|
Post by tkw251070 on Aug 1, 2009 19:14:50 GMT -4
Hi
I find this sickening, but everyone's favourite cognitively challenged Australian has released a new video about the Apollo 1 fire. I've watched some of it, but find it the usual dross.
IMHO, he has stooped to new lows, actually going inside a crematorium and filming someone's ashes to make a point. I find it too disturbing to explain here the point being made.
He, and his cabal, mock the other Apollo astronauts, yet raise the Apollo 1 astronauts as martyrs. At the same time he has no respect for the dead, broadcasting someone's remains on YouTube.
TK
|
|
|
Post by seemoe on Aug 2, 2009 0:10:08 GMT -4
we apologize for jarrah
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 2, 2009 0:51:08 GMT -4
Sorry, but even Australia has it's demented, cognitively challenged, unprincipled, low lives. Jarrah is such a poor researcher he even fails to read the AS204 Accident Report, that specifically says that the crew died from asphyxiation and that the burns the crew suffered were survivable.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 2, 2009 0:53:34 GMT -4
My only problem is that I refuse to legitimise his activities by downloading his trash.
Can you do a summary?
|
|
|
Post by tkw251070 on Aug 2, 2009 4:22:26 GMT -4
Sure, once I have some time I'll do that. Maybe a few others can answer the points.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 2, 2009 5:35:38 GMT -4
Preface from this vid says the officials did it. That is the North American and NASA. Not looked at this one yet but his previous had more holes than a colander convention and the backslapper cheer leaders are always out in farce. I do not think they offer criticism, they just swallow. Youtube is a safe place for him.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 2, 2009 13:38:41 GMT -4
I've watched a bunch of it..cremation, A-1 audio...and a claim from a gent named Probst that the fire lasted several minutes.
He seems to go with a theory that the fire was reported around 4 minutes before it "flared up".
Talks of wires stripped of fireproofing, with no evidence. "Plastered the entire capsule interior with Velcro"...and leans heavily on Rene and his "switches started the fire" because they make a spark everytime they're thrown.
I have 2 pages of stuff here.
He really shows his cherry picking in the video, I really paused a lot in the video, catching the whole page of text before he zooms in and blacks out all the stuff he doesn't highlight...
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 2, 2009 14:36:01 GMT -4
I don't get it. Sure sparks from the switches could have spurred the fire, assuming that flammable gasses were already created by burning wiring. But it seems to me that the fire already had to be burning in the first place -- regardless of any switches which were thrown which might have further enhanced the fire.
The only thing which I have been able to figure out so far is that the Rene character was quite a quack and that Jarrah follows in his footsteps. Most of Jarrah's "observations" and "conclusions" border on asinine if not completely outlandish. I forget who said "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." These conspiracy nuts make sure that they see what they want to see. Once they "see" what they want to see, they stop any further investigation in order to learn the real truth about what they "think" that they are "seeing". Its pretty easy to shoot them all down in flames, yet they won't listen to reason or factual and scientifically based counterpoints to their "observations" and "conclusions".
|
|
|
Post by tkw251070 on Aug 2, 2009 16:26:04 GMT -4
Jarrah's Apollo video is an eleven parter, so to sit through Jarrah for 2 hours to summarise his 'film' will take some time. I've made a start. The most distressing part for me is that he appeals to emotion by playing the Apollo 1 communication as the fire starts. That aside , he pulls up some quote from a newspaper that basically says 'only their bones remained'. He uses this to challenge the autopsy results, namely the astronauts died from breathing in poison gases. He asks how could an autopsy draw this conclusion if all that was left was bone. He infers that this is part of a cover up. This is the bit where he goes in the crematorium to film remains. Showing what would of been left of the Astronauts I guess. All rather sick. The other issue raised was that a piece a metal was jammed behind a switch to create a spark on purpose. However, here I see a contradiction. He uses Rene's claims that switches create sparks by induction, so when a switch was flicked it created the fire in the ever-so dangerous oxygen environment. This seem to be Rene's theory. Yet there seems to be the theory of the jammed piece of metal too. So which theory is it? There are some other 'issues' raised by JW. I'll look at these properly when I have time, and the stomach. I've made a note what they are. At the moment I do not have time or the patients to sit through it. He draws on Rene a lot in this effort, and I find it hard to listen to Rene without wanting to throw my laptop at the wall. Rene and Jarrah combined, it will take time to go through it. TK
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 2, 2009 17:15:20 GMT -4
The other issue raised was that a piece a metal was jammed behind a switch to create a spark on purpose. However, here I see a contradiction. He uses Rene's claims that switches create sparks by induction, so when a switch was flicked it created the fire in the ever-so dangerous oxygen environment. This seem to be Rene's theory. Yet there seems to be the theory of the jammed piece of metal too. So which theory is it? In the movie Apollo 13, the spark that starts the Apollo 1 fire happens when one of the astronauts flips a switch. Maybe someone got the movie confused with reality again. Jay has mentioned that this happens in Dark Moon. You're braver than I am. I don't think I could sit through a video like this at all.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 2, 2009 17:17:57 GMT -4
The fundamental problem with the whole deliberate fire theory is that even if one were to accept that someone on the Apollo 1 crew had become a 'problem' why choose a method of eliminating them that exposed all manner of mistakes and failings at NASA, that in fact jeopardized the program? Why not stage a car accident or training flight crash? I guess if you are crazy enough to believe the hoax theory you are crazy enough to believe any notion however far fetched. The description of this video just seems to support that theory
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 2, 2009 17:31:38 GMT -4
You're exactly right about the "fundamental problem," Blackstar. Apparently we're supposed to believe that NASA was so desperate for public approval that they faked six Moon landings, yet they were willing to have the Apollo 1 crew die horribly in a fire that caused bad publicity and Congressional investigations. I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 2, 2009 20:16:36 GMT -4
The other fundamental problem is it relies on NASA deciding to kill the guy they put in charge of telling them what was wrong with the capsule in the first place. Yeah great Idea.
"Please tell us what is wrong with the current setup." "Sure, you have these problems..." (list of issues) "You keep complaining, I'll kill you!"
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 2, 2009 20:24:09 GMT -4
It's been said, probably accurately, that the Apollo 1 fire got us to the Moon. They were in a rush and indeed, the Apollo spacecraft had problems. NASA got careless...but not homicidal. Saying that the crew was deliberately killed is incredibly crass at best. He implies that old, unimplemented CIA staff proposals (Operations Dirty trick, Coverup) lend credence to a possible murder of John Glenn. Rene blames the frogment for the loss of Grissom/s Mercury capsule, as "they didn't get that bouy strapped on it fast enough".
Then he latches on to some notion that the Early Apollo hatch couldn't be opened from the inside (while early mentioning a 90 second opening time from the inside). Later mantions the wires stripped of insulation again...no supporting evidence.
There's that photo of the astronauts in a "prayer" pose around a model of the CM. What Jarrah fails to highlight in his text selections was that this was a joke aimed at NAA, given to them during one of the very many meetings that Grissom was intimately participating in.
I haven't watched the last couple of parts in the series, but I don't anticipate anything new.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 2, 2009 21:08:33 GMT -4
He implies that old, unimplemented CIA staff proposals (Operations Dirty trick, Coverup) lend credence to a possible murder of John Glenn. John Glenn? But he isn't dead.
|
|