ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 10:46:02 AM

Title: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 10:46:02 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us."  Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 11:28:27 AM
But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

There is nothing 'faith-based' about understanding how Apollo was accomplished. I strongly suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion that anyone here believes Apollo is a matter of faith.

Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11

The usual 'I used to believe' stuff I see.

Quote
Photos? Video? Could be fake.

'Could be' is irrelevant. Prove that they were or assumption of authenticity stands as the default conclusion (and yes, that really is the default conclusion in any such investigation)

Quote
Narrative? Could be lies.

See above. You can't just brush off huge swathes of material and anecdotal evidence because it 'could be' fake or lies.

Quote
Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?

Any evidence for any of those propositions?

Quote
What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.

False.

Quote
What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.

Not only false but repeatedly shown to be so.

Quote
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

Quite a few people know, and quite a few people would have to know, however it got there. Because you don't know doesn't make that a valid argument.

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators....

Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

How much effort did you put into your search?
 
Quote
Absurdly, there were no photographs.

Funny, I've seen sone.

Quote
Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.

False. There is film of spacesuit tests, and since the ice sublimator was a major part of the spacesuit then it was by definition being tested in those tests too. Your complaint is analagous to complaining there is no video of a test of an air conditioning system used on a commercial jet airliner. If it flies and people can live in it at altitude then the air systems work even if no specific pointer is made to the fact.

But just out of interest, exactly what do you expect to see in a video of an ice sublimator cooling system being tested?

Quote
Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

Maybe because they recognise the absurdity of asking for accountability from an organisation as publicly open as NASA already is.

Quote
But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax.

No, the Apollo program is not a house of cards ready to tumble at one single anomaly.

Quote
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Film and video of spacesuit tests in vacuum chambers is readily available, and since the cooling system must be functioning in order to prevent the astronaut from overheating inside a sealed rubber suit, your conditions have been met.

Quote
Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.

Already seen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 26, 2015, 11:34:10 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.
And you would be flat out wrong. On all counts.

After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"
CTists almost always find that once they swallow one load of hogwash, the next load of hogwash is easier to swallow no matter it's size.


Photos? Video? Could be fake.
Thousands of photos and countless hours of video all faked in the largest vacuum chamber ever created which conveniently disappeared without trace. Sorry. Your claim, your burden of proof. How could they be faked?

Narrative? Could be lies.
Not much point in that since they actually went.

Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon?
They were independantly tracked all the way there and all the way back.

Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop?
So now the US is in cahoots with the Russians, all of Europe, the Indians, the chinese in fact pretty much everyone to haox the ISS. Are you the only one who is not "in on it"?

Did they really repair a Hubble telescope?
It was broken. Now it is fixed. Seems pretty clear that they did fix it, no?

What about the flag waving?
What about it? It "waves" when the astronauts interact with it and at no other time.

I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth.
Wrong.

What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.
Wrong. There is nothing unusual about the shadows. All of their effects can be demonstrated on Earth in sunlight.

What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.
Of course it's there. Anyone can point a laser at it and measure the response and they do. It is used to measure the precise rate of recession of the Moon. They were placed there by the Apollo astronauts.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
All of those sources are publicly available on the internet. Your inability to find them is your problem and nobody elses.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.
That would be part of the test schedule for EVERY space suit, so it has been done countless times already. Why would one more repetition be somehow "special"? Why should a "special" test be set up just for you? Are you going to foot the bill?

Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us."  Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yNoOYjR0_g Orlan suit vacuum test. I'm sure your sooper resurch skillz can find more.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 11:37:52 AM
I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.

So your claim is that no one can possibly know whether a national space program is authentic?

Quote
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

It took me about 8 seconds to find a photo of an Apollo space suit sublimator via a Google search.

Quote
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information.

Gee, I can find all sorts of information.  Of course I'm an aerospace engineer with about 25 years' experience in the field, so maybe I have a leg up.  But most people here are not professionally qualified, yet they will astonish you with their ability to research and understand the relevant topics correctly.  Since every spacefaring country uses the porous plate sublimator, and it's one of the most common and well-understood bits of space engineering, and it's been in every space suit design since the 1960s, I have to conclude you have poor research skills.

Of course your blanket insistence that world spacefaring is entirely a fiction neatly seems to exempt you from having to deal with almost all the evidence, leaving you only with your trumped-up argument from silence.

Quote
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.

So you're a one-issue conspiracy theorist.  Gotcha.

Quote
NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Or how about in every space walk ever, since Apollo?

Quote
Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.

I would rather demand accountability from you instead, since you're the one ignorantly calling an entire profession liars for quite a number of years.  You claim to have performed a diligent search, and you list a few steps of that search.  Do you really want to claim that was exhaustive enough to assert before the world that the nickel porous plate sublimator is a fiction?  Think carefully before you answer, and remember that your posting history elsewhere is easily searchable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 26, 2015, 11:38:09 AM
Take your proudest accomplishment, Neil.  Whatever you did that you're happiest about.  Now, imagine that someone went around saying it could be faked just because they weren't there and don't understand what you did.  What would your reaction be?  Especially when every response to what you told them as evidence was, "Oh, that could have been faked" without ever suggesting a plausible answer about how it was faked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 11:42:05 AM
I see you've been banging this same drum since at least 2011, and you've already been provided with the evidence of suit testing many times over.  You simply refuse to accept it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 11:46:23 AM
Same old argument from ignorance.

Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 11:59:06 AM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 12:03:24 PM
Quote
What does a spacesuit sublimator look like?

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss04.jpg)
Quote
A close up view of the heat-exchanger/sublimator (silver cutaway structure), radio module (gold), and the lithium hydroxide (background, in green/white). The Remote Control Unit (RCU), in the foreground, is mounted on the crewmember's chest.

The sublimator and heat exchanger are part of the "return circuit" of the PLSS. Oxygen, warmed by the heat generated by the astronaut's body, is cooled in the heat exchanger before being passed through the lithium hydroxide canister to eliminate exhaled carbon dioxide. Water circulated through the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG) also flows through the heat exchanger where it gives up heat to a separate supply of cooling feedwater. The feedwater flows into the sublimator, where it is added to a layer of ice and, ultimately evaporates and carries away excess heat. In the foreground, the controls of the chest-mounted RCU are visible. The gold rotary switch selects the radio transmission mode. To the our right of the switch is the oxygen pressure gauge. Five windows on the right display caution and warning flags that alert the astronaut to problems with the PLSS. The guarded switch controls operation of the PLSS fan which moves oxygen out of the PLSS and into the suit.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss100.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 12:03:42 PM
Do you realize, Neil Baker, that every current generation EVA spacesuit, from the NASA EMU to the Russian Orlan, to the Chinese Fetian, uses ice sublimation as it way of removing waste heat? Moreover, the Apollo A7L wasn't just used for Apollo, oh no, it was also used in modified form for Skylab EVA.
 Are you claiming Skylab is fake now? Given that it fell out of the sky and derbited messily over Australia and more, that strikes me as somewhat untenable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 26, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Oh my.  Anyone can see the International Space Station with the naked eye.  It required a lot of the spacewalks you don't believe in to construct.  Amateur astronomers these days can get detailed pictures of the station and have recorded the way it has been added to over the years.  They have even observed astronauts working outside the station, so the demonstration you demand has already taken place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 12:16:03 PM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1


Strange, isn't it?  A bloke pops up and claims that his searches for information have been "stonewalled". That there were "no photographs". All this despite, allegedly, many attempts to find such information. Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

I guess it must be our special NASA shill internet access and enhanced Google-fu

Mr Baker, let me help you.  CLICK HERE (http://bfy.tw/1UHw)
  ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 12:24:21 PM
Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

As well as examples from years ago where Baker has paraded this same argument from silence in other venues and been met by others with similar, nearly instantaneous pointers to easily available information.  It's hard to maintain for years the claim that no relevant information is available when other people seem to find it so easily.

Hence rather than look at the massive and nearly undeniable consilience of evidence for Apollo's authenticity culled from dozens of avenues of evidence, Baker drills down to literally one single component in the entire $23 billion decade-long engineering project and declares that unless certain specific forms of documentation are provided for certain specific modes of testing it, he is justified in declaring the whole project a fraud.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 12:30:46 PM
It's hard to maintain for years the claim that no relevant information is available when other people seem to find it so easily.

It's only possible if you adopt this pose:

(http://www.scorebuddy.co.uk/images/stories/employee-performance-review-not-listening.jpg)




Hence rather than look at the massive and nearly undeniable consilience of evidence for Apollo's authenticity culled from dozens of avenues of evidence, Baker drills down to literally one single component in the entire $23 billion decade-long engineering project and declares that unless certain specific forms of documentation are provided for certain specific modes of testing it, he is justified in declaring the whole project a fraud.

Standard hoax believer argument. "I'll ignore that huge mountain of evidence over there, to focus on this tiny area that I can't/won't understand here"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 12:37:03 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe. But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.

I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims. The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion. To disparage. I've heard it all.

We enjoy great fortune to live in the Age of the Scientific Method. An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice. The challenge of a scientific response is being given. If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions. The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses. We don't have to believe; we can KNOW. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we deserve to KNOW.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.

No. False.

The internet contains many resources that were publicly available long before the internet. You could also have gone to a library and found the documentation you needed. Your inability to find resources does not mean they do not exist, nor does their 'sudden' appearance mean that you made it happen.

Why do you find it difficult to accept that sublimation can cool a spacesuit?

Why have you zoomed in on that particular topic and ignore all the other evidence that provides an entirely consistent set of data supporting Apollo?


Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 01:00:00 PM


How many experts will it take to convince you you're wrong?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 01:01:54 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."


Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?


I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed.

That must be nice for you.

The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.
Wow. Just wow. Do you really believe that???
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 01:16:01 PM
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

I don't believe you.  And as I said, I demand accountability first from you.  Please submit verifiable proof that you are the person responsible for motivating the online publication of what we now can see as evidence of nickel porous plate sublimators, to the extent you so claim.

Quote
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"

As long as you're simply willing to declare that information doesn't exist, which does, then nothing will prove that to you.  You've left a trail of ignoring practically every proof put to you, so I don't agree that the question "remains."

Further, you asserted (however tentatively) that space programs are a hoax.  Therefore the pertinent question is, "Can you prove it is a hoax?"  And you've already admitted for all intents and purposes that you cannot, by telling us you "don't know."  Your entire argument for that conclusion is your personal disbelief in one isolated component of a massive civil engineering program.

Quote
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."

No, that's just what you say would prove it to you.  And that formulation derives largely from your obsession over a chunk of nickel, when the rest of the world has already settled the question for themselves using a better approach.

Quote
But they refuse...

Submit verifiable proof of this claimed refusal.

Quote
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject.

No, do not convert the failure of your technical argument into allegations of inappropriate emotional involvement on the part of your critics.

Quote
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.

The years I've spent acquiring the knowledge it takes to see through your disingenuity is not the easy route.  Nor is the willingness of others here to do your homework for you the easy route.  The easy route is what you're doing:  sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending the resulting silence should be suspicious.

Quote
I've heard it all.

Yes you have.  You have deployed this argument many times in many venues, and have been challenged upon it the same way every time.  Your demonstrated intransigence elsewhere suggests this debate will be equally fruitless.

Quote
An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice.

An anomaly is an observed outcome that differs from the expected outcome.  The validity of an anomaly depends in part therefore upon the validity of the expectations.  You have stated your expectations against which anomaly is alleged and they have been duly questioned.  Your inability or unwillingness to establish those expectations ends the argument.

The allegation of anomaly as formulated presents us with at least two possible explanations.  First, as you insinuate, nickel porous plate sublimators are fictitious, and the alleged lack of pertinent documentary evidence evinces the fiction.  Or second, you the proponent don't understand them, have misrepresented your research, and have unreasonable expectations for documentation.  You ask the reader to determine which of these is most likely the explanation for the "anomaly" you allege.

Quote
If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.

I'll continue practicing space engineering successfully as my profession, thank you.

You are the one insisting on a faith-based approach.  We are to take it as uncontestable that you have actually undertaken the exhaustive investigation you claim, despite evidence that others have undertaken similar research with different results.  Despite your sidestepping, the "lame links" to which you refer undermine your claim that no suitable information exists.  My opinions, such as they apply, are based on a career in the relevant industry.  On the other hand, your demands for certain types and modes of proof, to the exclusion of all else, is simply your empty opinion that this is objectively necessary in order to form a rational conclusion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:26:32 PM
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

Here are a couple more documents:

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1


Strange, isn't it?  A bloke pops up and claims that his searches for information have been "stonewalled". That there were "no photographs". All this despite, allegedly, many attempts to find such information. Yet, within minutes you, I and others can find such information.

I guess it must be our special NASA shill internet access and enhanced Google-fu

Mr Baker, let me help you.  CLICK HERE (http://bfy.tw/1UHw)
  ::)

Great programming and more than that to point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 26, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
Let's face it, this is just a rehash of a tired old conspiracy theorist technique that I've seen over and over of latching on to a tiny detail that they think no-one can provide support for.

Mr Baker has latched on to sublimation cooling not because he believes it to be impossible, but because he doesn't think evidence exists that says it is possible. On getting that evidence we have the usual dance:

CT: I demand evidence of x
Sane person: You mean this evidence?
CT: No, not that evidence, it proves me wrong. I want different evidence that I don't think you have.
Sane person: Ah, you mean this evidence!
CT: No, because I've moved the goalposts to change the specific criteria that satisfy my personal definition of acceptable evidence.

And so on and so on and so on..
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
I've gone through the responses so far and I'm simultaneously impressed and disappointed. I concede I'd appreciate instruction on how Bob B located the rice.edu source on sublimators. 
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because in spite of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet. As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph. I chatted once with Harold McCann, one of the coauthors of "U.S. Spacesuits" and he  sent a couple more. But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.
FTFY
Quote

And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers. There is, however,  a video on YouTube from 1966 of a spacesuit without sublimator failing in a vacuum chamber resulting in a near fatality.
And what other mechanism doesn't fail from time to time?
Quote

But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe. But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.
Been there done that
Quote

I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims. The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion. To disparage. I've heard it all.
YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN AND LEARN
Quote

We enjoy great fortune to live in the Age of the Scientific Method. An anomaly has been presented to you. Disparaging responses will not suffice. The challenge of a scientific response is being given. If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions. The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses. We don't have to believe; we can KNOW. After hundreds of billions of dollars, we deserve to KNOW.
Most of the scientific and engineering work has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  It is rather up to you to disprove the evidence.  And not by claiming "I don't understand, therefore it must be false".  Show some scientific or engineering work that the PLSS didn't work in a vacuum.

EDIT: changed don't to didn't
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 01:39:06 PM
As I said in my original posting, when I first searched for information, there was no photograph.

You are, as with so many conspiracy theorists these days, confusing 'it's not on the internet' with 'it doesn't exist'. Clearly that picture does exist. The fact that it is perhaps only recently appearing on the internet does not make it suspect. You are also, I note, conceding that something you claimed did not exist has in fact been presented and does exist.

Quote
But the fact remains, it was not there when I first became aware of ice sublimators.

And exactly why should the authenticity of something be measured against a timeline of your awareness?

Quote
And although there is plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools there's none of spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers.

Really? Given your record so far I am disinclined to believe you have done sufficient research to conlcude there is no such material. Have you actually visited any of the places where this material is stored and gone through the archive yourself? That is how everyone used to do research before the internet came along. The existence of the internet has not made it a redundant research method, and does not mean that any and all information can be expected to drop into your lap without you leaving your front room.

Quote
But the question remains, "Can we PROVE we went to the moon?"
And the answer is "Yes, publicly demonstrate before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit."

No, that is YOUR answer. No-one else is compelled to hold up your arbitrary standard of proof, especially since if you assume porous plate sublimators are false then the entire space program of every nation who ever went into space is also false. You are handwaving away a vast mountain of evidence (and that is not an exaggeration if you were to gather it all in one location) on the back of your limited research and poor understanding of technology and history.

Quote
If NASA truly used spacesuits on the moon and in orbit as it alleges then it also regularly tests those suits on Earth in high vacuum chambers as it also alleges it does. It should cost nothing extra and impose little inconvenience to allow independent witnesses to observe.

Why should we believe that if you went in to view a test taking place today, in 2015, that you would accept that the technology worked in the 1960s?

Quote
But they refuse which is an anomaly that must be addressed.

No, they simply don't let any old idiot into their test facilities. That's just good sense really.

Quote
I understand the passion and pride involved in this subject. It's not pleasant to contemplate the possibility of losing your moon.  Law enforcement officials report that they suspect the crime of fraud is most often unreported for the fear people have of appearing to be victims.

Yadda yadda yadda you're all blinded by patritotism blah blah blah. Heard it all before and it is no more relevant now than it ever was.

Quote
The temptation is to take the easy route and dismiss and discredit the assertion.

Look at the responses you've had here, and the other threads on the board. People are going out and providing you with the stuff you said did not exist. That's not the easy route.

Quote
Disparaging responses will not suffice.

So what about the other respnses you've had that provided you with material you said didn't exist? Oh yes, that's right, you handwaved it all away. THAT is the easy route, requiring no effort on your part whatsover.

Quote
The only solution is to PROVE the spacesuits with an appropriate demonstration before independent witnesses.

No, the only solution that will satisfy you is for NASA to let you in to watch it being done, and even then we have no reason to believe you would actually have sufficient understanding or interest to accept what you were being shown.

Unless you can explain how they faked every visual record of the spacesuits being used in space there is no reason to assume they are anything other than genuine examples of a spacesuit working in space as designed. Can you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 26, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
This is a challenge that is set to fail.

Let's say I ask you to prove that you went to Cleveland, because I (for some reason) refuse to believe that it's possible. Hey, the Government says Cleveland exists, and we know they lie about everything, right? So Cleveland probably doesn't even exist.

You provide me with receipts for your hotel stay, credit card slips for gas and meals, and some lovely photos and videos of your family you say you took at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. You even give me the telephone number of the hotel you stayed at.

I say, "These can all be faked. The receipts can be forged, the pictures are photoshopped, and how do I know that Frank the Hotel Manager is who he says he is? I refuse to accept this as proof."

You ask, "Then how could I convince you?"

I say, "I don't believe that your car radiator would work for a trip to Cleveland. My theory is that your engine would seize up long before you got there. So, show me a video of your radiator as your car is operating under the conditions of travelling to Cleveland. Without that, I must believe Cleveland is a hoax."

