Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,936 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 601,462
Pageviews Today: 845,739Threads Today: 202Posts Today: 4,504
08:03 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

 
RelentlesslyClever
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 16557862
United States
10/05/2012 04:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
Take a look and a careful LISTEN to this now "infamous" film, HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM;

[link to www.youtube.com]

6 minutes and 45 seconds into the film, one hears what I like to refer to as the famous "GENE KRANZ RA RA RA APOLLO 13 SPEECH". In his pep talk to the Apollo flight officers, Kranz reminds the Mission Control crew that they need to focus, and not to worry too much, as they have the LM to rely on if things go bad. "We still have the LM" Gene says. Well what is wrong with that?


PLENTY!

This speech is delivered only 15 minutes from the time of the alleged O2 tank explosion. Only problem is, no reason to believe anything had blown up at that time, so early on.

At said juncture, EECOM Sy Liebergot and the MOCR crew are still struggling with the question as to whether or not the difficulties are even primarily hardware based to begin with. The astronauts have heard a bang on board, Lovell, at 14 minutes from the time of the drama's inception, one minute prior to Kranz's RA RA RA SPEECH, has noted something gaseous venting, but to be sure, no one knows what is going on. Is that something hydrogen? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Water? Helium? All gases in the service module. The oxygen pressure read low, but per EECOM Sy Liebergot himself, the low readings may have been related to instrumentation problems, not a genuine O2 leak, or any major hardware glitch for that matter.

A meteor hit was one concern in terms of a hardware problem, and that meteor may have HIT THE LM. How does anyone know 15 minutes in, assuming the problem was hardware based, as to whether or not the LM itself is OK? It may have been holed by a meteor, or may have sustained some other damage.

It is not until significantly later that the team working on all this does indeed determine that this is a hardware problem, and that the ship is bleeding O2, and with it, its fuel/energy in the form of O2 which combines with H2 to generate the fuel cell's power/energy.(Technically speaking here, one would view the H2 as the "fuel", just as one views the gas in one's automobile tank as the fuel, which when combined with O2, yields heat/energy. In the case of a fuel cell, water is the poduct of the 2 chemicals which combine. With our cars, CO2 and water.)

Kranz BOTCHED IT, tipped his hand prematurely, began speaking of LM as lifeboat, before anyone even knew there was a major mechanical problem to be dealt with, and as such, Kranz betrays himself as AN A NUMBER ONE APOLLO FRAUD PERP. He is telling us all that he has FOREKNOWLEDGE of what is about to transpire.

So what went wrong?

Lovell's announcing that he witnessed a gaseous substance venting was supposed to induce the Liebergot and MOCR team to BITE on an O2 leak as a "solution", a diagnosis. But they appropriately did not bite. As mentioned, the gaseous substance could have been N2, O2, Helium, H2, H20. And, even if a gas was leaking, whatever gas that may have been, it did not necessarily mean the ship was dying. Whatever banged could have caused an instrumentation problem, and caused primarily misreadings of the data, and indeed, that is what the EECOM initially thought. BUT !!!, Kranz had been so well drilled on this, that he was to deliver this speech just after the Lovell announcement of the gas venting, as they had assumed the flight officers were going to jump to the O2 leak conclusion, that he rolled right along and BEGAN SPEAKING OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT PREMATURELY, OUT OF CONTEXT. There was no reason to think of using the LM then. The CM may well have been OK for the most part. Or were the thing a real mission, they would have had every reason to suspect that the LM may have been damaged.

Kranz WAS NOT LOGICALLY ENTITLED TO SPEAK OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT HERE, WAY TOO EARLY IN THE SCENARIO. As such, we identify the once upon a bogus official story most famous of flight directors as he is now known, as one of the MOST INFAMOUS PERPS.


EDIT; fixed link

added quotes

Last Edited by RelentlesslyClever on 10/05/2012 05:02 AM
Joe Montana is God
Thor's Hamster

User ID: 1248699
United States
10/05/2012 04:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
Take a look and a careful LISTEN to this now"infamous film, HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM;

[link to www.youtube.com]

6 minutes and 45 seconds into the film, one hears what I like to refer to as the famous "GENE KRANZ RA RA RA APOLLO 13 SPEECH". In his pep talk to the Apollo flight officers, Kranz reminds the Mission Control crew that they need to focus, and not to worry too much, as they have the LM to rely on if things go bad. "We still have the LM" Gene says. Well what is wrong with that?


