting their claim that aluminum may have burned, no experimental detail that lead to the quantitfication of aluminum that may have been available for combustion. Again, this is not engineering, this is high school chemistry, a subject I know quite well.

Anyhoo Jay, they did indeed say in the Cortright Report that aluminum might have been the fuel source for the O2 tank fire, so I have been just wondering what lead them to that unsupported conclusion.....

I am not an engineer Jay, I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense....

Perhaps later in this investigation of mine I shall grace the Cortrighters with a version of how things might have been approached were any of this real, but for now, let us stick to the high school chemistry level, the Cortright level. It is ever so easy to expose the ugly truth from such a low height, a simple minded vantage.


Cortright engineers, hit the deck, drop and cover, INCOMING!.......

17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, ZERO, RIP OFF...., WE HAVE RIP OFF,

$125,000,000,000 worth and counting.....

 

[tsig]

The point was/is, if your side's hopes of maintaining Apollo's authenticity is based upon my being incorrect as regards the points I have made about INFLUNENZA, your position becomes extremely precarious if I do in fact turn out to be a doc. WOW!!! It would be cislunar curtains for everyone's favorite outer space thespian, Neil......

The veracity of your statements has nothing to do with the veracity of the Apollo missions.

 

[SUSpilot]

Bit of a figure of speech, though the Dyna-Soar/Shuttle did and does have that capability, can serve when called upon to drop za' big one and take out the Bolshoi.. The Shuttle's primary role obviously has been/is in the arena of military reconnaissance......

Ok, the shuttle launched some recon satellites. Also, by demonstrating a sie-looking radar system on one or more missions that did some remarkable archeology from orbit (sts60, help me out here, I'm doing this from memory), we showed the Soviets that we could also find silos using the same technology in our satellites.

That has nothing to do with orbital or sub-orbital weapons systems. In fact, a book you referenced on this very forum showed the huge superiority of one system in particular. I won't suggest what it was, mainly because I'm curious to see if you actually read the book or quote-mined it.

That's while you're working up the PTFE homework.

And, since you now claim expertise in infectious diseases that would blow the NASA aeromedical establishment out of the water, specifically influenza, why not pass along your contact info to Jay? Or better yet, why not travel to Chicago for the convention and discuss this with Story Musgrave in a public forum?

 

[RobDog63]

Well the point I have been trying to make whether you accept it as valid or not is that typically the pro Apollo side, the Apollo apologists, play the "you are not an expert card" so your assessment, your views, are simply not valid.

I am saying that with regard to the INFLUENZA issue, they cannot play this card, because for openers, most of the people arguing the point are not physicians and know little about INFLUENZA, and secondly and even more importantly, NASA's main defense in the covering up of the particularly bad Apollo 8 Mission acting is to claim that INFLUENZA vaccination guarantees immunity, which it most definitely does not, not by a mile, not by a light year.

So NASA is nailed there, Apollo 8 is nailed there, the whole of Apollo is nailed there, nailed hard, nailed bad, nailed utterly, nailed incontrovertibly The whole bogus cislunar jive infested edifice comes crashing down in light of this one fact that they cannot counter with, "you are not an expert", because, matter-0-fact, I am an expert.....

You don't seem to comprehend what Loss Leader is saying to you.

If it does transpire that you are a doctor, that does not bestow infallibility upon you. It simply means that rather than being wrong, you are a doctor who is wrong.

 

[Multivac]

Sure my views are relevant.......It's not made up, matter-0-fact, it's simple bread and butter medicine, fundamentals.....

I am a physician that deals with INFLUENZA problems, both simple and complex, on a daily basis. The astronauts received inadequate evaluations, ergo, Charles Berry has shown his hand through his feigned lack of competence and is confirmed as a fraud insider. Simple as that.

Can you please try to keep your story straight? In other discussions you have claimed that you are not a doctor but an award winning bicycle designer. Which is the truth?

 

[Tomblvd]

Most of the real time conversations were said to have been private...

Then everything else you stated in that post is completely irrelevant. Because you don't know what was actually said.

 

[JimBenArm]

The only thing you're expert at is dodging and obfuscating. Other than that, I see no expertise in anything at all.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If the illness is so obviously fake and didn't impact on the success of the fake mission why put it into the script at all?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NASA's main defense in the covering up of the particularly bad Apollo 8 Mission acting is to claim that INFLUENZA vaccination guarantees immunity

Your claim is false.

Specious. Counterfactual. Perfidious. Wrong.

Your supporting 'evidence' consists of one newspaper report which juxtaposes a quote from Berry stating that the astronauts did not have flu with another stating that they had been vaccinated against it. From this you infer that Berry is the only doctor in the world who believes flu vaccination to be 100% effective. From that, we may reasonably infer that your judgement is seriously impaired and we should not take your word for anything.

 

[JayUtah]

That was my point too Jay, I too was looking for something a bit more precise than "crumbling" from the NASA boys in their Cortright Report...

No. Here's your post again.

