|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 20:55:36 GMT -4
For ethnaton. the evaluation was inadequate, not appropriate. One would not be able to determine cause of illness without an appropriate evaluation.
What did they do as regards the diarrhea in the cabin. Any contingencies addressed for this happening again. My understanding is the Apollo spips were "sterilized" so that we would not bring our bugs to other worlds.
Does such a notion of sterilizing an Apollo CM and LM even make sense?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 20:44:59 GMT -4
The point as regards to why script an illness in a fake Apollo mission has to due with the perception of authenticity. It simply makes the whole thing more "realistic". Who would fake sick astronauts? And it sort of works until one examines what was actually done. It is space window dressing on Apollo theater.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 16:04:20 GMT -4
For Jupiter.
One does not know what Borman has. that is the point in asking the questions that were never asked.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:35:27 GMT -4
They see stars from the cockpit of the SR-71 blackbird in daylight and it is only 80,000 feet up. To emphasize here, in the daylight.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:29:49 GMT -4
Echnaton, not only Cernan, but in Deke Slayton and Alan Shepard' "Moon Shot", written with a coauthor, the claim is made that moonwalkers easily saw stars from the lunar surface.
The one time the Apollo 11 transcripts provide us with a description of an event when the astronauts saw stars and saw them well, was when they viewed the solar corona and photographed it en route to the moon. So they were supposed to say that they did see stars here, and at the Apollo 11 press conference, Collins said he did not. He contradicts himself and Armstrong.
How could he have gotten this wrong? Why the contradiction? Especially as regards this moment of supreme drama. The moment wasn't real. Lying, misdirecting in this fashion is not easy. Collins did a poor job of keeping the phony story straight. He forgot the previous lie told. Oh what a tangle web....................
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:12:37 GMT -4
Looking at the stars is not necessarily important on a real moon mission. However, on a real mission, stars would be seen in situations where they are denied in the context of the official story.
Looking at stars is not necessarily important at all for bona fide space travelers/moonwalkers, but for astronauts who are acting, they very much do not want to be caught in a trivial lie that snowballs as at first they may perhaps only be discussing something casually that suddenly turns toxic when a technical point about a star, a planet, or constellation is pressed.
As an example of how difficult it is to keep these star stories straight, consider Collins at the Apollo 11 post flight press conference. He denied seeing stars when the astronauts viewed and tried to photograph the solar corona as Apollo 11 approached the moon. Yet in the transcript report, in the astronauts' own words, one gets the impression that they are excited at this moment when they first come to see stars after 4 days. How could anyone forget the stars at that moment?
The first time essentially in the entire cislunar trip, the astronauts finally see stars/constellations, 4 days into the trip. they take out their camera. They are given instructions by experts back home as to how best to go about photographing the corona. It is a moment of supreme drama, and the drama is emphasized both in the transcript's live account and in Collins' recounting of the event in his "Carrying the Fire" memoir. How is it possible that Collins forgot the stunning appearance of stars in this moment? How could he say he did not recall seeing stars at this moment at the post Apollo 11 press conference, when at the same time we read of the astronauts' excitement , including Collins' great excitement, seeing the stars for the "first time"(per Armstrong) in all of their glory? How? Well if it was real, it would be impossible. This was the moment by the way when the moon was first observed, up close and dark. The moon up close, stars for the first time in a journey of 4 days and Collins forgets? He claims he could not recall seeing any stars.
It is possible because this is all script, all phony. Collins is not as bright as Armstrong. He forgot his lines there. Some even suggest that Armstrong elbows him at that moment in the press conference when Collins blurts out that error. The one time they wanted us to believe they did see stars and Collins denies them. Not easy to get star visibility "right" when it is all scripted and everyone is lying.
So even in these contrived situations where star visibility is limited by the script, the astronauts are inconsistent and get their own official story wrong. Obviously, no stars, no stars, no stars had been more or less pounded into Collins' head and in another moment of the supremely dramatic, though subtly so, Collins gets it wrong.
