|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:46:37 GMT -4
The prostatitis thing is no big deal. I thought others might be interested. Stick with UTI, it is fine.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:52:24 GMT -4
Not back pedaling, for example a simple UTI would not explain a fever of 103-104. So that cannot be the entire explanation, the entire diagnosis. A UTI in a man of that age would not cause a fever that high unless it were complicated, kidneys infected, associated blood infection, profound dehydration and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 6:08:38 GMT -4
The prostatitis thing is no big deal. I thought others might be interested. Stick with UTI, it is fine. So you withdraw the prostatitis claim? Thanks. Next time maybe you shouldn't raise it unless you are willing to substantiate it.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:43:48 GMT -4
Yes I withdraw it, though I never claimed it. I mentioned it as having been reported here and there as an explanation for Haise's difficulties. Is that not allowed? The other forum members are doing lots of this, bringing up seconal ingestion reports in Borman's case and so on. I do not object to their doing so. I am aware of such reports myself. It seems the exchange here is full of this sort of thing. I have trouble therefore understanding what is viewed as reasonable. No big, I will try my best to sort through how best to present my views and respect any guidelines the forum has.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 9:34:16 GMT -4
I mentioned it as having been reported here and there as an explanation for Haise's difficulties. And yet you say you didn't make a claim? The bold text is a claim. You stated that something had been reported. That statement is a claim that the report was made. If you can't understand something as simple as that please leave this board, resign your alleged position as a doctor and go back to high school, where you can join a debate team and start again.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 9:53:42 GMT -4
For Randombloke, my point was others here are making similar claims as regards reading this or that about the issues being discussed. for example, I previously mentioned that seconal was brought up as the explanation for Borman's symptoms by a member, another member suggested Ruby red laser light emitted from the earth should be seen by individuals from the moon, or was at least visible in some sense. What wouild be the point in my asking for a reference every time such a claim was made from the other side? It would seem to me to defeat the logistics of the debate. Certainly I can appreciate being challenged about supporting statements made critical to major points, but the point about the prostatitis was casual and not vital to my arguement, as were the points others made as regards seconal, laser visibility from the moon and so forth. It seems supporting each and every claim with a reference would slow the debate to crawl. Both sides need some freedom to discuss an issue casually. At least that is my sense, and from a practical standpoint, I see that happening here, on my side and the on the side of those supporting the official story.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:22:03 GMT -4
I did not question the logistics of citing every quote, I questioned your patently false statement to the effect that you did not make a claim, when you clearly did.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 10:25:13 GMT -4
My point is that by this logic, your colleagues are likewise making many unreferenced claims. It makes no difference to me with regards to how best we should proceed. My point is only that your side will be handcuffed as well, as much or more than me, if you apply your stringent demands to those supporting the official story, those posting in opposition to me.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:42:53 GMT -4
Your repeated attempt to justify your previous lack of citation with "but everyone else was doing it too" is noted.
If you want people to cite their claims, stop prevaricating about your own, and maybe ask them to do so; you might be surprised by the responses.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 11:01:49 GMT -4
My point is that by this logic, your colleagues are likewise making many unreferenced claims. Most of the important points we are making are widely recognized as fact by people knowledgeable on the topic. What you are claiming is that the widely recognized knowledge of the moon missions is incorrect and that the mission were a hoax. The burden of proof is on you. You need to cite your sources not complain about the refutations. Your failure to cite sources and address the situation with anything other than opinions is called handwaving. So if you want a debate, then you must first be willing to debate. So present your sources and stop trying to turn the burden of proof around with your complaining.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 11:54:07 GMT -4
I believe the sources were sited for the claims made as regards Borman's and Haise's illnesses. The Apollo 8 and 13 transcript and debriefing reports do not support there having been an adequate medical evaluation in the cases of Borman and Haise.
In the case of Borman, the NASA documents do not support there having been an appropriate assessment of the obvious concerns with regard to contamination with potential pathogens, both on surfaces and as regards the "air" in the cabin. There is no evidence for the air filtering system having been appropriately assessed for its effectiveness in clearing the air of potential pathogens.
There is no record of any actions having taken place within the cabin of Apollo 8 to address the issue of potentially contaminated surfaces. There is no record of any actions having taken place within the cabin of Apollo 8 to address the issue of potentially contaminated air/atmosphere as well.
There is no evidence to suggest the food supply within the cabin of Apollo 8 was appropriately assessed as a source for Borman's difficulties. There is no record in the reports mentioned suggesting there was an evaluatioin for the possibility of the food ingested prior to departure as being the source of Borman's problems.
There is no evidence in the Apollo mission debriefings, missions 8 through 17 reflecting anything was learned in the case of Borman's bout of diarrhea as regards to cabin sanitation per se and the possibility in the case of these events under review for an increased risk of forward contamination for those missions that culminated in actual landings.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 12:25:40 GMT -4
precisely what reports have you read that lead you to this conclusion. FD? Have you access to ALL the documentation? Have you corresponded with the flight surgeons? Have you spoken to ANY NASA flight surgeons? You argue from incredulity, which is not reasonable for a person of your alleged expertise.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 7, 2011 12:29:00 GMT -4
Having read this thread, as well as the threads posted by the various sock-puppets over on BAUT, I once again notice that fattydash has the makings of an argument with flight medical procedures, preparations, and performance; but asserting that the missions must have been faked is an unsupported and unsupportable jump based on a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: - I think the flight workup and procedures were (badly) deficient (supported by claimed medical experience). - No real doctor would have done it this way, therefore - The flight surgeon was not a "real" flight surgeon, thererore - There was no flight.
But his personal authority, even granting his claimed experience as a doctor, is insufficient to turn a superficially plausible claim of inadequate medical practice into proof that the missions never occurred.
There are numerous other problems with his arguments, many of which have been bandied about by the posters here, but the claim ("faked missions") is fundamentally flawed to begin with, because there's nothing which must have caused the missions in question to fail (let alone the other missions), as is found with the "searing radiation hell" claims.
BTW, I know actual doctors who really were associated with NASA missions, and they didn't believe Apollo was faked.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 12:46:01 GMT -4
sts60. thank you for the feedback.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 13:09:35 GMT -4
I believe the sources were sited for the claims made as regards Borman's and Haise's illnesses. The Apollo 8 and 13 transcript and debriefing reports do not support there having been an adequate medical evaluation in the cases of Borman and Haise.
The problem her is not just the lack of reference to the documents you searched, but more importantly the lack of reference to to the conclusion drawn form them. You are trying to pin the conclusion on the unlisted source documents when it is in fact your own thoughts. So please site a reference that actually supports the conclusion, give us the details supporting your opinion as coming from an expert in the field, or retract your claim.
There is no record of any actions having taken place within the cabin of Apollo 8 to address the issue of potentially contaminated surfaces. There is no record of any actions having taken place within the cabin of Apollo 8 to address the issue of potentially contaminated air/atmosphere as well.
There is no evidence....
There is no evidence ....
I was easily able to Google a statement from Anders about the incident. He said they used moist wipes to clean the capsule. What records and evidence do you claim should be there and why does the absence disturb you.
|
|