Do you see the problem here? Let's say I fix up a video camera under the hood, and take off on the highway. I send you the video that shows my radiator working fine.

Will you say, "Oops, I guess I was wrong about that?" Or will you say, "Hmmph! That just shows that you can not only fake videos of people at the Hall of Fame, you can fake videos of radiators working under highway conditions. It's still a FAKE!!11!"

If you do not accept the tons (literally) of documentation - photos, film, written - that already exists, you won't accept the video you claim would prove it to you. You will simply slide those goal posts further afield, and whine that nobody can give you that perfectly reasonable evidence you're looking for. Ah, if they only did, then you'd believe.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on August 26, 2015, 01:42:19 PM
Goalposts on a position relocater I suspect.

Edit. Actually, I want to know what a high vacuum chamber is. I have searched the interweb and cannot find the relevant elevation for any of them.



Did I say search? I might have. Or might not have.

Edit 2. Or is it one suitable for tall people?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:47:27 PM
No, the only solution that will satisfy you is for NASA to let you in to watch it being done, and even then we have no reason to believe you would actually have sufficient understanding or interest to accept what you were being shown.

Unless you can explain how they faked every visual record of the spacesuits being used in space there is no reason to assume they are anything other than genuine examples of a spacesuit working in space as designed. Can you?
As if NASA were to spend money, time and effort to disprove CT's beliefs.  Rather like designing a lunar rover to fly to the moon and drive around previous landing sites.  CT's would claim that those procedures were faked. 
I think Neil, you should get a large dose of reality, shallow hard and call back in the morning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Do you think they waste their time answering every moon hoax crank question, or do you suppose that they simply file such requests under T for Trash?

In my experience it's not very difficult to discern even well-veiled crackpottery from legitimate concern or interest.  Conspiracy theorists seem to have a very distorted perception of whether their questions and insinuations come across as sensible to non-conspiracists.

Even under the most charitable of circumstances, I can't imagine an aerospace company today honoring a request for decades-old design information with anything but rudimentary production.  Hamilton Sundstrand, at the alleged time, was already a merger of Hamilton Standard (the original manufacturer of the Apollo sublimators), and there has been yet another merger since (and yet another renaming).  This is common in the aerospace industry. One of the common effects of this circumstance is that post-merger employees rarely know much about pre-merger operations or recordkeeping, especially for defunct designs.  I have a fine loose-leaf notebook somewhere listing Hamilton Sundstrand's then-existing (ca. 2005) sublimator designs, because they were still a leading manufacturer of them.

And that makes me ask why Neil Baker simply didn't order a modern sublimator from H-S and prove to the world it doesn't work.  And why H-S would offer as a commercial product something that literally anyone could buy from them and either prove to the world it did or didn't work, or sue H-S for fraud if it did not.

But I guarantee that the public-relations secretary to whom Baker's request was undoubtedly delivered legitimately has no intention of performing exhaustive and time-consuming archival research just because some letter out of the blue asked for it.  It's just not how business works.  He'll get whatever she can find after ten minutes' search, and then she's on to the next request.  In the grand scheme of things, Baker just doesn't matter.  Baker can call it "stonewalling" all he wants; it's his burden to prove the production of documents he received was suspiciously deficient.

Further, I can vouch for quite extensive thermal testing, in heat-loading vacuum chambers, of all the space technology I've been involved with.  And if I got a letter from someone I didn't know demanding all the details of it, I'd T-for-trash it immediately.  Why?  Because those details are my intellectual property.  The test methods and outcomes, and the designs being tested, are my competitive edge in the marketplace.  He doesn't get to see them, even if they are being furnished, say, for a government contract.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 01:53:44 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 01:59:48 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).
His browser broke? ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 02:02:37 PM
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.

No images?

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 02:08:51 PM
Quote
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 02:10:18 PM
Schweikart testing the suit and PLSS in LEO


(http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_9/AS9-20-3094.jpg)

(http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/images/images_Apollo_9/AS09-19-2994.jpg)


(http://40.media.tumblr.com/1ebf0786ce6ee6440e1f143102a91bb0/tumblr_nixy1ryWtJ1sg8i4lo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 26, 2015, 02:43:52 PM
I see you've been banging this same drum since at least 2011, and you've already been provided with the evidence of suit testing many times over.  You simply refuse to accept it.
Try 2008
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B2DMX4O95EQH/ref=cm_cd_pg_prev?ie=UTF8&asin=075662858X&cdForum=Fx2B4PDRF5MYYAO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1NBQTDQ8WTG0M&store=books#wasThisHelpful

and from the replies it is clear he had prior form.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 02:51:35 PM
Quote
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.
That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 02:52:51 PM
Try 2008
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1B2DMX4O95EQH/ref=cm_cd_pg_prev?ie=UTF8&asin=075662858X&cdForum=Fx2B4PDRF5MYYAO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx1NBQTDQ8WTG0M&store=books#wasThisHelpful

and from the replies it is clear he had prior form.
Why is that CT's always refer to their "critical thinking" when they don't realize the true meaning?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 03:08:05 PM
Yes, he can be a pretty persistent fella:
http://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/

from 2010
https://edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=27193&showcomments=T

So Neil. Do you think this type of behavior is justified?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 03:51:58 PM
Good Heavens!! I have a wee sleep and next thing, there's a three-pager

The OP certainly contains the Big Three of Hoax Belief; argument from assertion, argument from incredulity, argument from ignorance.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/Process-Stupid2.png)

Mr Baker...

"I don't understand, therefore it didn't happen"
"I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen"

... are not valid arguments.

Apollo and the entire Space Programme are established facts, verifiable with mountains of documentation (most of which is available to the public), tens of thousands of hours of film and video and hundreds of thousands of images (all of which NASA freely shares with the public world-wide) and millions of eye witnesses, including hundreds of thousands of people who experience(d) it in person. 533 people from 46 different countries have reached Earth orbit, They have spent over 29,000 person-days (a cumulative total of over 77 years) in space including over 2400 person-hours of spacewalks. And you think they are all lying?

If YOU think it was/is all faked YOU have to prove that assertion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 03:55:37 PM
Good Heavens!! I have a wee sleep and next thing, there's a three-pager
...

That will teach you to sleep!!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 26, 2015, 04:27:07 PM
Very disappointing.

The most disappointing are the ones asserting that the information I seek has been presented and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?
Why release video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers?
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?
It's been said that criminals want to be caught. Leaving this particular anomaly available for consideration seems very sloppy. I wonder what the NASA folks are thinking. I'm suspect some are here reading this. What's up?

And so many posts as expected want, so quickly, to get metaphysical. I don't expect anyone to believe me alone. I suggest three independent witnesses, two of whom have national gravitas, one General forced into retirement for revealing abuses at Abu Ghraib and the other Admiral forced into retirement for shutting down George W Bush's aspirations to attack Iran. And then me, the person that pointed out the anomalies regarding the spacesuit ice sublimators. They got Capone on tax evasion.

Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been described. The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are. The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH. The Scientific Method is a wonderful thing. Now, if only we can get NASA to be scientifically accountable. By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest. But I seriously doubt it.

Raul Blanco is allegedly in charge of NASA spacesuit testing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I've chatted with him. He once promised video and photos but reneged. You can Google his number. He works for you. Holding him accountable is not inappropriate.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 26, 2015, 04:37:58 PM
So how do you think people would survive hurricanes and typhoons with this proposal of yours. Just going to block them like waves as you suggest?

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 04:40:18 PM
... I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

That's funny.  I did.

It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?

See, you're already calling it fake.  So what's the point of jumping through all your hoops?

Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?

It wasn't a functioning NASA spacesuit.  It was replica of an Apollo spacesuit used, I think, in the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".

And then me, the person that pointed out the anomalies regarding the spacesuit ice sublimators.

You're not new or special.  There were a lot of people before you who demonstrated a similar ignorance of the sublimators.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 26, 2015, 04:42:15 PM
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are. The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.

Scientific validation does not, and has never, included a staged demonstration to a complete novice. And I say that as a scientist involved in a project currently undergoing a lot of scientific validation. You cannot simply state something is so and expect it to be accepted by all.

Quote
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.

This is, simply, BULLSHIT. If you hoped the landings were real you'd be examining ALL the evidence, not focusing on one little detail while disregarding the entirety of the record in favour of demanding one thing that there is no actual justification for NASA ever producing.

Quote
He works for you.

Who is 'you'? You understand this is the worldwide web, right?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 04:45:25 PM
You mean like this (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11b_1363672986&comments=1)? Yes, it ended in almost disaster, but it shows them testing it, it shows the vacuum chamber,it even shows video from inside the vacuum chamber while it was in use, and the problem that resulted had nothing to do with the water sublimation cooling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 26, 2015, 05:12:56 PM
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.

Correction...this information of course exists you simply refuse to accept it...there is a difference.

 
Quote
The good news is that we're just a  simple demonstration away from the scientifically validated TRUTH.

I seriously doubt you would accept the results...which makes your statement an empty brag.


Quote
Very disappointing

I agree...although I have not heard your particular "argument" for a hoax before, it is lame on its face.

...very disappointing...



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 05:27:15 PM
Quote
1964 December 9 - .

Effects of radiation and vacuum on the materials of space suits - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Summary: Avco Corporation was under a 10-month contract amounting to $124,578 to MSC to study the effects of solar radiation and ultra-high vacuum on the materials and components of space suits. Testing would be performed in the Avco space environment chamber.


Quote
1965 November 11 - .

Apollo manned lunar mission metabolic profile test run - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L; LM Electrical. A manned lunar mission metabolic profile test was run in the Hamilton Standard Division altitude chamber using the development liquid-cooled portable life support system (PLSS). The system was started at a chamber altitude of over 60,906 m (200,000 ft), and the subject adjusted the liquid bypass valve to accommodate the programmed metabolic rates which were achieved by use of a treadmill. Oxygen was supplied from an external source through the PLSS bottle and oxygen regulation system. This procedure was used because bottle qualification was not complete, so pressure was limited to 2,068 kilonewtons per sq m (300 psig). An external battery was used for power because the new batteries that were required by the change to the all-battery LEM were not yet available. The thermal transport system including the porous plate sublimator was completely self-contained in the PLSS. All systems operated within specification requirements and the test was considered an unqualified success.

Quote
1965 December 5 - .

Hamilton Standard tested Apollo life support back pack - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. Hamilton Standard successfully tested a life-support back pack designed to meet requirements of the lunar surface suit. The system functioned as planned for more than three hours inside a vacuum chamber, while the test subject walked on a treadmill to simulate the metabolic load of an astronaut on the lunar terrain. The 29.48-kg (65-lb) portable life support system supplied oxygen, pressurized to a minimum 25,510 newtons per sq m (3.7 lbs psi), controlled its temperature and relative humidity, and circulated it through the suit and helmet. The pack pumped cooled water through the tubing of the undergarment for cooling inside the pressure suit. A canister of lithium hydroxide trapped carbon dioxide and other air contaminants to purify the oxygen for reuse.

Quote
1968 November 22 - .

Astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit - . Nation: USA. Program: Apollo. Spacecraft: A7L. In a memorandum for the record, ASPO Manager George M. Low summarized results of November 19 and 22 meetings on procedures for astronaut training runs with the Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) under simulated space conditions. The runs would be in the two vacuum test chambers of the Center's Space Environment Simulation Laboratory. MSC Director Robert R. Gilruth had attended the meetings. Training runs were always to be preceded by a run also under altitude conditions and using a gas umbilical from the life support system of the facility itself. Although connected to the crewman, the facility umbilical would not be used as a gas supply under normal test conditions. For the final training run, the astronaut would wear a complete flight-configured EMU without any other link with the facility. Although several participants objected that training runs using the EMU alone ran greater risk than normal in chamber tests, the decision to conduct the exercises using the all-up flight configuration was reaffirmed.

Quote
1969 March 6 - . 16:45 GMT - .

EVA Apollo 9-1 - . Crew: Schweickart; Scott. EVA Type: Stand-Up External Vehicular Activity. EVA Duration: 0.0319 days. Nation: USA. Related Persons: Schweickart; Scott. Program: Apollo. Class: Moon. Type: Manned lunar lander. Flight: Apollo 9. Spacecraft: Apollo LM; A7L. Summary: Tested Apollo spacesuit.

SOURCE:  http://www.astronautix.com/craft/a7l.htm



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 05:32:41 PM
Looks like lots of proof to me.  But then I am not blind to facts, as it seems Neil is.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 05:37:45 PM
Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Then you claim

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.
Quote
Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.
Quote
I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.

The information of the PLSS and the sublimator were already public on the internet in the 90`s and way before too.
Are you sure you made a good research? Because something doesnt makes sense here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
Very disappointing.
I'm sure that you are used to that feeling....




and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

Do you have eyesight problems or are you choosing to ignore the images that I linked to that show exactly that scenario? (that's a rhetorical question by the way....the answer is blatantly obvious)

As Jay pointed out, this guy has been at it for years. He has stated numerous times that the ISS and all the Shuttle eva's are all faked. When it's pointed out to him that the ISS can be seen by eye, he just brushes if off with the ridiculous claim it's nothing more then an uninhabited inflatable.

Oh, I know that. Mr. Baker is as close-minded and wilfully ignorant as they come. I'm enjoying finding some new images though, such as the Schweickart images in the vacuum chamber. That's one of the few redeeming qualities of having hoaxies about....you get to find out new information (not from them, I hasten to add!)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 05:48:50 PM

....you get to find out new information (not from them, I hasten to add!)
Not even new claims, new hoax approaches.  There is still the refusal to look and learn, but that isn't new either.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 05:50:34 PM
The most disappointing are the ones asserting that the information I seek has been presented and yet I don't see any spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers.

Straw man.  You made two claims.  First you claimed that there was insufficient publicly available information regarding porous plate sublimators to allow someone to determine whether they would work as advertised.  Second, you demanded a particular artifact of a particular form of testing, which you insisted was necessary for someone to rationally determine whether sublimators would work.  With respect to your first claim, it has been shown that copious information is indeed publicly available, and additionally (contrary to your subsequent protest) was available when you allegedly conducted your research.  With respect to your second claim, it has been shown to be based on an irrationally specific expectation.  Do not conflate the rebuttals.

Quote
It's very odd. If NASA went to all of that trouble to manufacture fake video and photos of spacewalks and moonwalks, why didn't they manufacture fake video of spacesuits being tested in vacuum chambers?

Perhaps because they didn't anticipate your personal obsession.  You demand we accept your judgment that certain artifacts of testing, if genuine, should be casually producible.  Yet you fail to explain why an organization so apparently otherwise concerned with perpetrating a convincing hoax should omit the fabrication of an artifact deemed so important.  Your claim is inconsistent.

Further the Apollo 17 LM egress testing video should suffice.

Quote
Why release video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers?

You insinuate that NASA's choice of publication for casual interest is indicative of their overall archival holdings for other purposes, such as serious historical research or compliance investigations.  You are the claimant.  You are responsible for assertively seeking what you deem should exist.  Noting what NASA chooses to emphasize, and speculating why, does not satisfy your burden of proof.

Quote
Why did MythBusters acquire access to a NASA spacesuit and show a vacuum chamber but fail to enter the chamber wearing the suit?

First, because Mythbusters' insurance wouldn't allow it.  Second, because NASA regulations doesn't allow civilians inside vacuum chambers, regardless of purpose, and only allows its own humans in there for very specific reasons.  There are many reasons why humans don't casually enter vacuum chambers.  You don't get to presume the alleged rarity is for the reason you suppose.  The former you could have discovered by phoning the Mythbusters production office.  The latter you could have discovered by consulting CFR.

Quote
And so many posts as expected want, so quickly, to get metaphysical.

Logical analysis is not metaphysical.  You are responsible for providing documentary, eyewitness, circumstantial, and other forms of evidence to support your claim.  You are also responsible for constructing a cogent line of reasoning to connect them to the conclusion you say you draw upon it.  Noting that your claim is logically untenable is not an inappropriate or subordinate form of analysis.

Quote
I don't expect anyone to believe me alone.

It appears you do.  And we have shown ample cause why your judgment should be considered at best uninformed and at worst highly impaired, and why your allegations of fact should be questioned.

Quote
I suggest three independent witnesses...

Before we decide whether to seek out these witnesses, give us a brief deposition.  What exactly do you suggest each of these three witnesses are expected to attest to?

Quote
Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been described.

Whether you like it or not, the anomaly has been dismissed as an unevidenced, unfounded suspicion based on your ignorance and laziness.  You do not get to beg the question that your accusation is sound simply for your having made it.

Quote
The NASA spacesuits are allegedly used and tested but no scientific validation exists that they are.

Straw man.  You demand exactly one form of validation and assiduously ignore whether other convincing forms exist or whether your demand is a rational expectation.

Quote
Now, if only we can get NASA to be scientifically accountable.

Quote
By the way, I hope my suspicions are wrong. I hope we went to the moon and all the rest.

Nonsense.  The record shows you've passed up numerous pertinent opportunities to change your opinion upon good evidence.  Your argument is not at all consistent with someone who has been compelled to believe in a hoax despite a predilection otherwise.

Quote
Raul Blanco is allegedly in charge of NASA spacesuit testing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. I've chatted with him. He once promised video and photos but reneged.

Did he give you a reason?

Quote
Holding him accountable is not inappropriate.

You're making serious accusations which, if true, would lead to felony charges being brought against prominent people.  Holding you accountable first is the proper action.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 26, 2015, 06:02:24 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 06:03:57 PM
The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.

Then your confidence is misplaced.

Photographs of the PLSS ice sublimator have been available on the internet for over 10 years.

This...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/A7L_plss.jpg)

... has been on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum since 1974 when it was transferred there from NASA's Johnson Space Flight Centre. I saw it there myself in 1987

I can only conclude that you have been intentionally blind and ignorant... which does not surprise me in the least given your track record of wilful ignorance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 06:14:31 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.







*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 06:20:04 PM

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.

*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 26, 2015, 06:23:45 PM
Why do it on the ground, when it can be done in orbit? Or is it your assertion that the ISS, MIR, Skylab did not happen?

That is exactly what he claimed... then it got awkward when it was pointed out that you could see the ISS with your own eyes.

He'll hate this then....
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=116657

and this:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
which shows (shock! horror!) a working spacesuit, imaged from the ground by an amateur*, using amateur gear**

Even without super-duper gear, this type of image is possible:
(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2011/02/robbullen_iss_discovery.jpg)

Which was taken from the UK, with a 200mm Newtonian. That was hand-guided (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/#.Vd46AfSIlZh) at the time by Rob Bullen.







