Re: IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution <- WARNING! CT Troll Thread!

>>From rk:
> Stuf4 wrote:
<snip>
> > If you're going to start of with the premise that I am lying, then
I
> > don't see much point in trying to convince you otherwise.
>
> It is noted that you have a long and established history of making
> unverifiable claims, not backing them up, and then evading attempts
to verify
> them. I note that that long and established history continues. You
are
> history.

Consider the references offered to back up the main point I've
presented in this thread alone. Hard quotes from an official
investigation were presented and the vast majority of response to that
has been *noise*. THAT is what I see as typical of these sci.space
interactions.

> However, your "brush with greatness" and "insider information" type
of remarks
> have increased in frequency and magnitude. It is a trend.

For this topic, there is certain information that I wanted Sy Liebergot
to know about me.

I knew very well how it would be received by others here.

> > Kinda like
> > spending lots of energy with the folks who believe that NASA is
lying
> > about going to the Moon.
>
> Yes, discussing topics with you is similar to discussions with those
folks,
> although those folks will point to specifics that can be discussed
and do not
> twist words, abuse the English language, and make unverifiable and
insulting
> claims.

The point was that if a mind is closed, pursuing the goal of opening
that mind will typically result in lots of wasted effort.

> > Now I find it curious to see the level of effort put into this
thread
> > to provide support for the position that the A13 tank exploded.
>
> The level of effort to refute your claims about that was not high
since it did
> not take much effort.
>
> Most of your words are evasions and tangents so you should not expect
the bulk
> of the conversation to be on other topics, with respect to you.

Ironic that I see your comments here to be tangential because I have
yet to see a single statement that refutes the position that's been
presented.

> > I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell.
>
> Ooooh, name dropping so more.
>
> Then again, from past experience it is known that one must parse your

> Clintonian sentences.

I fail to see how the mention of meetings with Jim Lovell gets
discounted as name dropping. I hope it's not just me who happens to
see him as a significant figure in the Apollo 13 saga.

> So it would be accurate to interpret your sentence as follows:
>
> I've had excellent talks with Jim Lovell in my fantasies.
>
> This is not inconsistent with your sentence and can be a true
statement. It
> is also consistent with Occam's Plunger.

I've had talks with him one-on-one. I asked questions. He gave
answers.
(For whatever this may or may not be worth to you.)

> > Now I could spend my energy
> > in trying to prove that I did, by mailing photos of me with him or
> > showing my neat Moon globe that both he and his wife were nice
enough
> > to sign, highlighting the location of "Mt Marilyn".
>
> No, you could spend a trivial amount of energy in doing so, there is
no need
> to spend your energy, implying all of it to do so. Yet you refuse to
do so,
> it appears, and that would be less energy than talking about how much
energy
> it would take. By refusing to verify your claim but claiming you
have the
> secret verification, you make yourself consistent with your history
as
> ~Constantly ~Trolling or as Pat has notices, or Right-Shift (BS).

If you prefer to believe that I have never met nor seen the man, I'm
totally fine with that. It does nothing to invalidate the argument
presented about O2 tank failure modes. This is the topic that I am
most interested in right now.

An added bonus in analyzing the official report is that it is written
in plain English. No letter shift decoding required!

> > I have actually
> > met face to face with several members of this forum on repeated
> > occasions and I have even shared personal photos of some of the fun
> > stuff I've done. But it wasn't for the purpose of proving
anything.
>
> And this paragraph also proves nothing other than you are evasive and

> ~Constantly ~Trolling.

How curious that I am taken to be the one who is acting evasively.
>>From where I sit, I find myself making a strong effort to continually
bring the focus of these thread branches back to the original topic of
O2 tank failure.