PLENTY!

This speech is delivered only 15 minutes from the time of the alleged O2 tank explosion. Only problem is, no reason to believe anything had blown up at that time, so early on.

At said juncture, EECOM Sy Liebergot and the MOCR crew are still struggling with the question as to whether or not the difficulties are even primarily hardware based to begin with. The astronauts have heard a bang on board, Lovell, at 14 minutes from the time of the drama's inception, one minute prior to Kranz's RA RA RA SPEECH, has noted something gaseous venting, but to be sure, no one knows what is going on. Is that something hydrogen? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Water? Helium? All gases in the service module. The oxygen pressure read low, but per EECOM Sy Liebergot himself, the low readings may have been related to instrumentation problems, not a genuine O2 leak, or any major hardware glitch for that matter.

A meteor hit was one concern in terms of a hardware problem, and that meteor may have HIT THE LM. How does anyone know 15 minutes in, assuming the problem was hardware based, as to whether or not the LM itself is OK? It may have been holed by a meteor, or may have sustained some other damage.

It is not until significantly later that the team working on all this does indeed determine that this is a hardware problem, and that the ship is bleeding O2, and with it, its fuel in the form of fuel cell power.

Kranz BOTCHED IT, tipped his hand prematurely, began speaking of LM as lifeboat, before anyone even knew there was a major mechanical problem to be dealt with, and as such, Kranz betrays himself as AN A NUMBER ONE APOLLO FRAUD PERP. He is telling us all that he has FOREKNOWLEDGE of what is about to transpire.

So what went wrong?

Lovell's announcing that he witnessed a gaseous substance venting was supposed to induce the Liebergot and MOCR team to BITE on an O2 leak as a "solution", a diagnosis. But they appropriately did not bite. As mentioned, the gaseous substance could have been N2, O2, Helium, H2, H20. And, even if a gas was leaking, whatever gas that may have been, it did not necessarily mean the ship was dying. Whatever banged could have caused an instrumentation problem, and caused primarily misreadings of the data, and indeed, that is what the EECOM initially thought. BUT !!!, Kranz had been so well drilled on this, that he was to deliver this speech just after the Lovell announcement of the gas venting, as they had assumed the flight officers were going to jump to the O2 leak conclusion, that he rolled right along and BEGAN SPEAKING OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT PREMATURELY, OUT OF CONTEXT. There was no reason to think of using the LM then. The CM may well have been OK for the most part. Or were the thing a real mission, they would have had every reason to suspect that the LM may have been damaged.

Kranz WAS NOT LOGICALLY ENTITLED TO SPEAK OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT HERE, WAY TOO EARLY IN THE SCENARIO. As such, we identify the once upon a bogus official story most famous of flight directors as he is now known, as one of the MOST INFAMOUS PERPS.


EDIT; fixed link
 Quoting: RelentlesslyClever


Awesome insight! Great post, and well-described as to why this is out of place.
Apollo astronauts couldn't have passed through Van Allen's Belt. Van Allen wore suspenders.
RelentlesslyClever (OP)

User ID: 16557862
United States
10/05/2012 05:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
Take a look and a careful LISTEN to this now"infamous film, HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM;

[link to www.youtube.com]

6 minutes and 45 seconds into the film, one hears what I like to refer to as the famous "GENE KRANZ RA RA RA APOLLO 13 SPEECH". In his pep talk to the Apollo flight officers, Kranz reminds the Mission Control crew that they need to focus, and not to worry too much, as they have the LM to rely on if things go bad. "We still have the LM" Gene says. Well what is wrong with that?


PLENTY!

This speech is delivered only 15 minutes from the time of the alleged O2 tank explosion. Only problem is, no reason to believe anything had blown up at that time, so early on.

At said juncture, EECOM Sy Liebergot and the MOCR crew are still struggling with the question as to whether or not the difficulties are even primarily hardware based to begin with. The astronauts have heard a bang on board, Lovell, at 14 minutes from the time of the drama's inception, one minute prior to Kranz's RA RA RA SPEECH, has noted something gaseous venting, but to be sure, no one knows what is going on. Is that something hydrogen? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Water? Helium? All gases in the service module. The oxygen pressure read low, but per EECOM Sy Liebergot himself, the low readings may have been related to instrumentation problems, not a genuine O2 leak, or any major hardware glitch for that matter.