*a very, very skilled amateur,
**and not even that exceptional gear (http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html). A Takahashi mount and a 14" Edge SCT scope. Not entry level stuff admittedly, but not that high end.
That doesnt looks like a balloon at all.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 26, 2015, 06:23:50 PM
Great images, but he will no doubt claim everyone is on the payroll. ::)

No doubt.
The payroll is getting pretty big now though. Plus it covers the entire globe as there many, many amateurs imaging various ISS transits....

http://bfy.tw/1Ui0
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 06:34:45 PM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 26, 2015, 06:39:11 PM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 26, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 06:42:00 PM
He'll hate this then....

Nothing is distasteful as long as you're willing to engage in an astonishing amount of denial.  As I said at first, if one's alleged hoax encompasses a colossal portion of what others take to be reality, then all possible refutation is simply dismissed as self-referential and therefore non-probative.  Deny enough reality, and it becomes legally and clinically actionable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 07:36:28 PM
It wasn't a functioning NASA spacesuit.  It was replica of an Apollo spacesuit used, I think, in the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon".

You may be confusing the Mythbusters demonstration with the one from The Truth Behind....  The latter used a space suit replica made by Global Effects for From the Earth to the Moon.  While accurate in the respects that mattered, its PLSS contained only a battery and a fan for blowing ambient air into the suit via the practical hoses.  The former employed a similar costume suit of unknown manufacture, privately owned by Adam Savage.  It was used for the mobility demonstrations.  Neither Savage's costume nor the Global Effects replica includes the PGA or establishes any kind of airtight integrity.  Mythbusters also employed actual space-suit arms and gloves provided by NASA to allow the presenters to manipulate items in the vacuum chamber.  This form of isolation is commonly known as a glovebox.

It should be noted that while not mentioned here, Baker also argues elsewhere that pressurized space suits themselves are impossible for reasons having to do with materials, in addition to the claims made regarding the sublimator.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 07:42:31 PM
You may be confusing the Mythbusters demonstration with the one from The Truth Behind....  The latter used a space suit replica made by Global Effects for From the Earth to the Moon.

I did indeed confuse the two.  I realized my mistake not too long after I posted it, but didn't bother to edit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 26, 2015, 07:47:02 PM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know.

Not the most auspicious of starts. So you don't know? There's not a lot of point to any future discussion then. You claiming that you don't know is like turning up to an exam on Contemporary European Art in the 17th Century, having studied Topological Geometries of M-theory for the last 3 years.

Quote
But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable.

How can you not know then claim other people don't know? I'm really scratching my head here. Are you a student of D Rumsfeld?

Quote
A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

The scientific method has been established since antiquity. In fact, as a physics undergrad I studied the philosophy of logic, and the foundation for the scientific method was documented by the Greeks. In any case, Apollo was an engineering project, so the scientific method does not apply. The missions are documented historical fact.

Quote
After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Good for you. So you believe in other woo such as 9-11 then?

Quote
Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.

You don't appear to know a lot really. My reading of your post is this: you've picked up a few hoax arguments such as the flag and shadows, have not followed this through with objective research to show how these arguments are readily debunked using basic physics, nor the well discussed modus operandi of the claimants and their ulterior motives. You have then arrived here with some pseudo-intellectual babble (above), portraying yourself as a critical thinker with quasi-philosophical sound bites. I'm quite disappointed with your first post already.

Quote
What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

This is a tautological statement.

Quote
But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon

What's a vacuum of orbit? This pretentious and overly flowery imprecise waffle does nothing to impress me. Again, I am most disappointed that you invoke high standards for NASA, yet show little scientific literacy yourself. In the words of Tony Blair... weak, weak, weak.

Quote
heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge.

Yes, but not insurmountable.

Quote
There's nothing cool to conduct heat to

Why does something need to be cool so heat conducts to it? You mean there's no material to conduct heat to a lower temperature (or heat source to heat sink). Incorrect physics terms and concept constructs are a slight bug bear of mine. If you want to talk physics then please satisfy me that you understand the concepts using precise language, especially when you accuse others of being unscientific and how this is unacceptable to you.

Quote
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to

I could pick holes with the terminology here (again), but I won't. The point is that you are not proving yourself to be scientifically literate, yet demand this of others.

Quote
and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

I take it that you know what sublimation means, and the latent heat that is involved with the sublimation of ice? I'll leave it here as the rest of your OP is irrelevant given you have not offered an alternative analysis of the thermodynamics at this conjecture.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 26, 2015, 08:23:26 PM
there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to

I contend that the water vapor is an atmosphere.  No need for a natural atmosphere when we can create our own.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 26, 2015, 08:44:46 PM
I find it astonishing Mr Baker that you claim to be unable to find anything about Apollo Spacesuits. It took me all of ten seconds to find this..

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM15_Portable_Life_Support_System_ppP1-5.pdf

Please note the very last paragraph of this document

"Complete details on the Portable Life Support System can be obtained from  Hamilton Standard"

They are now known as United Technologies Corporation

www.utc.com

I'm sure if you ask them, they will be happy supply all the technical specifications and information they have on the PLSS and the ice-sublimation cooling system. The only doubt I have is that you would understand any of it!


ETA

As for the photo of the sublimator posted earlier that you claim to have been responsible for having been published recently as a result of your supposed "agitation", well  I knew I had seen that photo somewhere before;I guessed about 10 years.

http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/apollo_rebreathers.htm

Its about the 9th/10th photo down in this website, which has been there since at least 2005. That page also has a good EXPLANATION OF HOW IT WORKS

"The PLSS includes oxygen bottles, water storage tanks, a sublimator, a fan/separator/pump/motor assembly, a contaminant control cartridge, various regulators, valves and sensors, communications and the microprocessor caution and warning system module.

System ventilation airflow enters the suit from the PLSS at the helmet and flows from behind the head, over the face and down through the suit. Oxygen, carbon dioxide and water vapour from breathing leave the suit through the liquid-cooling and ventilation garment near the astronaut's elbows and feet and return to the PLSS.

The flow first goes through the PLSS contaminant-control cartridge, where activated charcoal and lithium hydroxide remove odours and carbon dioxide. Next, it passes through a fan that maintains a flow of about six cubic feet per minute. Gas flow is then routed to the sublimator, a cooling device which condenses water vapour and permits its removal by a slurper and by the rotary separator. The water that is removed from the gas flow is pumped primarily into the PLSS water storage tanks for reuse in cooling the astronaut.

The sublimator also cools the ventilation flow to about 12° C. The oxygen then moves through a flow sensor and back to the suit inlet. Oxygen is added, as needed, to the ventilation flow from the primary oxygen tanks, entering the ventilation loop downstream of the flow sensor. Suit pressure is maintained at approximately 0.7 psid (0,047 bar)(15 psid = 1 bar) above ambient pressure* in the intravehicular mode, and at 4.3 psid (0,29 bar)(15 psid = 1 bar)in the extravehicular mode. The astronaut selects the mode by manually operating an actuator located on the display and control module."


 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 08:51:30 PM
I'm sure if you ask them, they will be happy supply all the technical specifications and information they have on the PLSS and the ice-sublimation cooling system.

Baker indicates that he has already contacted the manufacturer.  He confirms that they sent him some materials, but he deems the production inadequate.  He does not specify what he received, what instead he would consider reasonably complete under the circumstances, nor why the material he received was not sufficient.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 26, 2015, 09:01:02 PM
I contend that the water vapor is an atmosphere.  No need for a natural atmosphere when we can create our own.

You make a good contention in context of the PLSS and its sublimator. Of course, one might argue that convection strictly occurs in a closed fluid system whereas in interfacial systems the heat transfer is through evaporative loss, which is the point in my previous post where I stopped with my interrogation of Neil's scientific understanding of heat transfer.

In the case of the PLSS, where the phase transition is solid to gas, we need to discuss heat transfer by sublimative loss.

Maybe Neil would like to comment on the function of the PLSS and why the thermodynamics of sublimation precludes a viable solution to cool astronauts now he has evidence of its design and function.

On one hand he claims that the engineering of heat transfer is a difficult problem, and given there is no evidence that the PLSS was demonstrated in a vacuum the issue of astronaut cooling remained unsolved. On the other hand he is unable to present evidence demonstrating his understanding of heat transfer to the same standards he expects from others. I find his position unacceptable and disappointing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 26, 2015, 09:43:17 PM
The convective properties of the sublimation products, if any, are not considered in the thermal design.  The intent is evaporative/sublimation cooling only.  In fact, early experience showed that any residual atmosphere in the slowly-venting LM inhibited the sublimator startup.  In fact even today we have icing problems with sublimator startup if the ambient pressure isn't well below the triple point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 26, 2015, 11:53:48 PM

The interested looking cows in the last picture are actually NASA agents in disguise, watching for any funny business from someone on their payroll.
Of course it is a never ending job with everyone on the payroll.  No wonder the national debt is so large.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:12:50 AM
Neil,

Roomie here. You departed still logged into my computer. I hope you don't mind but I've  been reading your comments here at Apollohoax.net and decided to comment.
Like the rest of the geeks here, I think you're a loon. You're knowledgeable and passionate but very unpersuasive. Do you really think NASA could pull off a hoax of this magnitude without someone blowing the whistle? I know we've had this discussion before and you think compartmentalization of information, security clearances and possibly death threats were enough but I'm not buying it. It doesn't look like anybody is.

I will admit that I think it's an interesting observation you've made about spacesuits in swimming pools but none in vacuum chambers but absence of information is hardly evidence of a hoax. I know it seems weird but couldn't there be some less ominous explanation for lack of video of space suits being tested, or no photos of ice sublimators or no mention of them in any heat transfer book? Couldn't it just be that NASA thought nobody would care and nobody did until you came along?

So all you want is a demonstration of a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber? Are you sure? If after seeing what you want to see and seeing that the spacesuits work in vacuum would you be done with this obsession? Didn't you obsess for the longest time about the LRO being the only lunar orbiter with a camera powerful enough to resolve Apollo remnants. Something about no independent verification when the Japanese should have sent the correct camera. And remember when you were ranting about the pressure seal on the Gemini helmet visor and the shoe lace covers? And let's not forget your long exploration of the difference between a 5psi difference between 15psi and 10psi versus 5 psi and 0 psi.  5psi difference is 5psi difference! All that baloney about counting gas molecules using the Kinetic Particle Theory of Pressure made me think you were losing it.

I'm worried about you roommate. You're clean and pay the rent on time but can't you admit that you've almost completely obliterated your life? Twice arrested, once committed. A felony for a broken window. Yes, I know you did it for 9-11 truth but so what. Where did it get you? No, I won't break the second window and I've got bad news for you. Nobody will. They got away with it. 3000 murdered in our faces to send thousands more to death in rotten wars and, yes, they got away with it. It's the way it is. Move on. Get a girlfriend. Play golf. Finish that book. Anything! But stop it with the conspiracy theories. Please.

Sincerely,

E
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 12:17:07 AM
Well, that's either the most creative flounce I've ever seen, or we got ourself a case of roommate drama. Hi E! You're welcome to sign up under your own name if there's anything you want to discuss.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:18:38 AM
Sincerely,

E

Dear E.,

Thanks for posting, and for your concern.  You have our support.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 12:50:00 AM
That is a creative flounce methinks, or a bad case of MPD
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 02:46:54 AM
So all you want is a demonstration of a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber? Are you sure? If after seeing what you want to see and seeing that the spacesuits work in vacuum would you be done with this obsession? Didn't you obsess for the longest time about the LRO being the only lunar orbiter with a camera powerful enough to resolve Apollo remnants. Something about no independent verification when the Japanese should have sent the correct camera. And remember when you were ranting about the pressure seal on the Gemini helmet visor and the shoe lace covers? And let's not forget your long exploration of the difference between a 5psi difference between 15psi and 10psi versus 5 psi and 0 psi.  5psi difference is 5psi difference! All that baloney about counting gas molecules using the Kinetic Particle Theory of Pressure made me think you were losing it.

I'm worried about you roommate. You're clean and pay the rent on time but can't you admit that you've almost completely obliterated your life? Twice arrested, once committed. A felony for a broken window. Yes, I know you did it for 9-11 truth but so what. Where did it get you? No, I won't break the second window and I've got bad news for you. Nobody will. They got away with it. 3000 murdered in our faces to send thousands more to death in rotten wars and, yes, they got away with it. It's the way it is. Move on. Get a girlfriend. Play golf. Finish that book. Anything! But stop it with the conspiracy theories. Please.

Sincerely,

E

Best flounce ever? Or a long suffering room-mate (room-mate? What age is he- 19???). Or a bad case of MPD where we will see a full blown argument all conducted under the same login? I can't wait until they start arguing about who keeps drinking all the milk in the fridge and why the empty toilet roll is left on the holder.
Either which way, this could turn out to be fascinating...

(http://33.media.tumblr.com/5326a6b6b554289a8a43d2188a7f1b71/tumblr_mxlwfti5At1qchjtmo1_250.gif)

Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.

Just a simple white-light filter over the front of the 'scope. The ones taken with a hydrogen-alpha solarscope are a bit more special

Click Here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ISS+transit+hydrogen-alpha&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCLLjraTUyMcCFUnXFAoddxcEgw&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=_)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 27, 2015, 05:02:02 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.

[SNIP]

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 06:21:48 AM
Sincerely,

E

Various speculation to this outcome, and thus far I have managed to arrive at 5 possible explanations for this turn of events. I'll wait and see what happens.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 06:31:05 AM
Yo, Dwight

Roomie here. Rather than speak to you in person I thought I'd write you on Apollo Hoax. Those books you wrote about NASA's TV development are awesome. I think you should tell your friends on AH how much of a legend you are. Maybe they will buy some copies.

Anyway keep up the good work but for heaven's sake put the toilet seat down and take the dog for a walk.

F
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:38:37 AM
Here's another shot, but this might take some special hardware.

Just a simple white-light filter over the front of the 'scope. The ones taken with a hydrogen-alpha solarscope are a bit more special

Click Here (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ISS+transit+hydrogen-alpha&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCEQsARqFQoTCLLjraTUyMcCFUnXFAoddxcEgw&biw=1920&bih=947#imgrc=_)
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope.  Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:40:29 AM
Neil,

...
Sincerely,

E
This has the makings of fish in the household trash for three days.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 06:50:49 AM
Yo, Dwight

Roomie here. Rather than speak to you in person I thought I'd write you on Apollo Hoax. Those books you wrote about NASA's TV development are awesome. I think you should tell your friends on AH how much of a legend you are. Maybe they will buy some copies.

Anyway keep up the good work but for heaven's sake put the toilet seat down and take the dog for a walk.

F

I'm trying to think of one penned to myself, but cannot.  But yeah, take the dog for a walk. Can you bath him after, he's getting smelly and his fur his matted.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 07:09:08 AM
Yo Luke,

Roomie here logging on from Dwight's pc.

Dont forget to turn the stove off before going out.

Later
G
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 10:56:37 AM

That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?

I think it might have been Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas. The website says they've been around since 99 but I suspect much longer probably as a black ops. 1999 was probably the year they came out of stealth mode after building the ISS balloons. Pretty impressive operation for a company that hasn't sold anything.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:01:38 AM
For a list of those astronauts responsible for construction of the ISS, Google Shuttle missions from 1999.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:06:15 AM
I think it might have been...

So no, you can't.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:13:29 AM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.

It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:15:47 AM
I think it might have been...

So no, you can't.

Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:17:49 AM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 27, 2015, 11:20:18 AM
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live. I'm actually hidden behind a pixel near the top, about 2 o'clock from the ball on the mast. Smartcooky might be in the photo too near the top of the South Island, and AJV near the bottom of the North Island.

The photo was taken on 14 December 2006:--
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/165304main_image_feature_719_ys_full.jpg

The ISS will soon be making early-evening passes over or near New Zealand from 2 to 25 September, and plenty of us will be outside watching on the clear nights when it passes nearby.

Neil -- I watched Sputnik 1 pass over New Zealand at 8:06pm NZST on Wednesday 9 October 1959.  Do you claim that was a balloon put up by NASA too? And if so, how did Ham radio people, here and in other countries, detect its bleeper?

I find it rather amusing that you tell us to demand accountability from NASA, when members have posted in this thread from Australia, Germany, the UK and New Zealand.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:21:24 AM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand.

You're not an independent witness.  You're the accuser.  Name the other two witnesses, or describe how they would be chosen to your satisfaction.

Quote
I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges.

Why should the people you accuse of fraud based no evidence except your ignorant doubt allow you to tamper with their equipment in this all-important test?  Contrary to what you might expect, you have a burden to show at least a modicum of prima facie evidence before you can make demands upon other parties.

And you have answered the pressing question.  Hamilton Standard sold porous plate sublimators commercially for decades.  Their successor Hamilton Sundstrand, with whom you claim to have had dealings, continued to sell them until they were acquired by UTC.  In all that time, why didn't you purchase one of their sublimator products and test it yourself in your own way, or via an independent testing laboratory?  Armed with those findings you could have taken H-S to court for fraud.  That is, if you really believe your claims have merit and you're not just grubbing for attention.

Quote
I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. ... But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.

If you have to speculate about how test chambers compensate for outgassing of the test subject then no, your level of experience with vacuum systems is not only insufficient but almost entirely ignorant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:22:39 AM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 11:25:08 AM
Best flounce ever? Or a long suffering room-mate (room-mate? What age is he- 19???). Or a bad case of MPD where we will see a full blown argument all conducted under the same login?

Two points.  One, I have plenty of friends with roommates well into their thirties, because minimum wage in the US hasn't kept up with rent.  If you're poor, roommates can mean keeping a roof over your head at all.

Two, "multiple personality disorder," currently called "dissociative identity disorder," is a controversial diagnosis at best.  Many mental health professionals don't actually belief it exists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:25:35 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

My disputation arises from, as I said, my 25 years' experience in the relevant fields.  Can you provide any evidence or argument that would convince someone in my position?  If not, why should the world defer to your personal doubt?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:28:04 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

Since your allegedly expert judgment is central to your argument on many points, please list all your relevant qualifications.