For those that have never seen the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, this statement of not seeing the stars during the moment of the corona's being photographed occurs roughly 47 minutes into the session.. The answer by Collins is sort of a personal comment made after Armstrong addresses Patrick Moore's(BBC journalist) question more broadly. See if you think Armstrong elbows Collins at that moment or not. Just YouTube search "Apollo 11 press conference".
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 14:33:37 GMT -4
It is a convenient way, an excuse that would be understood by the public in general, accounting for the astronauts not seeing what everyone knows they should have seen, stars. The goal, the intention of the lie, has to do with getting people to not even begin to think about questioning the astronauts with reference to the visibility of stars. One cannot answer a question about something one does not see. The best bogus story, the one most easily digested by an unsophisticated public, which surprisingly, includes professional astronomers who also buy into this ridiculous explanation, is to throw this nonsense out there. And sure enough, most people bought it.
It is watered down physiology, an expedient way to dispense with the not seeing stars matter. Had real physiology been acknowledged, then it would be clear to many that in some situations stars would, could and should have been seen. Who wants stars if the trip is fake and the astronauts could be easily caught in a lie as regards them.
Assume the thing is fake. How would Collins answer the question, "So Mike, did you see the Southern Cross? What did Venus look like? Did you try and photograph Venus? Will the Apollo 12 astronauts be able to take better pictures of Venus knowing now what you and NASA photographic experts learned on your trip?"
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 14:15:37 GMT -4
There is no discussion in the debriefing. One would have expected a great deal. Where was the discussion concerning diarrhea in the cabin? The debriefing situation is most definitely the appropriate place for it. Concerns about astronauts' health and safety aside, the contamination issue has nothing to do with patient privacy. In the case of Apollo 8, to argue a discussion of these concerns should not be in the report is to argue there were no concerns at all to begin with. and this is my point precisely. There were no concerns as the whole thing was staged.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 14:04:38 GMT -4
I have read the debriefing reports several times for every single Apollo mission. In not one of the debriefing reports have I read dark/light adaptation concerns discussed intelligently. On every occasion where astronauts have responded to this concern in non debriefing popular accounts or interviews, the pupillary constriction explanation is the one offered and so must be very much viewed as the explanation intended for us, the funders of this exploration, the patrons of Apollo, to buy into. I have queried NASA in their public forums, ask a scientist type sites and have never heard anything other than the pupillary constriction line. Even when I ask professional astronomers this question, they refer to pupillary constriction as an explanation for the lack of adequate astronaut dark adaptation.
Pupillary constriction is not an explanation I proffered, it is one the astronauts and NASA has proffered. We, the patrons of Apollo , cannot change their story for them. Their account has already been entered into the history books. They say pupillary constriction. So be it. That explanation cannot be correct. Our physiology is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:45:47 GMT -4
For teward. When an individual is sick this way, doctors generate what they refer to as a "differential", a list of possible explanations.
The main concern for this context, sick astronaut in a spaceship would be for a infectious etiology. The worry would be great, fantastic might be a better adjective. First off, for Borman, but for the other astronauts as well.
To get started, doctors always begin with questions. In this case there would be many of them because the doctors cannot get at the patient. They have some monitoring abilities, but these are quite minimal, and they have the observations of the other 2 astronauts, but first and foremost, they have the ability to interrogate, and believe me, were this real, interrogate they would, all 3 of the astronauts would be questioned thoroughly. There is too much at stake to suggest otherwise.
Bacterial and viral pathogens usually have infected a sick individual 16 hours or more prior to symptom development. So in Borman's case, with regard to that one particular concern, and there would be many many other concerns, questioning would be directed towards the meals he ingested prior to boarding the Apollo 8 craft. Typical garden variety "food poisoning", where there is a preformed toxin in the food responsible such as occurs with staph infecting food and seeding it with a preformed toxin, that would be a situation in which the food ingestion , the toxin ingestion, would occur closer in time to symptom onset.