A meteor hit was one concern in terms of a hardware problem, and that meteor may have HIT THE LM. How does anyone know 15 minutes in, assuming the problem was hardware based, as to whether or not the LM itself is OK? It may have been holed by a meteor, or may have sustained some other damage.

It is not until significantly later that the team working on all this does indeed determine that this is a hardware problem, and that the ship is bleeding O2, and with it, its fuel in the form of fuel cell power.

Kranz BOTCHED IT, tipped his hand prematurely, began speaking of LM as lifeboat, before anyone even knew there was a major mechanical problem to be dealt with, and as such, Kranz betrays himself as AN A NUMBER ONE APOLLO FRAUD PERP. He is telling us all that he has FOREKNOWLEDGE of what is about to transpire.

So what went wrong?

Lovell's announcing that he witnessed a gaseous substance venting was supposed to induce the Liebergot and MOCR team to BITE on an O2 leak as a "solution", a diagnosis. But they appropriately did not bite. As mentioned, the gaseous substance could have been N2, O2, Helium, H2, H20. And, even if a gas was leaking, whatever gas that may have been, it did not necessarily mean the ship was dying. Whatever banged could have caused an instrumentation problem, and caused primarily misreadings of the data, and indeed, that is what the EECOM initially thought. BUT !!!, Kranz had been so well drilled on this, that he was to deliver this speech just after the Lovell announcement of the gas venting, as they had assumed the flight officers were going to jump to the O2 leak conclusion, that he rolled right along and BEGAN SPEAKING OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT PREMATURELY, OUT OF CONTEXT. There was no reason to think of using the LM then. The CM may well have been OK for the most part. Or were the thing a real mission, they would have had every reason to suspect that the LM may have been damaged.

Kranz WAS NOT LOGICALLY ENTITLED TO SPEAK OF USING THE LM AS A LIFEBOAT HERE, WAY TOO EARLY IN THE SCENARIO. As such, we identify the once upon a bogus official story most famous of flight directors as he is now known, as one of the MOST INFAMOUS PERPS.


EDIT; fixed link
 Quoting: RelentlesslyClever


Awesome insight! Great post, and well-described as to why this is out of place.
 Quoting: Thor's Hamster


Thank you Thor, i so appreciate the feedback. I have more for you, and welcome your help. Please feel free to join me if/as you are so inclined.
Joe Montana is God
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/05/2012 01:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
This was stupid the first time.

The lifeboat scenario was already on the books (and even included in training), as one of many different measures to apply in case of disaster.

Gene (as well as the astronauts) had studied the spacecraft EXTENSIVELY. They knew the systems. Venting of anything, much less followed by a loud bang, AND any kind of bad readings on the panel...this is a damned good time to tell people to blow the dust of the binders for the worst-case abort scenarios.

You suggest, spuriously, it may have been "anything" venting. Please name anything that wouldn't show up on a gauge or telemetry. Cabin air, perhaps? Fuel or oxidizer? RCS propellant? And for an extra bonus, explain to me why the one you pick is no threat to the mission.
RelentlesslyClever (OP)

User ID: 24881446
United States
10/06/2012 11:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
This was stupid the first time.

The lifeboat scenario was already on the books (and even included in training), as one of many different measures to apply in case of disaster.

Gene (as well as the astronauts) had studied the spacecraft EXTENSIVELY. They knew the systems. Venting of anything, much less followed by a loud bang, AND any kind of bad readings on the panel...this is a damned good time to tell people to blow the dust of the binders for the worst-case abort scenarios.

You suggest, spuriously, it may have been "anything" venting. Please name anything that wouldn't show up on a gauge or telemetry. Cabin air, perhaps? Fuel or oxidizer? RCS propellant? And for an extra bonus, explain to me why the one you pick is no threat to the mission.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


The point is not that the lifeboat scenario is not reasonable, it is very reasonable. Only it should have been brought up at least a half an hour later, and after the LM was checked out and shown to be OK. How do they know 15 minutes in the LM has not been hit by a meteor?

In this case, Kranz is talking about using the LM as lifeboat before they even know any hardware is damaged. It is ridiculous, and it shows us all that Kranz, like a trained ape, was delivering a line that was TIMED TO BE DELIVERED AFTER LOVELL'S VENTING COMMENT.

You are missing my point altogether. My point has nothing to do with objecting to the appropriateness of Kranz's statement in an absolute sense. My objection is based on the timing of Kranz's statement.