Try this on for size, a UPI article from 07/03/1969.

https://plus.google.com/photos/107946557021507888184/albums/5711266719728106465

How can the very same Teflon that crumbles away to allow for sparking, be the very same Teflon, ALL 0.13 POUNDS OF IT, that combusts and blows the tank pray tell???????

Clearly you already had in mind that "crumbling away" necessarily meant some process that precluded combustion. I am now holding you accountable for your assumptions. Kindly do not try to change horses.

They are not "engineering reports" per se by the way Jay, at least not ostensibly. The Cortright Investigation was a forensic investigation...

What do you think forensic engineers do? What do you think is the product of their work?

Anyhoo, engineers involved or not, my interest is in the purported mechanism of the tank explosion. Why was there a fire in the tank? What burned? How much? How much energy was released?

Nonsense. Your "interest" began with asserting that it couldn't have happened, and that this therefore proved fraud. When pressed, you admitted that computations would need to be done to determine whether or not combustibility was plausible. Now nearly a month later you have failed to produce any such rigor of computation, although in its stead you have unloaded a veritable truckload of obfuscation and backpedaling on a daily basis.

Now you're desperately fishing for hints and help, in the manner you've used so often before. You are now saying you're "interested" in the process, hoping one of us knowledgeable posters will post a lengthy and correct analysis of the problem that you can then later take credit for.

I shall begin in short order to present specifics regarding these deficiencies...

And I shall continue to ignore them until you can demonstrate competence.

I asked you to demonstrate your competence by identifying and discussing the standard work in empiricism in forensic engineering. You can't do it, therefore I have no interest in your newfound claims to expertise.

Those that have reviewed the report already are well aware that the investigators supply no experimental evidence...

Asked and answered.

Anyhoo Jay, they did indeed say in the Cortright Report that aluminum might have been the fuel source for the O2 tank fire...

Asked and answered.

Further, the "crumbling away" from your news article that you have tried to apply also to the aluminum theory is not relevant to it. You are apprently trying to bait people into thinking the article substantiates such a claim so that you can complain further of its absence from the formal report.

I am not an engineer Jay, I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense...

No.

As I mentioned, this is the classic conspiracy theorist's gambit: to pretend that no special expertise is necessary to find fraud in the work of professionals that has stood the test of time for decades. Because conspiracy theorists never have appropriate credentials or qualifications, they redefine the problem to make whatever expertise they have seem applicable. That's cheating.

You previously admitted that it would take a great deal of expertise, equipment, and time to properly investigate the Apollo 13 final report. You said this in order to excuse yourself from the burden of having to provide the promised rigor. You attempted to make a case that the problem was so intractably hard that we were irrational for forcing you to do it. Now you're saying it's child's play -- but you still want others to do your homework and provide the rigor.

Further your claims to expertise once again fail the test of consistency. You said you were "eminently qualified" to criticize these professional findings, and that such expertise consisted of "multiple degrees in science." So in one sentence you simultaneously defined what you believed appropriate expertise consisted of, and claimed to have it.

Now you're saying that all you've had is one introductory chemistry class 40 years ago, and that this is all anyone ever needs. No one is interested in watching you flip-flop every day for months. Time to put up or shut up.

Perhaps later in this investigation of mine I shall grace the Cortrighters with a version...

You have an offer on the table right now to discuss this in person with professional engineers in your area. You clearly have no intention of taking it, so I write you off as nothing more than anonymous bluster.

I think it's clear who the fraud is in this case.

 

[Hans]

Patrick if you are taking the 'only experts can comment' on your influenza claim that has a knock on effect.

1. you effectively concede (which you have anyway) you weren't an expert in all your other claims, they are therefore discarded

2. you have to prove you are an expert in Influenza - got any peer reviewed papers on this subject you've written? I mean you claim to be an expert - if so why haven't you published on this?

3. you'll have to present your credentials to provide you are a medico! So where are they? Don't dwaddle now.

 

[Garrison]

The point was/is, if your side's hopes of maintaining Apollo's authenticity is based upon my being incorrect as regards the points I have made about INFLUNENZA, your position becomes extremely precarious if I do in fact turn out to be a doc. WOW!!! It would be cislunar curtains for everyone's favorite outer space thespian, Neil......

Not at all for three reasons:

1-You've flip-flopped so many times now no one believes your claims of medical credentials.

2-Even if you could somehow prove you possess medical qualifications the fact that everyone else with such qualifications finds nothing suspicious in this suggests that if you are a doctor your 'diagnosis' is faulty.

3-Even if you could find a body of medical opinion to back your claim that the treatment of the influenza issue, assuming said issue is real, was inadequate/inappropriate all that would prove is that NASA allowed the political considerations involved in getting to the moon before the Soviets to override minor health issues.

In summary Neil Armstrong has nothing to worry about from your poorly researched claims.

 

[Tomblvd]

I am not an engineer Jay, I believe I mentioned I took a year's worth of high school chemistry, and that is more than adequate in one's dealing with this nonsense....

Uh, doc, if you were a real medical doctor (or dentist, podiatrist, etc.), you would have been required to take AT LEAST one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry. Although most pre-med majors require many more than that.

So how do you explain this glaring discrepancy?