Quote
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

But earlier you insinuated there existed no sufficient material for such judgment to be made.  Now you're saying you've read enough to determine that it's "propaganda."  Please reconcile your arguments.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:28:17 AM
...
Neil -- I watched Sputnik 1 pass over New Zealand at 8:06pm NZST on Wednesday 9 October 1959.  Do you claim that was a balloon put up by NASA too? And if so, how did Ham radio people, here and in other countries, detect its bleeper?
Of course the former Soviet Union was being paid by NASA to fake its space program to justify the massive budgets in the 60's. ::)
Quote

I find it rather amusing that you tell us to demand accountability from NASA, when members who posted in this thread from Australia, Germany, the UK and New Zealand.

I'm sorry I just can't make you or smartcookie out, maybe its the eyes :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:31:00 AM
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:32:47 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

Since your allegedly expert judgment is central to your argument on many points, please list all your relevant qualifications.
Seconds that question, again.
Quote

Quote
As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

But earlier you insinuated there existed no sufficient material for such judgment to be made.  Now you're saying you've read enough to determine that it's "propaganda."  Please reconcile your arguments.

Is this a facepalm moment or what?
https://www.google.com/search?q=facepalm&biw=1366&bih=571&tbm=isch&imgil=tTGdTkGlDERknM%253A%253BrleBi_6hQ6aT2M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fconcealednation.org%25252F2015%25252F08%25252Fconcealed-carry-trainer-negligently-shoots-student-and-its-not-his-first-nd-facepalm%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=tTGdTkGlDERknM%253A%252CrleBi_6hQ6aT2M%252C_&usg=__p9mv-J5DFSCaLMFnzZZGYcMQviM%3D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:35:06 AM
Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

Do you have proof that the photograph was fabricated?  Or are you just making an affirmative dismissal based -- again -- entirely on speculation?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 27, 2015, 11:36:15 AM


Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

What's your evidence that it's fake? It's not enough to just keep saying it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:38:01 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:41:48 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.

Excuse me but didn't you just post this?
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:42:22 AM


Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.

What's your evidence that it's fake? It's not enough to just keep saying it.

My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book. It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:44:21 AM
Yes, it's pure speculation like everything else. I have PROOF of nothing. But neither do you.

You're the one claiming, among other things, that the ISS is just a big balloon.  Your claim; your burden of proof.  My disbelief of your claim doesn't obligate me to assertively disprove it.  You admit you have no evidence.  Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.


No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.
We both have plenty of evidence. I'm shown evidence of a photo of ISS and I show evidence of a photo of a huge preposterous factory owned by Bigelow.
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today. Flags and shadows can be argued forever but the spacesuits are here and nobody has to go to the moon or orbit to PROVE them in a vacuum chamber.

Excuse me but didn't you just post this?
Here's a good photo of that thing that Neil claims is a balloon -- the International Space Station -- plus two astronauts using the type of suit-cooling he claims doesn't work, plus a highly detailed background of central New Zealand showing the very clear sky that day above the Manawatu, where I live.

Nice fake photo of a nice prop with fake spacesuits over fake background. Probably. I love Photoshop.
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 11:46:06 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:50:32 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably
Slippery aren't you, but again please list your qualifications, if any, to satisfy my curiosity.  Your qualifications are at the heart of this whole discussion.
BTW, will you please quit claiming that your interference caused the creation of web pages describing the operation of PLSS.  You have been shown many links that make this assertion quite invalid.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 11:53:32 AM
I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

How the PLSS works is certainly not propaganda, it's quite well documented. The Soviets used a similar cooling system in their spacesuits, i.e a closed circuit transporting the coolant to a heat exchanger. I know, I've seen it at the UK National Space Centre near Leicester. In fact. visiting the UK NSC provides a stark example of how US and USSR systems were comparable, and how such systems are still used today. Funny that, two nations arrive with similar PLSS systems. Maybe they relied on the same physics to arrive at their engineering solutions. As this thought entered you mind?

In any case, I thought you claimed that no documentation exists, or at least no photo. Surely if the documentation exists and you have now seen a photo, your argument reduces to the function of the PLSS in a vacuum?

You do realise that you are fundamentally at odds with other conspiracy theorists regarding the existence of evidence for the PLSS, both photographic evidence and documentation. Ralph Rene and Jarrah White acknowledge the PLSS documentation, they just dispute the thermodynamics because neither are smart enough to apply the correct heat transfer equations. This presents a problem for the conspiracy theory, as we have some of you on different horses.

So which is it (a) you afford direct contradiction to other conspiracy theorists and claim there are no PLSS photos and/or documentation of its function. (b) you are in agreement that PLSS documentation exists but dispute the heat transfer calculations.

It has to be (a) or (b)? What side of the fence do you sit on? Or are you sitting on a different fence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:55:16 AM
No, I didn't say that.
I said I had no proof. Neither do you.

And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Quote
We both have plenty of evidence.

You've presented no evidence.  You've presented only speculation and bare denial.  You've also made subsidiary affirmative claims which proved false.

Quote
That which makes my argument unique, and the reason you should support it, is that I describe something that can be scientifically validated on Earth today.

And has been, to the satisfaction of the relevant professional fields.  In contrast you present only your denial, based on an argument from silence.  You maintain this despite having been informed numerous times why your argument is not convincing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 11:56:57 AM
This is a direct claim that the photo has been faked, the ISS is a nice prop and the spacesuits are fake with a fake back ground.

Probably

Weasel words.  Either the photo is genuine and provides evidence your theory does not account for or it is fake, as you have suggested.  The only way this evidence does not defeat your claim is if you can prove your accusation that it's fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:00:37 PM

My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Except that such tests have been performed and you have been provided with the very video and photographic evidence you demanded.
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.
You have been demonstrated to be completely wrong on this. You have been provided with evidence which predates your "agitation". It is nobodies fault but yours that you are an incompetent researcher.

And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived,
There is nothing exotic about sublimation, nor it's principles, nor it's scientific provenance, nor the devices used to implement it as a cooling system. Just because you are ignorant of such things does not perforce mean that everyone else must be.

no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.
Funny how it was covered in thermodynamics 101 in my first year uni text books 25 years ago. How do you explain that?

It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.
No, it is evidence that you know nothing Neil Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 27, 2015, 12:00:58 PM
You think  that image is on the web because of you?
I hate to break it to you, but that image was available at the latest in 1997, when the Internet Archive archived it (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617055401/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html).

Neil Baker:  Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:02:49 PM
no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book. It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.

As a physicist I fail to understand why anyone would explicitly write about a bespoke engineering system in a heat transfer or thermodynamics book. Your understanding of the interface between academic books and real world engineering projects is distinctly flawed.

The PLSS works on a simple heat exchanger, and the engineer needs an understanding of thermodynamics to design the system. Once designed that system may be patented (its working is protected under patent law) or as with the Apollo project, a description of the PLSS is published as a technical document along with all the other project documentation.

There is no interest in the academic author writing about a bespoke system. I have a heat exchanger in my car, right at the front of the car, I have never seen it written about in any academic book. I can assure you that my car is parked on my drive and the said heat exchanger exists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 12:13:38 PM

That would be quite a feat in itself, sending up and inflating such a large, complex structure in orbit. Who built this alleged structure, Neil Baker? Who were the engineers and scientists involved? Can you name even one?

I think it might have been Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas. The website says they've been around since 99 but I suspect much longer probably as a black ops. 1999 was probably the year they came out of stealth mode after building the ISS balloons. Pretty impressive operation for a company that hasn't sold anything.
OK, evidence? Bigelow sent up a couple inflatable satellites as proof of concept for their inflatable module design, but they are far simpler than the  ISS complex's shape, seen in the photos anyone with access to the right consumer level hardware. Besides, one could 'think' and 'suspect' anything, I could 'say' it was Tiny, world's largest circus clown and I could 'suspect' it was done with Santa Claus' help, and we'd both be on equal footing evidence-wise.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:14:09 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof and, fortunately, we can both use the same method of PROOF---public demonstration before independent witnesses of a NASA spacesuit with sublimator in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:17:17 PM
Weasel words.  Either the photo is genuine and provides evidence your theory does not account for or it is fake, as you have suggested.  The only way this evidence does not defeat your claim is if you can prove your accusation that it's fake.

I don't have proof. I have to say "probably."
You don't have proof either but you don't say "probably."
Who's the weasel?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:19:17 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:19:50 PM
My evidence is that the spacesuits shown have never in their over 50 years of alleged use been publicly demonstrated by NASA to work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

False according to evidence presented, and in any case a narrowly-tailored straw man.  Your contrived personal definition of a "public demonstration" does not create a controversy that others are bound to respect.

Quote
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.

Records were produced proving otherwise.  You are not responsible for the publication on the internet of photographs of sublimators.

Quote
And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived...

Phase-change cooling is far from "exotic."  Have you ever heard of swamp cooler?  And sublimation cooling is no more exotic than, say, a Joule-Thompson device, which is also commonly used on spacecraft.

Quote
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

The most widely referenced free textbook (Lienhard) on heat transfer, from an MIT professor, has an entire chapter on phase-change methods of heat transfer.

Further this is another straw man.  Heat transfer and thermodynamics textbooks rarely describe any commercial products that effect the principles they describe.  They are primarily physics textbooks.  The standard engineering reference on spacecraft design (Fortescue et al.) has an entire chapter on thermal design, including a discussion of both practical phase-change mechanisms and limits on practical testing of thermal control methods on Earth.  Looking in the wrong places and handwaving about allegedly suspicious omissions does not create an argument those skilled in the art are obliged to respect.

Quote
It's evidence of anomalous spacesuits.

No, the more parsimonious interpretation is that you overstate the degree of research you have done as well as misrepresent the findings, and present only a fairly easily refutable argument from silence.  Your personal incredulity and your personal ineptitude at research is not probative of anything except those things.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:21:42 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:22:04 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.
We both have burdens of proof and, fortunately, we can both use the same method of PROOF---public demonstration before independent witnesses of a NASA spacesuit with sublimator in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
It has been done, you have been shown technical documents, pictures and videos, all of which you were unable to find on your own, all of which were spoon fed to you, all of which you ignore in favour of stamping your feet and demanding that a "special" demonstration be undertaken just for you. Because you are "special".

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs. Had you undertaken the most basic of research you would know this, but apparently even google surpasses your abilities.

Neil Baker, a man whose talents truly know no beginning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:22:10 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:22:36 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
But It was there regardless of your observation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:23:24 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed

That's not proof. That's evidence. Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:24:48 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:25:11 PM
Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.

No, that's now how proof works.  You started off by saying all space travel was a hoax.  We've identified publicly available information that points to a legitimate orbiting space station.  Your claim, in order to hold, must explain contrary evidence such as that.  Those who bring this evidence to your attention and ask you to reconcile it with your claims are not obliged to establish its authenticity over and above your speculative dismissal.

Quote
Yes, I accept a burden of proof also but, unfortunately, I'm still seeking the required assistance from NASA.

No, it is not the fault of those whom you accuse that you are unable to substantiate your accusation.

Quote
We both have burdens of proof...

No, that is expressly not how the burden of proof works (cf. Sagan, Demon-Haunted World).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:26:26 PM
Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.

Affirmative rebuttals incur a burden of proof.  If you cannot prove the evidence was faked, then you cannot expect your critics to accept that as your explanation for why your theory cannot account for it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 12:26:34 PM
So, your also saying that the Hubble repair eva's were all faked as well. Can you explain why it would be in NASA's best interest to display images from it and state that they were not of the quality they were expecting? Then go to enormous effort to fake the repair videos so that they could claim that the images were now meeting their expectations. This level of duplicity seems plausible to you does it?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:28:24 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
No, it wasn't "buried in cyberspace somewhere". It was on the internet in the exact same place it is still to be found today.

Your incompetence is not reflective of the world at large. Kindly cease attempting to drag everyone down to your level of subject matter ignorance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on August 27, 2015, 12:28:51 PM
Quote
I say PROVE it.
You were provided with photos of the ISS taken by amateurs and their telescopes.
Its up to you to prove that such aerodynamical shape can fly over the skies at high speed

That's not proof. That's evidence. Those photos could be fake and even if they're not, the thing photographed could be fake.
Again, to even consider it could be fake, you must list a couple of reasons for that. You said it is an inflatable balloon when such aerodynamical shape dont allows it to fly at high speeds.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:29:16 PM
I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.

Your inability to locate a photo on the internet does not prove such a photo did not exist there.  Further, you are not an authority on what others can and cannot find on the internet.  You have made the laughable claim that there has been little if any public discussion of nickel porous plate sublimators prior to 2007.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:29:55 PM
Oh bull!

Is there any portion of your argument that isn't either speculation or bare denial?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 12:31:18 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!

Is what you're full of

http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:34:03 PM
Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775

Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.

Your move.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:36:10 PM
So, your also saying that the Hubble repair eva's were all faked as well. Can you explain why it would be in NASA's best interest to display images from it and state that they were not of the quality they were expecting? Then go to enormous effort to fake the repair videos so that they could claim that the images were now meeting their expectations. This level of duplicity seems plausible to you does it?

More stolen money piggy-backed on already stolen money. I speculate it's all about stealing money. I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible? For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:36:45 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007

Who cares when it was published?  You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
I speculate it's all about stealing money.

So there's no argument to address.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:38:24 PM
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

Oh please!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 12:38:36 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:39:21 PM
Who cares when it was published?  You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.

But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:39:56 PM
I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible?

No.  It is not NASA's fault you are unwilling and unable to prove your accusations against them.  "Responsible scientific accountability" does not mean acquiescing to delusional demands made without evidence.

Quote
For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.

This is telling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:40:35 PM

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:40:52 PM
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

Oh please!

Once again, bare denial is not an argument.  You are repeatedly and distinctly unable to explain any contrary evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:41:14 PM

Who cares when it was published? 

Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:41:26 PM
Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775

Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.

Your move.

Here is the patent on the sublimator (which I posted yesterday).  The filing date is 1963.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:43:21 PM
But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting.  :o

Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.  Or perhaps telepathically altering my memory.  Baker complains that NASA ignores him.  Perhaps he would be more successful if he were able to recruit some appropriately qualified allies?  But the record shows Baker is roundly regarded as a crackpot.  And for good reason, it appears.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:43:36 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:44:29 PM
http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Sorry Bob, I missed that. The evidence is clear though, patents exist for sublimation technology prior to Neil's concerns. The conclusion being that Neil is a poor researcher and is now trying to dig himself from a hole.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 12:45:31 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 12:46:02 PM
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

It's already been figured out:  you're changing horses.  In your original post, you represented the "lack of information" regarding nickel porous plate sublimators as an ongoing concern.  It clearly is not, hence you have revised your argument to claim that you were responsible in 2007 for motivating the recent publication of suitable descriptions.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:46:17 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:47:32 PM
Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

Ok, I've thought about it.  You claim is false.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:48:00 PM
Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.

Time travel, that would mean a bit of Einstein's relativity I guess.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 12:49:44 PM
Just go to Google Books and search "porous plate sublimator" and all sorts hits come up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=porous+plate+sublimator&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=porous+plate+sublimator&tbm=bks&start=0
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:51:02 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:51:58 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?

Where's the 1995 date?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 12:54:09 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.

Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:54:32 PM
...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007
Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?

Where's the 1995 date?
That would be the publication date.

Are you really that useless at looking things up?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 12:55:58 PM
Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.
There is a veritable pile of evidence that all of these missions are real.

You, OTOH, have no evidence at all for any of your wild, fanciful claims. None, Nada. Zero. Zilch. SFA.

Too bad you don't have proof.
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.
Yes. You said. The tests you demand have been done countless times. You are not a special snowflake that gets to demand that said tests be repeated just for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 12:58:37 PM
That would be the publication date.

40 - Love

Quote
Are you really that useless at looking things up?

game, set and match.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:00:02 PM
Too bad you don't have proof.

Shifting the burden of proof.  Further, there is no obligation to disprove speculation.

Quote
By the way, I have a way you can PROVE it. On Earth. Today.

Asked and answered.  You have had a way for many years to prove your claims practically.  You have not done so, nor explained why you have not.  Instead you have simply launched upon a crusade against an entire field of engineering, on no more rational a basis than your ignorance and disbelief.  Further, you have been repeatedly provided with evidence of the trials you say were never done.  Your resistance to them does not obligate NASA or anyone else to orchestrate a new one for your personal benefit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:01:39 PM
That would be the publication date.

I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:04:32 PM
Did you notice that particular post (reply 27 on page 2)? The link proves the photo you claim recent responsibility for, was actually on the internet back on 17 June 1997, at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals.

I saw it and I believe you. I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later.
Well, that looks to me rather at odds with your earlier:

The photograph of the ice sublimator that is presented is able to be presented because of me. I'm confident, it was my steady agitation that caused it to finally appear on the Internet.
[bolded for emphases]
Even if you go back to the ALSJ intro page (https://web.archive.org/web/19970617035116/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/) as it was almost 20 years ago, it takes a grand total of three clicks, one on the Apollo lunar surface journal logo image, another on 'Introductory Material' and, lastly,'Portable Life Support System (PLSS)', to get back to the page I linked to. That's not buried, Neil Baker. That's not even mildly dusted.
You should listen to your room-mate.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:05:36 PM
That would be the publication date.

I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.
I don't see how he could conflate the two books. Different titles, different authors, different publication dates and different ISBNs.

Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.



It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.

It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into any of their facilities. You said you would be fine with 3 people with reputations you could trust being the witnesses. From your post here, it sounds like you've changed your mind. Do you really think you would ever get the required security clearance? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:09:07 PM
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.

Look at his level of attention here and elsewhere he has debated.  I believe he simply doesn't read any of the posts here except to latch onto some tidbit he can use to prolong the debate and increase the attention paid to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf

Didn't hold employment for very long at the same organization.  Is this  because of work performance, work relationship or job hopping for better pay?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 01:13:34 PM
And I said, I have no burden to produce any in order to question your claim.  You seem to be arguing that we are on equal footing, or in some sort of standoff or stalemate.  Not true, as regards your claim.  You have the burden to prove it.  If you say you cannot, it fails forthwith.

Yes you do. You claim there's a manned ISS and spacewalks and moonwalks were made.
I say PROVE it.


Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com


As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.


Oh bull!
So now you are calling people like Thierry Legault liars and frauds? As well as people that I personally know? You are incorrect and woefully ignorant.

By the way, I am still waiting for your detailed refutation from here:

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31079#msg31079

You state that it can't work. Prove it.


[thread drift]
I guess I was thinking of not staring into the sun through a telescope.  Cameras if they have proper settings obviously can take pictures as you have linked.