Let's leave it there for now. We do this and a great deal more questioning wise for garden variety patients that walk into our ER with symptoms such as Borman's. 80 year old ladies get the interrogation thing, astronauts would get it all the more so. In a space ship situation, the docs, real docs, they would be on this thing big time and in a big way. Any mention of that in the Apollo 8 debriefing? No. Any talk of what they should do moving forward with regard to the possibility of it happening again? NO. Any discussion in the Apollo 8 debriefing report providing evidence for the diarrhea in the cabin issue having been appropriately addressed during or after the events 18 hours into the flight? No
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:25:05 GMT -4
Carrying the Fire is where Collins makes his most clear and directed statement as regards this point.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:23:23 GMT -4
The argument as regards a watered down explanation for public consumption is weak, but granted that, say that was the motivation, dark/light concerns were never discussed appropriately in the non public contexts, such as in the debriefing reports, and as all are well aware, the astronauts purported consistently had problems visualizing stars via the scanning scope because of the alleged effects of the bright cabin. That said, Aldrin himself mentions that they sighted stars in a dark cabin. That was his motivation for modifying the star charts and having them viewed through a special dark environment friendly box.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:16:53 GMT -4
Take a look at any basic physiology book, try Guyton. If you look dark/light adaptation up on Wikipedia, you'll see the author there refers to pupillary constriction/dilatation as a "minor" mechanism. The regeneration of photosensitive chemicals is referred to as the major adaptive mechanism. Wikipedia I believes leaves out neuronal adaptation.
I actually acquired a copy of the physiology manuel flight surgeons and test pilots used, studied from 1n 1968. There is a great amount of detail there. I thought the presentation was quite good, all the basics and much more.
Try this Data, google search dark/light adaptation. You'll get a 100 references, some better than others, all confirming my points as above.
For what it is worth, Guyton is considered the best basic textbook of physiology by physicians.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:05:33 GMT -4
Their is no reason to conclude Borman's symptoms were related to taking seconal. When is taking seconal typically associated with feverishness and diarrhea? The conclusion said to have been reached as presented in some popular accounts such as Chaikin's features the angle that Berry and his colleagues decided this was viral gastroenteritis.
If it was seconal, how was that decided? If it was viral gastroenteritis, how was that determination made? There is absolutely no evidence for a thoughtful evaluation. Not of Borman, not of Lovell and Anders. These are staged illnesses and and I dare say, woefully inadequate staged responses from the doctors.
The obvious concerns about diarrhea in the cabin were never mentioned, let alone addressed.
Borman got sick 18 hours into the flight. Take a look at the transcript from that point and moving forward. Any evidence for the astronauts having been appropriately been looked after? NO. Any discussion in the briefings? No.
Diarrhea possibly containing bacterial or viral pathogens floating in a zero G environment, a mist of contagion adhering to everything, floating away, adhering again, a situation in which air filtering could not provide a solution , could not guarantee astronaut safety, was this issue ever discussed, ever addressed? NO.
The point is that a differential diagnosis for the illness was never generated, the possibilities, all of the possibilities never considered. Appropriate precautions regarding the fallout from Borman's illness never taken. As such, we may conclude with certainty, the doctor patient encounter is staged. Apollo is an exploration of theater, or the power of television/media, not a genuine exploration of our Earth/moon system.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 12:38:10 GMT -4
Radiation flares are very much unpredictable. My views as regards the best evidence proving Apollo's fraudulence have to do more with character assessment in a sense, demonstrating that principals such as Charles Berry, the astronauts themselves and others, are acting.
That said, as a physician with some day to day exposure as regards radiation concerns, the data I have seen addressing this issue, including van Allen's original Scientific American paper from 1959(applies mostly to belt concerns) is sobering.
It may well be that early on in all of this, it was determined that the radiation concerns simply could not be countenanced. They may have decided to fake the whole thing simply based on this risk.
|
|