SAMU: But it does tell you somthing about fruit.

Yes, it tells me that fruit occurs in great variety, and that trying to generalize the behavior of a pomegranate by examining a banana is a foolish plan.

The two derelicts we've discussed exhibited widely varying thermal properties. What does this tell you about the thermal properties of derelicts in general? Nothing useful.

If you study a certain set of derelicts in low earth orbit, and discover their thermal characteristics vary widely, where do you put the CSM/LM stack on that same chart? Near the top? Near the middle? Near the bottom? Off the top or bottom of the scale? What would be your justification?

Your plan is so fraught with methodological uncertainty that I can't imagine how you expect to extract any meaningful data from it.

SAMU: I contend that the people who ran the covert op. and released the story had no accurate knowledge of the true thermal properties of the spacecraft.

Who do you claim ran such a covert operation? Why didn't they do their homework? The thermal properties of the spacecraft had been studied and were available in written form.

SAMU: NASA just kept their mouths shut.

Why would they? Why would they let some other branch of the government run a covert operation whose end result is to make them look like incompetent buffoons, and place upon them the blame for nearly killing three highly-regarded pilots? And why would they accept such a scenario when it is the most commonly cited reason for why the Apollo program was cut short, reducing their budget?

Your scenario simply makes no sense from a human perspective. It requires people to act irrationally within the context of the hypothesis.

It also makes not sense from a technical perspective. Above you argue that both NASA and their contractors would reasonably have understood the thermal properties of the spacecraft. You say NASA kept its mouth shut. What about Grumman? What about North American?

Thousands of Grumman employees flocked to their workplaces unbidden when they heard the flight was in trouble. The "Grummies" in the MCC backroom were looking at the telemetry and hearing the reports from the astronauts. Do you expect me to believe that these people who had spent the better part of a decade designing and building this spacecraft, who had produced 4,000 design documents per week for several years, who were some of the most talented engineers in the business -- not one of these people said, "Hey, why is the spacecraft getting cold? It's supposed to get hot under these circumstances?"

Why didn't the Russian engineers, who had seen the basic designs for the Apollo spacecraft and who had considerable experience with their own spacecraft in cislunar space, say, "Why is the American spacecraft getting cold? It looks to me like it should get hot?"

Could the answer possibly be that all this combined worldwide expertise is right when it predicts that the spacecraft would cool down? And could it be that SAMU's argument for an incredible thermal situation is based on the appearance that SAMU is learning thermodynamics as he participates in the discussion?

SAMU: Some times the people who keep covert secrets believe in what they are doing.

Who do you claim was keeping this secret and what reasons can you give for why they would want to keep this particular secret?

SAMU:Proves nothing, supports my man supports.

I don't understand this sentence.

SAMU: Proof is only to be had by going back in time or conducting an exact reproduction of the mission conditions

Since that's impractical, why don't you do the next best thing and provide a detailed, well-supported set of computations that show, in a manner that a thermodynamics expert would accept as plausible, there is anything remotely meritorious in your argument?

SAMU: or by a confession from the covert operatives if any.

Not sufficient. Anyone can claim, in Bob Lazar style, that he was a member of a covert team who accomplished this. I would require, in addition to the confession from a conspirator, proof that the events to which he confessed actually took place and that he participated in them.

You provided your hypothesis as "food for thought". My thoughts are these:

1. Your analysis of the thermal situation is simplistic and lacks a grounding in the principles of thermodynamics.

2. Your cover-up hypothesis is implausible.

3. Your methodology is ad hoc and amateur.


SAMU
[/quote]