No, they cannot.
In whitelight the Sun is simply too bright and the infra-red energy thats focused through the lens will burn the sensor or shutter curtains. Never, ever point an unfiltered camera at the Sun
http://www.camerarepair.org/2012/05/solar-eclipse-burned-camera/

The hydrogen-alpha images are taking with a highly specialised telescope that employs a resonant cavity filter (a Fabry-Perot etalon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2%80%93P%C3%A9rot_interferometer)) to only allow a very precisely tuned wavelength of light through (656 Angstroms). This light is emitted when a hydrogen electron falls from the third to it's second lowest energy level. Viewing at this frequency allows us to see into a deeper layer of the Sun's atmosphere called the chromosphere.

[/thread drift]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 01:14:01 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:16:39 PM
It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
Chamber B

Vacuum: 1x10-6 torr

Pumping capacity: 1 x 107 liters/sec condensables and 2 x 105 liters/sec noncondensables at 1 x 10-6 torr pressure; Note: Usual chamber inleakage less then 3 x 105 liters/sec of air at 1 x 10-6 torr pressure

Why can't you find this publicly available basic data yourself?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:19:50 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.

Thanks Jay. I didn't know that but makes sense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
If he got close it might be a Red alert.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Mag40 on August 27, 2015, 01:23:06 PM
Unless we are proposing to add poor reading comprehension to his repertoire of bumbling around the webernets.

Look at his level of attention here and elsewhere he has debated.  I believe he simply doesn't read any of the posts here except to latch onto some tidbit he can use to prolong the debate and increase the attention paid to him.

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 01:25:54 PM

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
In the true tradition of the circular firing squad, all spaceflight is fake, therefore the samples are fake and since the samples are fake all spaceflight is fake.

Or some such nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:26:03 PM

This is just a Heiwa-clone thread. I am baffled at the behaviour of these people, it happens so often one could be mistaken for thinking it was the same person. Did I miss his explanation for how we obtained the lunar samples?
By a convoluted route that the Apollo's PLSS could/did not work, because he doesn't understand how it works.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 01:31:14 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.
If he got close it might be a Red alert.

Well Neil, maybe it's time to recruit some big guns to help you out. I'm sure Jarrah White would be more then willing to step up to the plate for you and straighten everybody out over here. I suggest you try contacting him and see if he'd be willing to convince NASA about the importance of this test.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 01:33:39 PM

Well Neil, maybe it's time to recruit some big guns to help you out. I'm sure Jarrah White would be more then willing to step up to the plate for you and straighten everybody out over here. I suggest you try contacting him and see if he'd be willing to convince NASA about the importance of this test.
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:42:43 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:45:29 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg) though.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:47:28 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.

For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 27, 2015, 01:49:16 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
Looked a bit bigger than 2 meters though.

For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.
That's, really, just really  cool. ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
For what it's worth, I might actually be the person responsible for getting them to test that myth.  I submitted the idea to them along with some calculations showing that it was feasibly possible.  About a year later it made it into the show.

Kudos. I don't know what to give you more kudos for, this, or sitting through BlunderWunder's radiation videos.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
A couple years after the original airing of that episode, the Mythbusters did a special in which they revisited some of their prior myths.  Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 01:59:00 PM
Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.

You're showing off now :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:05:39 PM
A couple years after the original airing of that episode, the Mythbusters did a special in which they revisited some of their prior myths.  Adam said that the lead balloon episode was his all-time favorite.

Well, I got a bone to pick with you about that episode. My oldest daughter and I were watching it and I told her that it wouldn't work. Of course, we know the results and my daughter hasn't let me forget it. She can be quite merciless sometimes. Grrr!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:07:45 PM
I predict that will rise like a 2m lead balloon.

The Mythbusters got that to happen.
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.
E2a Congratulations on suggesting it in the first place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 27, 2015, 02:13:24 PM
Neil, let me ask you a two-part hypothetical question. Let us say, for some reason, NASA decided to arrange a special demonstration - just for you and some other observers - just like you request to show off the spacesuit working in a vacuum chamber.

Would this actually convince you?

If so, WHY would it actually convince you? You've posited some insanely complicated acts of deceit on behalf of NASA. According to you, they've somehow gotten an inflatable object into orbit around the planet at a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour.
Do you have the experience and knowledge to positively identify an in-use vacuum chamber? Could you tell if it was being faked?
Magicians manage to convince live audiences of amazing feats of illusion. David Copperfield arranged an illusion that tricked his audience into thinking he'd made the Statue of Liberty vanish. Do you really think they couldn't manage something as simple as a fake vacuum chamber?

So again, why would this specific demonstration convince you? It is no less "fakeable" than all the other evidence that is available.

It would have to be fakeable to more than just me. I expect at least two other independent witnesses on hand. I also expect to be allowed to hook up our own pirani and hot cathode ionization gauges. I'm confident that my level of experience with vacuum systems is sufficient. Personally, I doubt they'll be able to get anywhere near orbital vacuum of ~1e-6 Torr if the sublimator works as they allege. But maybe they have some huge vacuum pumps to compensate for the sublimator sublimating.
So...just to be clear. You claim is that almost the entire space programs of multiple countries are a hoax. The most elaborate hoax ever in human history. Which has successfully fooled millions of people, including thousands of direct observers. Which has super-secret special effects technology decades ahead of their time and can spend millions of dollars on developing and launching completely non-functional space station duplicates.

But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 02:20:22 PM
But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?

Or just make them disappear?

Remember, NASA can do ANYTHING, except land men on the Moon and return them safely. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:22:16 PM

But they couldn't manage to fool three people in an indoor demonstration?

This has been pointed out numerous times to him over at the Michio Kaku video he frequents. Plus I've told him just as many times there's no way NASA would ever start jumping through hoops to satisfy one person since it would lead to all kinds of demands by the ignorant to demo what they can't figure out. His continued persistence is totally irrational. Especially after viewing his resume that shows he has the education to know there's no reason at all that the PLSS couldn't work as shown.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 02:23:53 PM
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.

They made it out of a thin lead foil.  Adam devised a pretty neat way of arranging the sheets in such a way that it could be constructed with everything laid out flat on the floor.  When it was inflated, the sheets unfolded in just the right way to make nice balloon.  The biggest problem they had was that the foil was so soft that it would easily tear.  They had to keep patching it while it was inflating.  Nonetheless, it worked.

I suggested the use of lead foil, but my idea was to construct it like a dirigible with a lightweight wire frame.  The calculations showed that it definitely would have enough buoyancy to work.  In fact, the Mythbusters design has so buoyant that they got it to rise used a mixing of helium and air.  My calculations were based on pure helium.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 27, 2015, 02:30:30 PM
Neil.

Just buy or rent the unit from the manufacturer and demonstrate how it doesnt work.

Because your bs ranting is about as gratifying as a 1khz tone at 150dB. Time is money.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 02:30:47 PM
The lead balloon was nothing short of amazing. Loved that episode. Although it (and others) did contribute to the frivolous use of an element we are slowly but surely depleting. As Dara OBriain put it in his latest tour, no other species has punched a hole in the periodic table by taking an entire element and hoofing it off into space!

But to summarise this dscussion, everything about anything about space is fake, photos that were on the internet and published elsewhere even before 2010 were only released because he agitated for them in 2010, and the only way to prove it all is true is for NASA to do something no organisation in its right mind would do and let a man with a dubious police record into their facilities and fiddle around with their equipment. Right....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 27, 2015, 02:40:13 PM
Is it my imagination, or do an increasing number of HBs believe that all manned (and sometimes even all unmanned) space flights are fake?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:42:13 PM
I actually meant a 2 m thick balloon,if that is what they did.

They made it out of a thin lead foil.  Adam devised a pretty neat way of arranging the sheets in such a way that it could be constructed with everything laid out flat on the floor.  When it was inflated, the sheets unfolded in just the right way to make nice balloon.  The biggest problem they had was that the foil was so soft that it would easily tear.  They had to keep patching it while it was inflating.  Nonetheless, it worked.

I suggested the use of lead foil, but my idea was to construct it like a dirigible with a lightweight wire frame.  The calculations showed that it definitely would have enough buoyancy to work.  In fact, the Mythbusters design has so buoyant that they got it to rise used a mixing of helium and air.  My calculations were based on pure helium.
I was aiming that comment to the blunder down under.   With his "complete " understanding of radiation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 02:42:59 PM


But to summarise this dscussion, everything about anything about space is fake, photos that were on the internet and published elsewhere even before 2010 were only released because he agitated for them in 2010, and the only way to prove it all is true is for NASA to do something no organisation in its right mind would do and let a man with a dubious police record into their facilities and fiddle around with their equipment. Right....

The fact that he can't seem to recognize how unreasonable his demand is really begs the question of just how mentally stable is he? For someone to even consider making a bomb threat back in 2010 raises all kinds of concerns about what he could possibly do in the future when all his efforts to uncover his version of the truth appear to Neil to be plots to stonewall him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 02:53:00 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists.   Curious indeed.
EDIT: Change engineering degree to match his resume.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 03:20:13 PM
Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf
Given that his materials engineering degree is valid, it seems odd that he does not understand the sublimation chacterists of the Apollo PLSS. With all the "Engineering" jobs held, it seems to me that he should be able to understand the chacterists.   Curious indeed.
EDIT: Change engineering degree to match his resume.

I'm not sure if you seen his bid for the Governor of California but his plan for everybody is to live on floating plastic Islands around the equator. When asked about waves, his response:

 "Waves are a wind driven phenomenon. If we block the wind or cover most of the surface of the ocean where we live with islands to prevent exposure to wind, no waves will be generated."

He response trivializes something like that as if it's a simple solution yet he can't get his head around something like this? Kind of disturbing actually.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 03:27:20 PM
Because your bs ranting is about as gratifying as a 1khz tone at 150dB. Time is money.

I have a CD that plays that tone for 10 hours continuously, as it is far more interesting and soothing than watching a Blunder video.

'Obviously...'
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
Hello, Neil.  Welcome to the board, belatedly.

My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else ...

No.  You speak for yourself, but not for me and others.  Please understand, this is a very common conspiracist tactic, to insinuate that we are all helpless to understand the record in detail, but it will gain you no traction here.

I work in this field, including for and with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts.  I've worked in the backrooms at Mission Control, in the processing and launch facilities at the Cape and KSC, and other NASA facilities.  I've personally performed integration tests aboard the Shuttle with a spacecraft I helped build, and operated that vehicle after it was deployed by the Shuttle.  (By the way, we also tracked our own vehicle with our own S-band antenna at our own facility.)  In short, I have the relevant education and experience to evaluate much of the record for myself. 

...I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Well, you could take the time to learn something about the subject, ask meaningful questions, listen to the answers, and take more time to really dig into the historical, management, technical, and scientific record.  But that will take some effort, and a willingness to admit there's more to it than you have said.  Are you game?

...Could be fake... Could be lies. Launches?  ...Did they really...? Do they really...? Did they really...? ...I don't know... I don't know...

Waving your hands and saying that something "could be" is meaningless; it's simply an appeal to personal doubt.  In order to support your claims, you need to show why things had to be faked, how it was faked, and show some evidence of the actual massive effort required to fake it all.  You also need to explain how all of this has fooled the scientific and engineering communities worldwide for lo these many years. 

But you have done none of that, and don't seem to understand the scale or type of information that is available, let alone the information itself.  That leaves you with your original appeal to ignorance.  OK, fine, you don't know, but that's your choice; there's a cornucopia of really good material to review and people willing to help you, should you decided to learn something.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators... the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators...

It is clever.  It was exotic half a century ago when it was first developed.  It's merely standard practice now.

Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

That's funny.  I was able to find all that stuff, except video (which I didn't bother looking for, but other people have dug up), with very little effort.  I didn't even need to go to a technical library or anything.

...Absurdly, there were no photographs.

Wrong.

Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested.

Largely irrelevant, but wrong.

Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books.

Wrong.

Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand [sic] of United Technologies would only release very elementary information.

Why is this absurd?  Should they provide detailed information on their designs to every random layman who attempts to pester them over a general email or phone?  What if the design information is proprietary, or export controlled - which are both very common in the industry?  Are you a credible potential customer, or just another random crank accosting a high-technology organization?

Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead.

Why is this absurd?  You can look up such items yourself online, or you could actually go to a technical library. What exactly do you mean by "stonewalled"?  Who exactly did you talk to?  What was their job?  Is doing your homework for you in-scope for them, or did you provide a charge number?

Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.

I went to Rice.  Why do you think the ME department currently has any significant involvement with PLSS subsystems?  Amusingly enough, Rice did work on sublimator research back during Apollo, and I found a nice long report from the '60s with diagrams and pictures and thermodynamics and everything with a very simple NTRS search.  You said there was no such thing; why did you say that?

And when you say "refused to comment", what exactly do you mean?  You are not the first hoax believer who says, "I talked to [name of large institution] and they wouldn't answer me!"  Given that you are patently unfamiliar with the topic, I do not accept your characterizations ("absurd", "stonewalled", "refused to talk") without explicit justification.  Loaded language may impress other ignorant laymen sympathetic to conspiracy "theories", but here it is readily seen as a flimsy and transparent bid to bypass critical examination of your claims.

Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

1. This may be the funniest entry of all.  You tried to ask Congressmen (well, some first-line staffers) about an obscure technical topic?  How many of them do you think could even define sublimation?

2. You might be a resident of one state or another for voting purposes, but not both.  Therefore, they are not all "your representatives".  One would think, since you have implied by your list that you are some sort of diligent researcher, that you would have established this by now.

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused.

There is no lack of information regarding sublimators used in space.  You simply were incapable of finding it or understanding it.  Other people have found it easily.  Nor is the amount of information available over the Internet out of line with what one expects to find on such topics, at least to someone who understands the subject.  Therefore, your assertion of an "anomaly" fails due to subversion of support.

NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses,...

You are just the latest in a long line of conspiracists who wave around some MacGuffin they think they've uncovered and demand that NASA "prove" this or that.  Invariably - and this includes you - such persons do not understand the systems, are unfamiliar with the record, and can provide no technical justification or cost-benefit analysis to back up their demands. 

Moreover, you cannot account for the routine use of such systems over the past half-century, other than to wave your arms about how somehow - you can't explain how - it's all a big fake, and nobody really knows anything.  Nope. Sorry.  I've worked with astronauts who have done EVAs, including working on the Hubble telescope you also suggested was faked.  You simply don't know what you're talking about, and you don't get taxpayer funds to satisfy your ignorance.

retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

1. Have either General Taguba or Admiral Fallon agreed to this exercise? Are they, in fact, even aware of your existence?  (Restraining orders don't count.)

2. Do either of them have them have any experience in thermodynamics, PLSS technology, or vacuum systems?  (Clearly, you don't.)  If not, why would they be of any use in such a test?

3. You are manifestly not independent, therefore you are excused from the test.  Thank you for your interest.

Please demand NASA accountability...

That's part of my job as a NASA contractor, just as it is NASA's, and my company's, job to demand accountability from me.  Please do not presume to lecture us about "accountability", when you have no idea at all what you're talking about.

That last part, though, is your choice.  Would you rather believe in a hoax at all costs, or would you like to actually learn something?  If the latter, you have a pretty good free resource in the regulars on this board.  It's up to you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works.

The answer to that is "no".  The word salad you posted in reply 84 merely confirms this.

[Edited to add: no one with the resume linked by mako88b has any business posting such nonsense.  If that is actually the resume of the poster here, I can only offer my sympathy, because something - I won't speculate what - has clearly gone seriously awry.]

Please don't try to bluff here; it won't work.  For example, I was a graduate student and researcher in a vacuum materials science laboratory.  I've also participated in spacecraft thermal/vacuum testing in Chamber B.  Feel free to Google that up too.

As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

Nope.  You didnt even know the information existed until everybody else served it up for you.

I'll ask again: do you want to stubbornly cling to your beliefs, or do you actually want to learn something?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 03:47:43 PM
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.

Thank you. I was confused. I found the book and I have scanned the Table of Contents and I don't see the part about a spacesuit ice sublimator or anything about sublimation in general. I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not? I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 27, 2015, 03:49:27 PM
Is it my imagination, or do an increasing number of HBs believe that all manned (and sometimes even all unmanned) space flights are fake?

I think it's a natural progression. Once you start with the premise "Everything everyone tells me is a lie (except for crackpots, scammers and the generally ignorant, who are entirely to be trusted without the slightest proof)," why should Apollo be singled out?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 03:51:22 PM
I don't really want to scan the whole book.

Irrelevant.  It was your assertion that none of the expected texts mentions porous plate sublimators.  If you haven't already read them, your assertion is dismissed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 27, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

First of all, you are the one putting forward the proposition. You are in no way an "independent" witness. It would be like a prosecutor also sitting on the jury, claiming to be able to impartially judge his claims when outside the jury box.

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 03:56:33 PM
I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not?

You don't want to find the information. Excuse me, but you demand high standards of others and the good people here have delivered information you claim does not exist, then you tell us you don't want to do the research yourself. To add insult to injury, you changed horses in the face of evidence provided, making some flimsy excuse that it only appeared after you raised concerns.

Quote
I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.

It takes more than internet searching to have the body of knowledge demonstrated by the individuals at this board. We all bring something to the party, and it's based on a deep understanding of our professional fields and the research skills we possess. You on the other hand assume you have achieved erudition by Google, and now freely admit that you cannot be bothered to carry out your own research. This might explain why you failed in the quest to find information about the PLSS in the first instance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 03:58:46 PM

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?

They're a specific type of military person. Google their names, you'll see why he wants them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 03:59:19 PM
It was a few months ago, I believe, when someone pointed out that NASA would likely never allow someone arrested for bomb threats into near any of their facilities.

As capital, critical assets, NASA vacuum test chambers have armed guards.  Further, Baker's experience with law enforcement might provide the world with a different reason why NASA ignores him.

So Neil. Now that you know there's know way in hell you will ever knowingly be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility, how does this affect you in your pursuit of your version of the truth?

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 04:00:58 PM
Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet.

No. That photograph has been available on the internet since 2005...

http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/apollo_rebreathers.htm

(Note the last update on that webpage, Sept 14, 2005).

Scroll down and you'll see the photo about 9 or 10 photos down

Additionally, this cutaway example of a PLSS...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/A7L_plss.jpg)

... has been on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum since 1974 when it was transferred there from NASA's Johnson Space Flight Centre. The sublimator is right there between the Oxygen Purge System and the horizontal electrical tagboard with the  "Life Support System" label on it

I can only conclude that you have been intentionally blind and ignorant... which does not surprise me in the least given your track record of wilful ignorance.




Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:05:47 PM

Second, you seem to have great faith in military people. If these two men said "Yep, sublimators work as advertised," would you accept that, or believe that they had been compromised due to their association with the government? If you would believe them if they disagreed with you, why are these men different than the thousands who worked on the space program?

They're a specific type of military person. Google their names, you'll see why he wants them.
The old whistle blowers!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:16:19 PM
...

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing?  Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:16:37 PM
I think Baker legitimately believed the ISBN was meant to refer to the book found at the link.  It does not; they are two separate books.

Thank you. I was confused. I found the book and I have scanned the Table of Contents and I don't see the part about a spacesuit ice sublimator or anything about sublimation in general. I don't really want to scan the whole book. Is it there or not? I concede, you're much better at Internet searching than I am.
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 04:21:22 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:23:22 PM
...

You never did answer me about if your actions that led to your arrest in 2010 were justifiable?
BaHaHa you want a criminal to admit wrong doing?  Didn't you realize that everyone in prison is innocent

Yes, your right. Very silly of me. However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:25:32 PM
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)

Then after finding a few references of importance, going back to the library and digging out the cited work from the original references, and trawling your way through these - probably to find a few nuggets worth using. My thesis cited in excess of 300 papers, and I probably researched 5 times this number to find the supporting information I needed. Not to mention the books I had to read.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:27:06 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 04:29:36 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:29:56 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

You will never be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility because of your criminal actions. How much more do you want to ruin your life for something that's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:32:27 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:38:50 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?
Why yes! Quite a few have handed you exactly that. What is your problem? You got pictures, videos, technical documentation and so forth. Why are you pretending that you did not when it is plain in this very thread that you bloody well did?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.
No. The good news is that it has been dne countless times already. The further good news is that this has been presented to you and all and sundry in this very thread.

Here is the bad news. Despite the data being presented to you, you pretend it has not. This leaves you without a leg to stand on, as even the most Luddite of thinkers can see that ALL of your bovine questions have been copiously answered.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 04:39:40 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Why are published accounts of the tests and photos of the tests not evidence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:40:46 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Anybody?

The good news is that we're all a simple NASA demonstration away from the long coveted TRUTH! And yet, strangely, you all want to evade the Scientific Method and rely on questionable evidence.

You will never be allowed near a NASA vacuum test facility because of your criminal actions. How much more do you want to ruin your life for something that's never going to happen?

I guess the next inevitable question Neil is what part of your brain keeps you from comprehending and accepting that it's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:41:00 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:42:00 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Here's a video showing the test facilities and how it almost went wrong.



Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:42:19 PM
I'm still looking for the evidence that NASA tested a spacesuit with sublimator in a vacuum chamber.

Why are published accounts of the tests and photos of the tests not evidence?
Because he is a "special" snowflake, and a custom demo must be arranged for him and him alone according to whatever impossible criteria he may choose to attempt to impose.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:43:01 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.

Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:44:17 PM
I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.

Why do you think this would not disqualify you from visiting a secure NASA facility?

Quote
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

Your arguments regarding the porous plate sublimator presume the Internet to be a reliable reflection of the general state of information, including even by the absence of something on it.  Please reconcile this.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:46:43 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out.

No, the world is not required to accept your personal opinion of what scientific methodology consists of.  You may not beg the question that your demands are objectively reasonable.

Quote
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Your personal standard of validation is irrelevant.  Not only is there already evidence of the test you say was not recorded, but the technical claims regarding the operation of porous plate sublimators have already been validated to everyone's satisfaction but yours.  You may not beg the question that your standard of proof is the only reasonable one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:48:28 PM
Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.

I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd. Nobody would post that video.
But there you go.
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits. It could have been the preApollo test that finally convinced them they had to fake it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 04:51:43 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Not a cheap shot at all. By your own admission you could not be bothered to find basic information from a link, so I would agree that you cannot manage to carry out basic research. Why should you demand one standard from others, but fail to show the high standards yourself?

You have managed to hoist yourself by you own petard once it was shown that the information about the PLSS and its operation exists. You changed horses and have no jumped back onto your original horse.

Now, please explain why you think an ice sublimator cannot function in a vacuum. I would like an answer to this question please.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:53:32 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.
How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

None of this lends any credibility to my position in any way. What does lend credibility to is my position Re: facts and evidence.

Your position seems entirely devoid of such regardless of whatever prior history you may have had. I really couldn't care less about any of that, except as it pertains to your claims here and now on this site.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:54:25 PM
Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:54:45 PM
I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Insults are not an argument.

Quote
As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

We have discovered a serious problem with your "As far as I can tell" strategy, namely that you admit you aren't as good a researcher as your critics are, that you are willing to lie regarding what has been published and when, and that you demonstrate your search not to have been even remotely exhaustive.

Talk about the LM egress tests.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 04:56:07 PM
Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.
Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.
Nope. It is not a cheap shot. You failed to find data that has been on-line for decades. You fail at research.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 04:57:12 PM
However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.

Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 04:58:59 PM

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.


I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.

The absurdity of your challenge has been discussed at length.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

Quote
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.

I don't need the test you propose in order to know that they work.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

Quote
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.

And that should tell you something.  If you're the only one who seems to want something, you shouldn't presume it to be something that's objectively necessary.  Further, you have ignored the production of everything else you said didn't exist.  So your critics can be excused for not taking your demand at face value.  You offer them no assurance this is really what would convince you.  You instead convey the impression that no amount or kind of evidence would change your mind.

Quote
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?

You offer no truth.  By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation.  Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:00:29 PM
Cheap shot and a cop out.

No, you have already demonstrated unwillingness to do basic research. The 'cheap shot and a cop out' here is you handwaving away massive piles of evidence as 'probably' faked and insisting on one piece of proof you know damn well you will never get. Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest if you're supposed to be out for the truth?
 
Quote
The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

What you consider validation and what the rest of the world considers validation are two entirely different things. Another thing about real validation is that it seldom involves videos. To repeat my question from earlier, exactly what do you expect to see in a video of a spacesuit with sublimator beng tested in a vacuum chamber that would actually qualify as validation? How would you verify that the sublimator was in fact working based on a video?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 05:02:01 PM
I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Of course you were.

Quote
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

I know it had no sublimator. I wanted to drag you back into the real nuts and bolts of this rather than allow your continued avoidance and gish gallop, and the fact that you have ignored everyone of my posts. I had to try a few different flies to get your attention. I'm a keen fisherman you see, and not all fish go for the same fly. You went for the YouTube link, a nice popular source of CTs, video and audio so not much need to find textual information. I found the correct fly, you could say. Fly fishermen like me are quite canny.

Now, why does a sublimator not work in a vacuum? What physics prevents the sublimation of the ice when there is no atmosphere? I would like you to show me evidence using the standard phase diagram for water. There's a nice bit of research for you to carry out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:05:29 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:06:41 PM

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.


I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.
"derelict and complicit." in what exactly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:08:01 PM
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.

It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:08:12 PM
So why exactly does that one single standard of proof override objective investigation of every other bit of evidence? If you REALLY want the truth, why are you so insistent about avoiding the (actually not that) difficult hunt for it in favour of sitting back and demanding something be handed to you on a plate?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:08:44 PM
You offer no truth.  By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation.  Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.

I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 27, 2015, 05:09:28 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:10:06 PM
It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it does pain me in the least.

Hah!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:10:36 PM
And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.

No, you are not an unsung hero.  You don't get to accuse people of being derelict when your own assertions are predicated on claims to having done exhaustive research it's clear you never did and are probably unqualified to do.  You don't get to accuse people of being "complicit" simply because they demand accountability from you, the accuser.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 05:12:47 PM
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

Why do you continue to ignore the images of Schweikart testing the PLSS in the vacuum chamber that I showed you earlier? I did the basic research for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:13:26 PM
I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
Off topic. Your crackpottery on other notions is irrelevant to Apollo. Although equally bovine.

I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
That is your failing, and yours alone. Do not attempt to project your lack upon others.

Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
Validate in full with evidence aplenty. Your lack of comprehension is your problem.

And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
Off topic. Please desist from this uber Gish Gallop.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.
Yet more off topic babble.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.
And such tests have been performed again and again and again. Why are those test invalid, yet you special snowflake test is somehow more valid than any other?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:15:42 PM
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.

Then you don't get to style a challenge to your claim as a rejection of or disinterest in the truth.

Quote
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.

No.  There is no "anomaly" except that which you have manufactured in your mind, explained only with speculation, and supported only by demanding that people validate your ignorance and laziness.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:15:49 PM

I don't have the truth to offer.
You have nothing to offer.

I don't know the truth.
You know nothing, Neil Baker.

I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.
Which so-called "anomaly" has been copiously addressed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 27, 2015, 05:16:57 PM

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?

That's the beauty of the spacesuits and ice sublimators. I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF. It's a great opportunity. NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 27, 2015, 05:19:19 PM
For the last time, Neil, it HAS been investigated on Earth. The lack of video is irrelevant to the fact that the tests occurred.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 27, 2015, 05:19:23 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Arrogant nonsense - everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, you are too frightened to admit the truth blah blah blah.

Maybe you should check out the beam in your own eye and examine your own motives in the context of your little rant there.

Shock news: I am not defending Apollo missions out of fear. I am not defending Apollo out of blind belief or defence of a government that is nothing to do with me. I am not desperately clinging on to some thin raft of world constructs that will tumble like a house of cards if some lone jumped up internet warrior with a vastly over-inflated sense of their own importance inversely proportional to their ability to read a book and understand its contents says I'm wrong.

I defend Apollo to stop a great achievement being denigrated by morons and idiots. I defend it because I know it is a genuine historical event, and I know it because I have put the hours in doing my own research and validating evidence, and because I can see that every piece of information about the programme presents a coherent and consistent narrative supported by scientific fact.

What have you done apart from bluster and sneer?

Where is your empirically proven scientifically validated evidence that a sublimator will not cool a space suit?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 05:22:17 PM

Well, I guess you best get used to that feeling because there's no way it's going to happen. You can't see for one second the can of worms this would open if NASA did the test? Everybody with some type of ax to grind will demand similar demos as proof. You can't comprehend that at all?

That's the beauty of the spacesuits and ice sublimators. I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF. It's a great opportunity. NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.
It has already been done multiple times. That opportunity, as you term it is a de riguer component of space suit testing. Somehow, you seem surprised that an invitation was not extended to you, an internet nobody, to attend and witness such tests. Congratulations on your own overblown sense of your own importance, but the reality is that you are an internet crank with a terrorist record. Personally, I wouldn't let you within sight of a simple pencil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 05:23:07 PM
I don't have the truth to offer.
I don't know the truth.
I do know the anomaly and fortunately its examination provides the way to the truth.

The more I read, the more I think that you are Donald Rumsfled in disguise with your talk of what you know and what you don't know, but if we do know we can find out the things we don't know.

Bottom line is you are a lazy researcher, and inadvertently I have managed to find out (with Jay's input) that you know nothing of the space suit testing during Apollo. You haven't even followed up Jay's lead to show yet another one your assertions is wrong. All you had to do was type in a few words that Jay provided. This is dishonest on your part, and I find this unacceptable when you demand high standards of others, but are not prepared to correct your own mistakes and admit when your assertions are incorrect.

All you offer is speculation until you are found wrong by the knowledge base that exists here. When you are proven wrong you offer disdain about how you expected more from such educated people in order to hide your abject failures. You demand validation to appease your lack of knowledge and inability to carry out basic research, you accuse others of not showing the same standards you insist upon. Why should anyone take you seriously when you cannot even provide a simple answer to you main objection, namely that the PLSS sublimator would not work in a vacuum, despite being shown engineering books to the contrary?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:23:12 PM
It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.

Hah!

Explain.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 27, 2015, 05:25:44 PM
I do know the anomaly ...

What anomaly?  That you weren't a witness to the original vacuum chamber tests?  How is that an anomaly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 27, 2015, 05:26:25 PM
I've been reading about you, Neil Baker, and it appears from newspaper articles and other sources, that you have serious issues with the real world. Your actions aren't those one would expect from a learned individual. You have scientific background, but don't use it at all. You can't seem to grasp the concept that thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists routinely USE the very technology you claim don't work. Why is it that YOU can see though the "veil of lies" and the other scientists and engineers can't?

Engineers have a very goal-oriented way of doing things. Ask an engineer to design a piece of hardware which does a specific thing, using known scientific principles, he goes right along and does it. If it wasn't possible - or HE didn't think it was possible - he'd tell you why and how it did not work. Then he'd tell you to either hire a smarter engineer, wait for himself to catch up, or suggest an alternative which would work.

That is the way of ice sublimation. It is a very simple concept, well described in literature for many years, the energy needed to sublimate water can be looked up in chemistry textbooks. The engineering challenge wasn't that great - heat exchangers and water flow had been mastered many years ago. Even the first steam engines had them.

The only anomaly is your inability to grasp that there are people much smarter than you who do the work and has done the education. It spills over into your other conspiracist claims.


EDITED TO ADD: Please describe with your own words WHAT sublimation is. Can you do that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:29:50 PM
I can't think of another anomaly that can be investigated on Earth to the level of PROOF.

That doesn't mean it's not just your McGuffin.

Quote
It's a great opportunity.

Asked and answered.  You are the only one who is demanding such a test.  You may not beg the question that your demands are reasonable, nor that others' lack of interest in or endorsement of your claims constitutes "derelict[ion] and complicit[y]" on their part.

Further, you have been asked several times why you didn't test your claim in the more straightforward way suggested.  Instead you seem to demand that NASA do your homework for you, give special deference to you, and that their reasonable reluctance to engage a violent felon in a fool's errand can only be explained by their fear of discovery.

Quote
NASA slipped up. Accountability is due.

No.  Speculation on your part does not oblige others to extraordinary production.  Your accusations, however, do oblige you to be accountable for them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 05:34:32 PM
It's a simple thing.   A validation.

Put yourself in the position of any space-flight organisation.

Why would they want to validate the veracity of spacesuits in a  vacuum chamber test when they have been routinely used in space for over 50 years and thousands of hours in space-walks and zero atmosphere environments?

Why would they want to even bother wasting their time and money dealing with some crackpot conspiracy theorist like you? What do they have to gain from running a test for a tiny minority of the world's loons when the vast majority of people know that the truth is plain and right in front of of them?

It would be rather like asking the Ford Motor Company to demonstrate that a Crown Vic can be driven on a road when millions of them have been routinely driven on roads for over 20 years!
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 27, 2015, 05:46:59 PM
Baker's similarities to Heiwa are remarkable, aren't they?


Both ex-engineers.
Both gone completely off the rails.
Both incapable of controlling their obsessions to the point where they get themselves in real-world trouble.  (Bjorkman thrown out of conferences, Baker committed and jailed).
Both suffering from 9/11 obsessions.
Both suffering from crank magnetism.
Both incapable of acknowledging the very evidence that they maintain is unavailable even when said evidence is shoved right under their noses.
Both demonstrate superiority complexes.
Both maintain that the ISS is a fake.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 05:52:55 PM
Your actions aren't those one would expect from a learned individual.

Or even an especially stable one.  Baker begs that the explanation of the "stonewalling" against him -- accepting for the sake of argument that it has a factual basis -- is the result of others' dereliction of duty and complicity in some presumably nefarious scheme.  He ignores the possibility that it may instead be the expected and prudent reaction to his demonstrated irrational and violent behavior, and that this would be defensible even were his argument to have any factual merit.

Quote
You can't seem to grasp the concept that thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists routinely USE the very technology you claim don't work.

He has already said he suspects "the space program" to be a hoax.  From that it would follow that he simply believes all who claim to use the suspect technology are simply lying as part of the hoax.

Quote
heat exchangers and water flow had been mastered many years ago. Even the first steam engines had them.

Phase-change thermal controls were already very well established prior to the middle of the 20th century.  That the porous plate sublimator is an innovative implementation of the principle cannot be denied.  But to pose it as some device unheard of in physics or engineering is simply ludicrous.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 05:55:54 PM
...
I defend Apollo to stop a great achievement being denigrated by morons and idiots. I defend it because I know it is a genuine historical event, and I know it because I have put the hours in doing my own research and validating evidence, and because I can see that every piece of information about the programme presents a coherent and consistent narrative supported by scientific fact.

What have you done apart from bluster and sneer?

Where is your empirically proven scientifically validated evidence that a sublimator will not cool a space suit?
That is one of the best description of the services provided by the collective group that belong to this forum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 27, 2015, 06:14:08 PM
A rubber duck is better at searching the internet than you. You couldn't even find a reference that has been in the very same place on the internet since 1997, for pete's sake. To which one might add your bizarre expectation that ALL data must be on the internet else it does not exist. Whence you derive such a notion is anyone's guess, but derive it you have. This begs the question: How do you suppose any research occurred before the internet?
What do you mean, "Go to the library and thumb through index cards to find several references?" :)
Heaven forefend! Surely not a Dewey Decimal System? Surely you cannot expect one to interact with treeware? Surely you cannot expect one to open an actual "book"? (Do such things still exist? Did they ever exist?)

Admit it. The entire universe did not exist before there was an internet and therefore, anything which does not exist on the intertubes or webernets does not really exist at all.

Or so the various Crank McBullplops would have you believe.
Off topic, but one of the highlights of reading through these pages and learning a new word!!
It is not of my coining, more is the pity. Nevertheless, it is a term that is sufficiently descriptive that I like it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 06:35:01 PM
Neil, as I pointed out here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31310#msg31310) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31311#msg31311), and many others have repeatedly shown as well, your characterization of an "anomaly" is founded upon nothing more than your personal say-so.  You are manifestly unfamiliar with the record, you keep denying the existence of items showed to you, you keep trying to say that everyone else is as much in the dark as you, and you fountain out wild claims of coverups spanning half a century of international space operations with no basis whatsoever.  Yet you insist that a special demonstration be arranged for you on the basis of your ignorant and frankly irrational opinions.  You are just one of many hoax believers who attempt this silly and self-important charade. 

Not that you've answered, or even addressed, my previous questions, but - You accuse others here of being blind followers, but they've been busily digging up information and supplying context for you, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes to avoid having to reconsider your position.  You've assiduously avoided learning anything at all.  Why are you going to such lengths to remain clueless in the service of clinging to your "hoax" belief?  Is it a religious thing?  Are you just angry that the U.S. accomplished such a feat?   Or what? 