> > If this forum was to learn that my job entails working side-by-side
> > with astronauts and that I am friends with many of them, having
> > relationships that go back to long before they became astronauts,
even
> > as far back to being school classmates, then what would that
change?
>
> Ooooh, another implied brush with greatness. You really feel the
need to
> brag. Do your [imagined] astronaut friends know you brag about
knowing them
> on the internet? What do your [imagined] astronaut friends say about
this?

I'm sure that all astronauts are well aware that they have friends who
talk about knowing them. The types of people who have a problem with
this are probably the ones who refuse to take the job in the first
place.

> The brackets around "imagine" may most likely be deleted; you imagine
things
> all of the time and write them down here.

I have lots of stories that I could be sharing here, but I obviously
temper that with the level of hostility that this forum is known for.

> This forum may or may not learn that information; it is irrelevant to
being
> true or not. See, we know how to read your ~Clintonian ~Trolls.

Again, if you want to reject everything I've posted, I totally support
your decision.

> > It has no effect whatsoever on the validity of the facts presented
> > about Apollo 13.
>
> The facts are well established.
>
> Your claims are not well established, not established at all, and you
refuse
> to provide data to verify your claims. You do provide ~Clintonian
~Trolls,
> however.

Should you choose to reject the statements of the Review Board as
provided, I totally support your decision there as well.

> > I find it a sad statement about how this forum operates that there
is
> > little focus on the space history issue that has been raised.
>
> The space history non-issue has been dispositioned. The sad part of
this
> forum is your ~Continuous ~Trolling.

I am voicing objection to this self-proclaimed disposition. There is a
minimum of one member of this forum who dissents from the popular
version of the Apollo 13 story. If you want to reject that dissent as
"trolling", I'm fine with that as well.

> > I am
> > imagining
>
> And there he goes again! Imagine away!! You're funny.
>
>
>
> > that there are more than a few members who have actually
> > decided to read the report of the Review Board to discover for
> > themselves the scarcity of the use of the word explosion.
>
> So what? You are making a lot of noise -- more than the explosion in
fact! --
> about a non-issue.

I have thus far withheld my main points about the Apollo 13 incident.

> > Instead of
> > voicing agreement, the strategy becomes a turn to ad hominem
attacks.
>
> Instead of providing verification for your claims, you turn to
~Clintonian
> ~Trolls and lamely "playing the victim."
>
>
> > I have seen this type of thing happen so many times here...
>
> So have we, as you are ... ~Constantly ~Trolling.

My goal here is to help improve our understanding of space history.
Obviously not the most popular goal. It is not uncommon for some to
feel threatened when the status quo is challenged.


~ CT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: microgravity - I stand corrected <- WARNING! ~CT Troll Thread! Killfile Accordingly!
    ... orbital physics that has permeated popular understanding, ... consider the current thread about Apollo 13. ... This forum claims to be about history. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: The Age to Marry In Medieval England
    ... Anyone on this forum can make a statement and it is fact until challenged, unless of course it flies in the face of reality. ... Renia: OK, King Harold was killed by getting an arrow in the eye at the Battle of Hastings. ... This is the nature of history. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Apologising for ones ancestors
    ... Kay this forum has people on it who insult and abuse, ... quick to start calling people by their nationality in a negative way. ... If you really want to study the history of women and their treatment ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: Apologising for ones ancestors
    ... Some insights into history which deserve more detail..... ... course there were always Arab and Indian merchants and entrepreneurs - ... more 'us' in history than us and them but many people on this forum are ... If you mean we all have family histories that include different nationalities and even races then it could not be more absurd to say that anyone here is 'resistant' to that fact. ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: covering up your PhD credentials?
    ... posting in the unnamed forum. ... what does your credit history look like, your drivers license history, any drug use history, and I've seen application forms where when you sign it you understand that they are going to look. ... upward mobility but then even denies us downward mobility, ... Asst professors that get denied tenure have a difficult time if they ask, at the next institution where they apply, why the guy got denied and maybe even make telephone calls to snoop....and get information that you'll never get the chance to cross-examine. ...
    (sci.research.careers)