PDA

View Full Version : One mans view of the Columbia accident



infocusinc
2003-Feb-10, 06:20 AM
I am posting this for information only. I do not subscribe to this theory.

BTW, for those of you who also follow the Lunar Hoax, the author of this piece is James Fetzer, PhD. who also happens to be a very big supporter of Jack White and has published some of his "work"

http://www.assassinationscience.com/columbia.pdf

DaveC
2003-Feb-10, 02:01 PM
All I derive from this is that Fetzer is a raving conspiracist. It takes little intelligence and even less analysis to come up with a hairbrained theory, but it all hinges on a belief that the "gummint" is capable of creating and perpetuating any deception one can imagine. Believing the Bush administration to be "the most corrupt in hisrory", and proving that it actually committed murder of the Columbia astronauts are not even remotely similar. Sometimes free speech is a pain in the butt!

Sleepy
2003-Feb-10, 02:20 PM
when Columbia passed
over Texas, it was traveling at 12,000 miles per hour, which is considerably
faster than the 1,000 mph speed normal for reentry. All of this indicates that
Columbia was out of control almost immediately upon its reentry, which ought
to have been obvious to those who had the craft under computerized control.
With errors like this does it matter that his logic seems to go:
The Shuttle crashed.
NASA hasn't found a cause.
Therefore the unreleased image of a possible electrical effect is a "smoking gun".
Therefore it was a US death ray.

Another conspiracist living in his own make believe world.

Irishman
2003-Feb-10, 02:43 PM
The guys facts are wrong. He states:


The same day this article appeared, I received an email from Phil RatteŽ, who reported having watched an interview with a former astronaut. He said that the shuttles he flew on (the last one in 1996) made a series of turns in an "S" shape during reentry to slow the shuttle down. He also said that Columbia did not execute those turns, which are completely computer-generated, but instead came straight in. Phil also advised me that, when Columbia passed over Texas, it was traveling at 12,000 miles per hour, which is considerably faster than the 1,000 mph speed normal for reentry. All of this indicates that Columbia was out of control almost immediately upon its reentry, which ought to have been obvious to those who had the craft under computerized control.

Wrong. Columbia was executing the S turns - it was in the first S turn when it lost signal and broke up. And 1,000 mph for reentry? It's orbiting at 17,500 mph. How does it get from 17,500 to 1,000 mph before reentry? It would take a second external tank of fuel and the main engines to do that kind of slow down.

Reentry is how it slows down. The friction with the air is the braking. That's why it gets so darned hot, and that's why they execute the S turns.

If that's the quality of his facts, you can judge for yourself the quality of his conclusions.

Gemstone
2003-Feb-10, 03:31 PM
Wow... How does someone who can't even get the most basic of facts correct, earn himself a PhD?!?!

Kaptain K
2003-Feb-10, 03:40 PM
On 2003-02-10 10:31, Gemstone wrote:
Wow... How does someone who can't even get the most basic of facts correct, earn himself a PhD?!?!

Q: What do you call someone who finished last in class at grad school?
A: Doctor!


_________________
"There's a whole lotta things I've never done, but I ain't never had too much fun."
Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2003-02-10 10:41 ]</font>

Mainframes
2003-Feb-10, 04:12 PM
What did he earn his PhD doing though? Something irrelevant to this such as English Literature?

kilopi
2003-Feb-10, 04:34 PM
On 2003-02-10 10:40, Kaptain K wrote:
Q: What do you call someone who finished last in class at grad school?

Flunked out?

Kaptain K
2003-Feb-10, 04:44 PM
OK, change that to:

Q: What do you call someone who graduated last in class at grad school?
A: Doctor!

aporetic_r
2003-Feb-10, 04:55 PM
On 2003-02-10 11:12, Mainframes wrote:
What did he earn his PhD doing though? Something irrelevant to this such as English Literature?


He does Philosophy of Mind and Epistemology at the University of Minnesota - Duluth. By all accounts he is competent in both those fields, therefore his colleagues simply ignore his Twinkie hobby. According to one colleague, he does use examples from the JFK investigation (on which he has a book) in his logic class, though.

Aporetic

sts60
2003-Feb-10, 05:25 PM
Phil also advised me that, when Columbia passed over Texas, it was traveling at 12,000 miles per hour, which is considerably faster than the 1,000 mph speed normal for reentry.

I vividly remember waiting for the first night landing at KSC. The Shuttle Landing Facility was cloaked in darkness except for the brilliant lighting down the runway. The PA carried the mission commentary, such as "Shuttle now over North Texas, twenty minutes from touchdown..." That makes you think.

Frankly, I don't care how many games he can play with epistemology. If he can't be bothered to take any notice of reality before making such idiotic claims, he should be stripped of his degree.

aporetic_r
2003-Feb-10, 07:01 PM
Frankly, I don't care how many games he can play with epistemology. If he can't be bothered to take any notice of reality before making such idiotic claims, he should be stripped of his degree.


A cautionary note: There is a common idea that "what the other guy does is philosophy, what I do just IS." This, of course, is not accurate. Most people nowadays are simple objectivists (to use one possible term for the standard position), but that theory in itself is by no means the default value for human thought universally. Fetzer is a weird case - a decent teacher of various theories of knowledge, but a HB. This gets into a non-astronomy-related thing, so I won't pursue it further, but if you'd like to chat about it please feel free to e-mail me.

Aporetic