You don't have to wrap yourself in a shell of paranoia and ignorance.  There's a lot to learn and enjoy the understanding of.   It's up to you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 27, 2015, 06:51:11 PM
Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?
Neil, as I've tried to discuss earlier, even if, for some reason, I didn't think spacesuits worked, I wouldn't find the demo you described remotely convincing, and I'm baffled* as to why you would.

"In a single test, three independent viewers agreed this worked!" is NOT convincing proof. It is, in fact, a ridiculously minimal amount of evidence. It is laughable. Just imagine that for a moment in any other situation:
"Buy our product! THREE people say it works!"

Indeed, I would actually suspect that a claim of "three people claim it works" is almost certainly trying to conceal something. If it really worked, they wouldn't have to settle for three measly people.

On the other hand, I am rather convinced, in fact, by "thousands of experts and people who's jobs and lives depend on this all agree that it works". Especially when there's continued agreement across multiple countries and multiple generations. Especially when there's clear and direct evidence that could only be produced by having it work.

Further, as I alluded to earlier, if an organization was corrupt and carrying out a massive fraud, it would be utterly insane to request a demonstration from that organization to prove they were not a fraud. Of course they would fake it.

* OK, honestly, no, I'm not really baffled. I've got a pretty good idea why you've chosen this approach. But if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'd be baffled.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 27, 2015, 07:07:04 PM
Stonewalling - has he (I suspect not) even made it reasonable likely that he has actually contacted somebody who has had any connection to the technology he claims doesn't work? If he contacted somebody doing rocket nozzles about the sublimator-(non)issue, it's more than likely his request would be discarded. And even if he got somewhere near the right people, how was it worded? If he rambled on about it being fake and didn't work, he probably would not get a lengthy answer, if any. Or if he required access to papers about current models, would they not be protected by company policy against industrial espionage?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 27, 2015, 07:12:55 PM
"In a single test, three independent viewers agreed this worked!" is NOT convincing proof.

For reasons that need not be belabored, Baker himself will never be allowed to participate in a test that takes place at a NASA vacuum testing facility.  Since he sidesteps every single bit of contrary evidence with speculation, there is no reason to suppose that in the event his independent witnesses report a successful sublimator test he won't simply dismiss it speculatively as, "NASA must have gotten to them."

If Baker's intent were truly to test the sublimator, he could have purchased one himself and tested it under his own supervision, in the presence of as many witnesses as he wished.  And without the potential interference from NASA.  The fact that he hasn't done this, or even acknowledged the proposal, evinces a more likely explanation:  he simply wants to continued demanding something unreasonable so that he can continue to read all manner of malice into its absence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 27, 2015, 07:15:17 PM
Or if he required access to papers about current models, would they not be protected by company policy against industrial espionage?

Quite. I'm going to phone BAe tomorrow and ask for information about a military system. If I get stonewalled I'll assume that the system is fake. I cannot get my head around the idea that he thinks that the sublimator does not work, or needs some proof of it working. Phase change heat exchangers are quite common technology, and the PLSS sublimator uses the condition of vacuum to do what it says on the tin. He only needs to look at the phase diagram for water.

To me it's another one of these examples where the CT has seen the use of the word anomaly, and has invented something to concoct a theory, when in reality it is lazy research and poor understanding on his part. He's floated his idea thinking he has a clincher, and has fallen flat on his face and trying to find a way out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 07:44:20 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 27, 2015, 07:59:03 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.

A good find that pretty much dumps Baker's crank theories in the trash can where they belong.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 08:55:45 PM
Here's what I keep going back to.

I don't have a physics background of any kind.  I couldn't prove the sublimator used for Apollo worked, because the most experience I have with sublimation is Magic Disappearing Ice Cubes in my freezer.  All the tests in the world would be meaningless to me.

Therefore, NASA has no obligation to provide me, specifically, with tests.  The people they have to provide the data to are people like you guys who actually work in the field.  You'd know if things didn't work, because you would see them fail and know why.  Since all of you are satisfied--and since the evidence in fields I do know something about, like geology, politics, and history, holds up to scrutiny at the level at which I am capable of scrutinizing--I'm perfectly willing to accept that the doodads work.  Anyone trying to convince me that they don't also would have to explain to me how people who work in the field are convinced and, importantly, how the mission was faked.  Because until you can come up with a reasonable way of faking all the tons of evidence, well, you've failed your burden of proof.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 09:09:44 PM
...and since the evidence in fields I do know something about, like geology, politics, and history, holds up to scrutiny at the level at which I am capable of scrutinizing--...
Slight hijack, so if I asked you what a Andesite was you could quickly comeback with the correct answer?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 09:32:12 PM
I found a newspaper article concerning A11:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19690716&id=D4pjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EnoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5510,1683661&hl=en
In the article
Quote
The PLSS, however, has undergone more than 148 hours of simulated us in NASA and Hamilton-Standard test facilities.
Now I believe I read somewhere that the PLSS would only work in a vacuum.  If this were accurate then these tests had to be conducted in a vacuum chamber.  Now whether or not there is a video(s) of the tests only NASA and Hamilton-Standard would know.  But it seems pretty clear that it was tested before ever flown by Apollo crews.
Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.

There's a lot more detail out there that may require a little effort, or purchasing an article from a journal or conference proceedings.  And then, of course, there's more at NASA centers and technical libraries and, of course, the nitty-gritty of technical memorandums and progress reports and such that reside at the National Archives; they measure them by the foot.  (Anybody live near Fort Worth?)

In any case, though, you really don't need to leave your keyboard to find plenty of detail about design and performance for the sublimator, or about any other piece of Apollo technology.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 09:38:36 PM
Of course it was, and there are reports discussing such testing that can be found on the Web without any real effort.

There's a lot more detail out there that may require a little effort, or purchasing an article from a journal or conference proceedings.  And then, of course, there's more at NASA centers and technical libraries and, of course, the nitty-gritty of technical memorandums and progress reports and such that reside at the National Archives; they measure them by the foot.  (Anybody live near Fort Worth?)

In any case, though, you really don't need to leave your keyboard to find plenty of detail about design and performance for the sublimator, or about any other piece of Apollo technology.
I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.
Not only has testing been done, but many hours of usage during the last 45 years. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 27, 2015, 10:44:01 PM
I'm curious, please list all/any of your qualifications to judge how sublimation PLSS work

I thought he asked if I was qualified to understand how a vacuum system works. As far as how a PLSS works, I've probably read most of the same propaganda as you.

Not the right question.

You -- like practically every other hoaxie -- want to characterize the sublimator as a black box that we only know works because NASA says it works.

That's the wrong angle, and that is how you fail to understand the minds of every engineer and scientist on the planet who understand and support the reality of space exploration.

You don't need to know a blessed thing about any sublimator used by NASA, or anyone else, in order to understand the scientific principles and the engineering principles and work out for yourself from those very basic and well-tested laws of chemistry and physics IF such a technique would work, how PRACTICAL it would be to build, and what the NUMBERS on one would be (aka how many BTU versus how many liters, exposed volume, mass of the item, etc.)

But of course this isn't how you construct your argument. For you it is insufficient that it could plausibly be done. You require proof, absolute proof, which is of course unobtainable in anything other than certain formal systems of mathematics. And this leads you into chasing down ever-tinier details as if the proof you wish to deny others will somehow be found there.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 10:46:52 PM
True story--I work for a jeweler three weekends a year at a Renaissance faire.  Once, a long time ago, when I worked for him more regularly, a customer held up a piece.  She was standing maybe fifteen or twenty feet away.  She said, "What stone is this?"

I squinted.  "It's a form of quartz," I said.

"Oh, thanks."  Beat.  "Wait a minute!"

Turns out she was actually a geologist and therefore knew that "a form of quartz" is a safe bet when it comes to semiprecious stones.  (Something like ninety percent of them are forms of quartz.)  However, since I'd said it with such confidence, she just went along with it.  As it happens, it was carnelian, indeed a form of quartz.

Short answer, no, I didn't remember what andesite was.  But when I looked it up, I understood all the words in the Wikipedia article enough so that I do now.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 10:52:54 PM
True story--I work for a jeweler three weekends a year at a Renaissance faire.  Once, a long time ago, when I worked for him more regularly, a customer held up a piece.  She was standing maybe fifteen or twenty feet away.  She said, "What stone is this?"

I squinted.  "It's a form of quartz," I said.

"Oh, thanks."  Beat.  "Wait a minute!"

Turns out she was actually a geologist and therefore knew that "a form of quartz" is a safe bet when it comes to semiprecious stones.  (Something like ninety percent of them are forms of quartz.)  However, since I'd said it with such confidence, she just went along with it.  As it happens, it was carnelian, indeed a form of quartz.

Short answer, no, I didn't remember what andesite was.  But when I looked it up, I understood all the words in the Wikipedia article enough so that I do now.
I didn't want this to be a test nor embarrass you, sorry if I came out that way.  I had to take a lot of Geology courses in school, so I know a bit of the science.  And I didn't remember what carnelian was, if I ever had it in Mineralogy class. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 27, 2015, 11:03:58 PM
Obviously, it's a form of quartz!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnelian

No, I didn't think it was a test.  I'm just being honest with the level of my knowledge.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 27, 2015, 11:07:22 PM
That was never on my lab specimens, but it does look like it belongs on a necklace.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 27, 2015, 11:18:33 PM
I realize that there was testing, I was looking for a video to submit and I found that article.
Not only has testing been done, but many hours of usage during the last 45 years. 
Oh sure, I knew you knew that.  Didn't you know? :-)

As to how much imagery of the original tests still exists, it is quite possible that neither NASA JSC nor "Ham Standard"'s current incarnation know for sure. 50-year-old film of  engineering tests for an obsolete space suit PLSS is not a high retention priority.  As things get moved, consolidated, borrowed, lost, accidentally damaged, and perhaps, ultimately archived by people who weren't around when the tests were done, the entropy of such records increases significantly.  Despite the claims of hoax believers who have no clue how such projects work, there's nothing "anomalous", sinister, or even particularly remarkable about it.

Besides, as I've already pointed out, what is particularly useful about movies of PLSS tests?  The PLSS is a basically a static machine.  Watching it is like watching grass grow.  The useful information is the telemetry from the tests, and examples of such data are easily found. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 12:00:25 AM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

[SNIP] "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators.

[SNIP]

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?

Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 12:13:55 AM

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif

Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum? According to the link you provide, that chamber is 65 feet in diameter, 120 feet high and takes 12 hours to pump down to low earth orbit conditions.

I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Also that 1995 book. Where is the mention of spacesuit ice sublimators in it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 12:30:27 AM
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum.

If this is going to be your universally denialist response, why does it matter whether there are film records of previous vacuum chamber tests?  You don't consider them probative, so your suggestion that none exists is just empty rhetoric.

Quote
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Your personal ignorance and incredulity are not probative.  Do you understand that the world does not revolve around you?

Quote
Also that 1995 book. Where is the mention of spacesuit ice sublimators in it?

In the part you haven't read, but insinuate you did.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 12:33:48 AM

"Rusty" Schweickart testing the suit and PLSS in vacuum chamber A (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) in Building 32 in 19

https://archive.org/download/S68-55391/S68-55391.tif

And just before entering the vacuum chamber

https://archive.org/download/S68-55983/S68-55983.tif

Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum? According to the link you provide, that chamber is 65 feet in diameter, 120 feet high and takes 12 hours to pump down to low earth orbit conditions.

I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 12:48:44 AM

Well, I stumbled onto the rocks - the 380-odd kilograms of rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. (If metric values are unfamiliar to you, I'm sure you can work out how many pounds that is.)

Anyway, where did these rocks come from?

1. We know they're not Earth rocks. Their mineral composition, while broadly similar to Earth rocks, includes several distinct differences which have never been observed in Earth rocks. For example, they contain significantly less volatile elements and compounds than equivalent Earth rocks, and they also show signs of millions of years of exposure to solar radiation, which doesn't happen to Earth rocks. So that's why they're not Earth rocks.

2. We know they're not lunar meteorites. Sometimes meteor impacts on the Moon blast rocks off the Moon's surface and into space, and some of those rocks make it to the Earth. Lunar meteorites, like other meteorites, show signs of alteration by atmospheric heating - from passing through the Earth's atmosphere at speeds of several kilometres per second. The Apollo rocks show no such signs. Instead, they show signs of being bombarded by tiny dust particles themselves travelling at tens of kilometres per second. This is only possible to rocks sitting on the surface of the Moon, not on the surface of the Earth. So that's why the Apollo rocks are not lunar meteorites.

3. We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

So what that leave is the only possible explanation: Those rocks, which are clearly from the Moon, and which clearly came to the Earth not in high-speed contact with the Earth's atmosphere, and which clearly were not collected by unmanned spacecraft, must have been collected by humans walking on the Moon.

Now if you have some alternative explanation for these rocks, I'm all ears. But in the interim I'm going to stick with the explanation that spacesuit sublimators must have worked, allowing those astronauts to walk on the Moon and retrieve those rocks.

Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Is this some new meaning of the word "independent"?

Just to be clear - you're making the assertion that NASA faked Apollo. So you have a dog in the fight. So by any normal meaning of the word "independent", that means you're not independent.

Plus, out of interest, do Taguba and Fallon have any understanding of the physics behind spacesuit sublimators? If not, what's the point of having them investigate any demonstration?

Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.
[/quote]

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? 

The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!

Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 12:55:25 AM
I don't know about rocks.

Then it's yet more evidence you can't explain.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation but...

But nothing.  Patching holes in your speculation with more speculation makes your case less convincing, not more.

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare.

"Gravitas" is not a professional qualification.  I don't care about their celebrity.
 
Quote
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge...

Then they are presently unqualified.  You are not selecting them for their knowledge.  You are apparently selecting them because you consider them political allies.

Quote
Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.

Many tests of the sublimator process have already been conducted under the supervision of qualified engineers.  You have no problem calling all of them liars, so explain why you would suddenly respect the engineers observing new tests.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:03:47 AM
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth. If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy, assured me they test the spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers regularly. He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:06:04 AM

Many tests of the sublimator process have already been conducted under the supervision of qualified engineers.  You have no problem calling all of them liars, so explain why you would suddenly respect the engineers observing new tests.

Allegedly.
Nobody has called anyone a liar.
Please behave.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 01:10:08 AM
No. They could not have. The Russians had specifically designed sample return probes, three of which were successful, and they returned, wait for it, a grand total of 326 grams,and that was a regolith core sample. Apollo collected orders of magnitude more lunar material, practically 1000 times . Heck, there is rocks (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/) from Apollo that weigh more than that individually.
Besides, the Surveyor probes were designed to land on the moon. They had no capacity to return to Earth on their own, let alone with many kilograms of lunar samples each. This would be an even greater undertaking, and, again, I have to ask you who did it and what evidence you have for this.
(In light of Neil's reply)
Ever heard of an airlock? He wouldn't have to spend the whole 12 hours in the machine waiting for it to be evacuated. And if you look at the pictures, yes, there is indeed lights to simulate the lunar tempereture conditions, though, if you look up the sun angles (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html), it never got noon time hot while the astronauts would have been there, if you do the math. (http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Lunar_Temperature)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:10:18 AM
I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

Your personal doubts are not probative.

Quote
If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.

Which was done in Earth orbit.  Sublimator operation is only loosely coupled to crew safety while wearing the EMU.  Hence that mode of testing is available following vacuum test chamber validation.

Quote
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy...

Whom you have no problem calling a liar.

Quote
He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.

That doesn't mean you're entitled to the information you demand, via the way you demand it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:13:08 AM
Allegedly.
Nobody has called anyone a liar.

Contradiction on its face.  I have asked you several times if any part of your argument is not either bare denial or speculation.  Are you prepared to give me an answer?

Quote
Please behave.

You're in no position to lecture people on the propriety of behavior.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:15:25 AM

Whom you have no problem calling a liar.


No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Grashtel on August 28, 2015, 01:18:42 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.
He says that they regularly test sublimators in vacuum chambers and they work, you are contending that sublimators do not work in vacuum, therefore you saying that he is telling a lie which would make him a liar.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:24:38 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word.

Blanco claims sublimators are routinely tested in vacuum chambers.  You claim such a test would be impossible, or at best fruitless.  Explain how you can claim the latter without accusing Blanco of lying.

Quote
Again, please behave.

You are a violent felon.  Do not lecture me on the propriety of behavior.  You are also accusing a number of people of fraud with evidence you admit is no stronger than speculation.  You do not stand on the moral high ground here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:32:01 AM
NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?

The lunar orbiter photos don't look anything like those taken during Apollo 8.  Photos from lunar orbiter were developed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and transmitted to Earth.  The process left telltale artifacts in the photos the are absent from the Apollo 8 photos.  Furthermore, I have a book published in 1968 that includes lunar orbiter photos.  This was before Apollo 8's fight in late December of that year.

The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

The lunar surveyor payloads weren't large enough to carry the capability to return 382 kilograms of lunar samples.  Also the diversity of the samples defy the premise that they were just scooped up in the immediate vicinity of a lander.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 02:05:24 AM
Quote
...Neil Baker, I'd be grateful if you could respond to this email from page 5 of the thread.

Thank you.

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968?

According to this article (http://www.space.com/12707-earth-photo-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter-1-anniversary.html) the images were released at the time.

Quote
"NASA took the image and they created a poster of it which was given as gifts to everybody," said Friedlander. "Senators and congressmen would give it out as presents to constituents and visiting dignitaries."

The Lunar Orbiter photos were black and white. Apollo 8 produced colour photos of the Earth. NASA would hardly distribute B&W photos from Lunar Orbiter when colour Apollo 8 photos were available, so the statement quoted above must mean the photos were distributed before Apollo 8.

Quote
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

In any case, to repeat what I said in my original post:
Quote
We know they're not Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks include quite a few rocks weighing more than a kilogram each, as well as core samples up to two metres long, and also clods of lunar soil. There is no evidence that NASA ever had the technology to build unmanned sample retriever spacecraft capable of collecting such samples; in fact there isn't even any evidence that these sorts of things could be done today, more than 40 years later. What we do have is photos of astronauts standing near rocks which now sit in storage facilities.

In other words, there's no record of anyone designing, building or operating these legendary unmanned sample retriever spacecraft.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing? If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.

Black ops might be good for doing stuff in secret. But it doesn't mean they can break the laws of physics or suddenly invent technology decades ahead of what is otherwise available.

Quote
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!

And if it's real, what does that say about American technology and can-do attitude, and the bravery and skill of those who were involved? (Just for the record, I'm Australian, so I feel no patriotic loyalty to the USA.)

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.