It> my objection

Last Edited by RelentlesslyClever on 10/06/2012 11:21 PM
Joe Montana is God
RelentlesslyClever (OP)

User ID: 24881446
United States
10/07/2012 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
WOULDN'T YOU INSPECT THE LM BEFORE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT USING IT AS A LIFEBOAT?????

This outta' put things in perspective. Harry Hurt III quoting Swigert in his book, FOR ALL MANKIND, published by Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988, page 206, here's Swigert the Command Module pilot of Apollo 13;

"Our firtst thoughts were that we had been hit by a meteorite. But we didn't know whether the explosion had occurred in the lunar module or the command module."

This really emphasizes how hard it is in the telling of a lie this big. And as a corollary, how flat out easy it is for us to bust the astronauts' chops, not to mention the chops of the other PERPS like Bristle Head Gene Kranz. None of their malarkey makes a whit of sense.

Were any of this real, Kranz might have said something like, "We may need to use the LM as a lifeboat if things get bad. We better get going checking that out." Or something of that nature, not, "we have the LM, so we can use that, blah blah blah blah".

Really, the nerve of these yo-yos. I know we don't look that stupid. Guess that makes the PERPS, including Kranz, the idiots.

EDIT; added "pages"

added apostrophe

Last Edited by RelentlesslyClever on 10/07/2012 12:05 AM
Joe Montana is God
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/07/2012 03:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
Ah, of course. Because they'd never have checked the spacecraft BEFORE using it. Since NASA never actually does that, you know.

Oh, and let's completely throw away our back-up plan because we can't be absolutely sure there wasn't, by some million-to-one chance, a completely unrelated accident to the LM at the same time.

If you had been my jumpmaster, I bet you'd never have authorized reserve 'chutes. Because there'd not be enough time to check them out thoroughly when you were heading towards the ground under a streamer, so you wouldn't be able to use them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1211208
United States
10/07/2012 03:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
They had multiple contingency plans for every type of emergency..

Since Kranz was NASA Flight Director and manager

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

he was probably the last idiot to come up with anything concrete...How do you get to be the Flight Director and manager... being stupid?

iamwith
RelentlesslyClever (OP)

User ID: 24881446
United States
10/07/2012 12:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
Ah, of course. Because they'd never have checked the spacecraft BEFORE using it. Since NASA never actually does that, you know.

Oh, and let's completely throw away our back-up plan because we can't be absolutely sure there wasn't, by some million-to-one chance, a completely unrelated accident to the LM at the same time.

If you had been my jumpmaster, I bet you'd never have authorized reserve 'chutes. Because there'd not be enough time to check them out thoroughly when you were heading towards the ground under a streamer, so you wouldn't be able to use them.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


I don't understand your post.

Swigert is claiming one of the first things they thought happened was that the LM was holed by a meteor. So what is your point?
Joe Montana is God
RelentlesslyClever (OP)

User ID: 24881446
United States
10/07/2012 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
They had multiple contingency plans for every type of emergency..

Since Kranz was NASA Flight Director and manager

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

he was probably the last idiot to come up with anything concrete...How do you get to be the Flight Director and manager... being stupid?

iamwith
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1211208


You don't understand the thread. The point is, Kranz was not entitled logically to make a pitch for using the LM as lifeboat when he did. Nothing more. If you are not going to bother addressing my point, I won't respond to your comments as they themselves are pointless in this context.
Joe Montana is God
I Think You Know Who I Am
User ID: 25382731
United States
10/12/2012 06:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Gene Kranz's Foreknowledge of Apollo 13 Mission Scenario Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
You don't understand the thread. The point is, Kranz was not entitled logically to make a pitch for using the LM as lifeboat when he did. Nothing more. If you are not going to bother addressing my point, I won't respond to your comments as they themselves are pointless in this context.
 Quoting: RelentlesslyDense


No, he understands the thread better than you do. Let's look at the scenarios. The Service Module was hit by a meteorite? This could damage life support systems; they would need to use the LM as a lifeboat. The oxygen tank ruptured? They would need to use the LM as a lifeboat. The fuel or oxidizer tank ruptured? They would need to use the engines on the LM to return to Earth. Any scenario you can devise, the LM would need to be used as a lifeboat in some way. That is why Gene Kranz was a brilliant manager, and you are a failure.