And if Taguba and Fallon attest to the reality of the sublimator system will you accept what they say, or will you shift position again and suggest the government got to them?

In any case, if the sublimator system can't possibly work, why didn't the Soviets say something back in 1969? Or are you skeptical of the reality of the Cold War too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:11:53 AM

I don't know about rocks. But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? 

Oh really? Google fail again:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lunar-Orbiter-Photographs-Earth-and-Moon-Kodak-1966-/380538883694?hash=item5899e28e6e

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1967-Boeing-NASA-Lunar-Orbiter-Spacecraft-moon-surface-photos-vintage-print-Ad-/361370647308?hash=item54235e7b0c

The photos of Earth were released and they were released before Apollo 8. The entire collection of Lunar Orbiter images was made public before Apollo finished - I have an original copy of the book.

The published images do not contain the level of detail shown in Apollo images or more recent probes launched by the US, China and India, particularly of the landing areas covered by the later Apollo missions as the photography for those was done by other Apollo missions.

What you don't appear to realise is that the photos, 16mm and live TV images of Earth from every Apollo mission (every single one of them) contain a unique meteorological fingerprint that is time and date specific, and that meteorology is exactly matched by the available meteorological satellite record. The configuration of Earth in the lunar sky and its terminator is also an exact match for what should be there as predicted by astronomical software.

Word to the wise: if you're going to try and invent stuff to cover your backside, probably best not to do it in front of people who know waaaaaay more about it than you.

Quote
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?

Yes they did, and no they couldn't.

Again, the Surveyor images show details matched by modern probes. If you think they could provide a return sample, show us how. Especxially the bit where they have the launch capability to get back to Earth. I have the original reports, published before Apollo, they happened.

Quote
Yes, it's pure speculation

For once you got it right.

Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 

No - you picked them because you think they share your values and because they have been critical of aspects of US foreign policy that you also criticise. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming you believe them to be neutral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 02:21:05 AM
Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon.  It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.

The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg.  They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 02:24:26 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:24:35 AM
1966 press conference:

(http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/p345a.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 02:32:33 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.

I have an A2 size copy of that Copernicus image, and one taken from above - it's amazing. It's mounted on a board and was part of a set sold to Universities. It was being thrown away!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 02:37:43 AM
Here's two (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=BlMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA48-IA2&dq=%22lunar+orbiter%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAWoVChMI3rPmyJHLxwIVz3-SCh2FWAu1#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) examples of Lunar Orbiter photos released before Apollo 8.

I have an A2 size copy of that Copernicus image, and one taken from above - it's amazing. It's mounted on a board and was part of a set sold to Universities. It was being thrown away!
Wow! I'm glad you got it, but wow!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 03:22:30 AM
Wait a minute. What makes you think he's in vacuum. He might be in a vacuum chamber but how can you tell he's in a vacuum?

And there we have it.

So, Neil, a simple question. How would you, given a video of a vacuum chamber test, verify that a) there was a vacuum and b) that the sublimator was working? It seems clear you'd just handwave the evidence away based on your inability to do either of those things.

However, we don't need video of a vacuum chamber test to see a spacesuit working in a vacuum. Fortunately the film and TV of, for example, the Apollo lunar surface activities, is replete with evidence of a vacuum, from mylar foil being tossed around in ways impossible in air, through ziploc bags being scrunched up while sealed without puffing out in the irritating way that anyone who has tried to roll one up on Earth is familiar with, to the behaviour of the dust. There we have vidual records of a spacesuit functioning in a vacuum.

But of course you have already said that it was 'probably' faked, so tell us why we shold take anything you say seriously when you're so eager to dismiss any and all evidence presented to you except the one thing you know you will never get.

Quote
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

What, you can't imagine how a pump powerful enough to evacuate a room that size could possibly cope with a small amount of water vapour being emitted from a spacesuit inside it? How much water vapour would have to be emitted from a sublimator unit into a room that size to make a significant difference to the ambient pressure within? Surely you can do that bit of mathematics?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 03:24:26 AM
...Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth...

No one cares about your ignorant opinion, since you not only have not done any of the work to test your claims and assertions such as the above, you refuse to even acknowledge it when other people do it for you and rub your nose in it.

I will reiterate an earlier assessment: I pointed out here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31310#msg31310) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31311#msg31311), and many others have repeatedly shown as well, that your characterization of an "anomaly" is founded upon nothing more than your personal say-so.  You are manifestly unfamiliar with the record, you keep denying the existence of items showed to you, you keep trying to say that everyone else is as much in the dark as you, and you fountain out wild claims of coverups spanning half a century of international space operations with no basis whatsoever.  Yet you insist that a special demonstration be arranged for you on the basis of your ignorant and frankly irrational opinions.  You are just one of many hoax believers who attempt this silly and self-important charade. 

Not that you've answered, or even addressed, my previous questions, but - You accuse others here of being blind followers, but they've been busily digging up information and supplying context for you, and your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes to avoid having to reconsider your position.  You've assiduously avoided learning anything at all.  Why are you going to such lengths to remain clueless in the service of clinging to your "hoax" belief?  Is it a religious thing?  Are you just angry that the U.S. accomplished such a feat?   Or what?  Are you simply afraid that we'll laugh at you if you admit a mistake?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 03:50:29 AM
Of course it is beyond Neil's ken that just maybe the astronaut wasn't standing in the vacuum chamber while it was being pumped down....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 28, 2015, 04:12:52 AM
Who here remembers when the hoax brigade actually cared about their arguments and didnt use things that could be easily proved false?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 04:25:41 AM
There have been very few hoax claims that could not easily be proven false.

But the current poster's level of denial is right up there with Alan W, in terms of simply refusing to admit the existence of data even after it has been handed to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Al Johnston on August 28, 2015, 04:50:10 AM
Quote
Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 

No - you picked them because you think they share your values and because they have been critical of aspects of US foreign policy that you also criticise. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming you believe them to be neutral.

As men of integrity, there's no particular reason to suppose they would want even the slightest association with this creep.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 28, 2015, 05:30:20 AM
Some quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations, just for fun.

The vacuum chamber described, which I assume to be cylindrical, has a volume of about 11,300 cubic metres.

At standard temperature and pressure that volume of air has a mass of about 13,500kg

The Apollo PLSS carried 3.9kg of water for cooling

So, even if we assume that every last bit of cooling water was sublimed (which it wasn't as some of it was in a closed loop), if a vacuum pump can successfully evacuate the vast majority of 13,500kg of air from that chamber, would an additional 3.9kg of water vapour really a) pose a challenge for the pump, or b) make so much difference to the pressure in the chamber once it has been evacuated to render the cooling sublimator unable to function?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 06:05:06 AM
To keep things on the up and up, I realize now I linked to the same page twice on my earlier 'Lunar Orbiter pics from before 1968' post. Here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=21UEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33-IA4&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA33-IA4#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) is the second example I found, also from LIFE. Here's some (https://books.google.ca/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA85&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=wioDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false), this time from Popular Science.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 28, 2015, 07:01:48 AM
Who here remembers when the hoax brigade actually cared about their arguments and didnt use things that could be easily proved false?

Not me.

Thinking back ten years or so to when Dave Cosnette was active, his arguments were just as risible. Same for Margamatix a couple of years later...

I suspect JayUtah would say the same for Bennett and Percy back in the day.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 07:06:57 AM
So, even if we assume that every last bit of cooling water was sublimed (which it wasn't as some of it was in a closed loop), if a vacuum pump can successfully evacuate the vast majority of 13,500kg of air from that chamber, would an additional 3.9kg of water vapour really a) pose a challenge for the pump, or b) make so much difference to the pressure in the chamber once it has been evacuated to render the cooling sublimator unable to function?

It's even worse for Neil. Having worked with UHV systems, water has a very nasty habit of sticking to the walls of vacuum systems. It's a real pain to remove from UHV systems, especially when trying to maintain the integrity of metal surface samples that one has spent hours polishing and then running through IBA cycles. The vacuum chambers pertinent to this discussion operate at pressures above UHV, I would be happy to bet a good sum of money that a proportion of the water would stick to the sides and offer less of a challenge to the pumps. Vacuum physics is not trivial, and I don't suppose Neil understands surface outgassing and the limitations it has on such systems. 3.9 kg of water is in the noise - especially when it is not suddenly dumped as a pool of water in the middle of the chamber floor.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 28, 2015, 07:31:44 AM
I still have trouble believing a high vacuum could be attained with a sublimator leaking water vapor into the chamber.

Here you go, a very simple demonstration showing the basic principle.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOYgdQp4euc
Looks like an ideal way to remove heat when in a vacuum environment to me.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 28, 2015, 07:50:36 AM
No, I said he reneged on a promise. Liar is your word. Again, please behave.

So you're calling him a liar, but you don't want anyone else to think you are calling him a liar??



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 08:02:55 AM
To keep things on the up and up, I realize now I linked to the same page twice on my earlier 'Lunar Orbiter pics from before 1968' post. Here (https://books.google.ca/books?id=21UEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA33-IA4&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA33-IA4#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) is the second example I found, also from LIFE. Here's some (https://books.google.ca/books?id=ASoDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA85&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false) more (https://books.google.ca/books?id=wioDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&dq=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q=%22lunar%20orbiter%22&f=false), this time from Popular Science.

On a similar note, just in case Mr Baker cares to dispute the public availability of Apollo 8 imagery of Earth, I have an original Apollo 8 NASA photography report with all the images in it, and also an original ESSA meteorological data catalog covering the Apollo 8 mission. Both were available to anyone with the money to buy them, and both my copies are ex-libris, where any member of the public could borrow them.

Not to mention countless images of Earth taken by Apollo 8 published in newspapers and magazines at the time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 08:08:06 AM
I declare previous exchanges between Neil and myself in YouTube comment threads, under the IDs Apollo 957, Apollo 958 and Apollo Evidence, and since he's repeating what he posted over there, I shall do the same.

To go back to the proposition put forth by Neil that the ISS 'could be' an 'inflatable lighted prop', I posted the following, back-of-an-envelope estimate of the ISS's velocity over there, and Neil didn't respond  -

"The quoted speed of the ISS on wikipedia is 17,100 mph average.

I've watched it pass by, from horizon to horizon, pretty much, in the past, and it crosses the sky in around 5mins. The next pass in my area is scheduled to take around 5 mins too, according to in-the-sky.org, so I set to the task of calculating the speed for myself, from my own observations.

Radius of Earth at sea level = R1
Orbital height of ISS = R2
Radius of ISS orbit = R1 + R2

Imagine R1 and R2 drawn vertically through my observation point from the Earth's centre to ISS height. Let's approximate my sightline as a line drawn out as a tangent to the Earth's surface from my location, at a 90 degree angle to R1 and R2. This gives two sides of a right-angle triangle, with the hypotenuse formed by R1 and R2 extended up to the point where the ISS enters my view. A mirror image triangle in the other direction deals with where it leaves my sight.

We know some of the sizes and angles, and need to solve for the angle A at the Earth's centre.

Right-angle triangle calculator - http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

R1 = 4000 miles (side a)
R2 = 220 miles (therefore the hypotenuse, side c = 4000+220 = 4220)

Put these into the calculator, and this yields angle A (angle 3 on the calculator) = 19 degrees or so, therefore I see the ISS over an angle of 38 degrees total, 19 degrees approaching, with the same angle receding.

The circumference at the ISS height is 2piR, where R = R1+R2, and that works out at 26,500 miles. The portion of the circumference I've seen the ISS at is therefore 38/360 * 26500 = 2800 miles approx.

The ISS covers that in 5.5mins, so that's 2800/5.5 = 508 miles per minute, or over 30,000 mph.

Obviously I'm overstating, probably because the ISS doesn't actually pass directly over me - I see it mainly to the south and south-west, and probably because of my approximations.

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?

Show your work, Neil - if you can. Go out and look at it for yourself, and do your calcs"

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 08:33:42 AM
Quote
For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William

I don't know about rocks.
It is becoming rather clear you don't know much about anything you present in this thread.
Quote
But I will say this. I was ten years old when the Apollo 8 Christmas mission took place. It was spectacular. The first ever photos were taken of the Earth from the orbit of the moon or so I thought. I wonder if you had to be alive then to understand how radical those photos were. In my memory, Apollo 8 was more exciting than Apollo 11. They were the first to get close. There had been nothing like it. But there had. NASA allegedly sent five lunar orbiters in 66 and 67 and they took photos of the Earth from moon orbit. Why didn't they release them to the public in 1966? Were they holding them so they could say the astronauts faking the Apollo 8 mission took them in 1968? {/quote]
The orbiter photos were released you just had to ask for them as the internet wasn't quite developed at that time.
Quote


The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?
If it's a hoax, it wouldn't be surprising that black ops came into play at some time during the prelude to the alleged landings.
Even if it turns out that it was hoax, what a spectacular hoax! Legendary!
Ok, lets do a little math, there were five successful Surveyor landings weighing about 1000 lbs each at launch. Now for a return of 380 pounds of rocks, one needs much more than 6 x 1000 lbs of fuel to return them.  Really bad argument totally dismissed.
Quote

Taguba and Fallon are recommended due to their gravitas and exemplary integrity at a time when it's apparent that it's extremely rare. 
So you are saying that all the commanders that did not disagree with the Bush Administration are without integrity?
They are well educated and I'm confident they would be capable of quickly acquiring the requisite knowledge to understand what they needed to observe.  Besides, it's expected that one or more other independent witnesses with engineering backgrounds would be present.
Quit waving your hands in the air and start reading the material posted to you and figure out that the sublimator worked back in the late 60's and continue to work up to current space operations of the ISS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 08:46:33 AM
Let's do the maths. The Apollo rocks total ~380 kilograms. With seven landers that would require each to return an average of about 55 kilograms of material. Now, the Surveyor spacecraft were launched using Atlas rockets. Perhaps you might like to calculate whether an Atlas rocket could launch a spacecraft large enough to itself launch 55 kilograms of material off the surface of the Moon in a container which could itself survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

For comparison, we know the Soviets brought back ~400 grams of material on three sample return missions. In other words, enough to fill a can of soup - in three missions. And you're suggesting NASA could return nearly a thousand times the mass on seven spacecraft. NASA might be good, but I don't think they're that good.

The entire Surveyor spacecraft had a launch mass of about 1000 kg, which was near the limit of what the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle could deliver to the moon.  It's mathematically impossible to land on the moon and return to Earth 55 kg of samples with a craft that small.

The Soviet landers that returned about 100 grams of material each had a launch mass of 5600 kg.  They were also launched on Proton rockets, which are 5 times more massive than the Atlas-Centaur.
I thought you would reply to the comment about the rocks, and I agree with the proposition of lack of fuel to launch the rocks.  Have you computed the fuel necessary for the return of the rocks plus some modest containers?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 09:03:14 AM
Here's a question, Neil Baker. Let's suppose that the water sublimation cooling system would have been unworkable.
What's stopping the engineers of the world's manned space flight flying countries from, oh, coming up with another solution?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 28, 2015, 09:16:48 AM

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?


Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out!  :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 09:18:09 AM

HOWEVER - that's pretty darn fast for an inflatable, wouldn't you say? How do you think the folks get an inflatable to go that fast, considering a 747 cruises at below 1000 mph ..... ?


Of course it can go that fast - you just have to let the air out!  :)
And have it travel in  an environment that has no air.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 10:21:37 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 28, 2015, 10:32:55 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 10:54:09 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?
I'd investigate the accuracy of the 5.5 minutes figure. How did you measure that? What relative error is in that measurement?
I've never timed a satellite traveling horizon to horizon, but would think there are a few factors that might get in the way (systematic errors, as a physicist would call them). Atmospheric diffraction is especially large near the horizon. Also, both points on the horizon should be near sea level. If there are hills and mountains, other errors are introduced.

I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 10:59:29 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to the board. The important aspect of the calculation is that you are aware of the errors and have now set Neil the task of disproving that there is something in the sky that is moving with parameters that suggest an object in LEO. That in itself is a test of the veracity of his competence, which has some merit.

It also begs an important question: Engineers can design a system to put an object into LEO, yet they cannot manage to design a system to cool an astronaut. How can that be when putting an object into LEO is far more technically challenging?

I'm still trying to work out Neil's claims and the mind it takes to conjure up such a fantastical argument to discredit an entire industry over what is essentially a widget of a subsystem.

Without labouring the point by repeating what has gone before, he demands video evidence of the PLSS sublimator working in vacuum while simultaneously questioning whether a photo was taken in a vacuum. We have a set of moving goalposts!! What ever proof we offer he will simply deny it and put in place another set of criteria we need to meet. The reason for this is a 9-11 obsession which has resulted in a criminal prosecution for violent behaviour. His own words, if he can prove the moon landings were hoaxed, which I'm guessing he thinks is a simpler nut to crack, it provides a platform whereby others will take his 9-11 claims seriously. Such is his obsession with 9-11, he is determined to hold onto proving Apollo was hoaxed as that is a means to his 9-11 end.

As Jay and others have pointed out, his argument seems to be based on straightforward denial of any evidence and that he is sole arbitrator of what meets proof. He's rather set NASA the tasks of Hercules.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 28, 2015, 11:32:58 AM
Anyone got any suggestion why my estimate of ISS speed was so overstated? Have I missed some obvious assumption, or is it merely because I've assumed it to pass directly over, when it's some 50 degrees south and west of me?

Welcome to ApolloHoax, Apollo 957. I think your reply No. 315 might be way above Neil Baker's ability to comprehend it.  In fact I wonder whether he has ever looked up the predictions for visible passes of the ISS for his area and watched it pass over.

I have watched it many times, and often post the details in advance on a New Zealand message board when it makes a good pass for most of the country and there is widespread clear weather. It's always enjoyable to hear people all over New Zealand exclaiming about it, and that the kids waved to the astronauts.

One thing I often try while watching the ISS, is counting off one second and then getting my brain to accept that it travelled over 7 km in that second.  Something in my head always says, "Nah!  Impossible!" I blame my earth-based existence in an atmosphere for that.

On the night of 29-30 December 2007 I watched the ISS make five consecutive passes, which is apparently a fairly rare sight that few people have seen. Here in New Zealand our air is apparently much clearer than in the northern hemisphere, and I have often seen it with the naked eye when it is 5 or 6 degrees above the horizon.

Back to your question, maths was my worst ever subject at school in the 1950s and 60s, but I think its distance put you wrong.  You really need to use a pass that's as close to overhead as possible, 80° elevation or better.

Below are the figures for its closest pass for me on 10 July 2015, when it reached 85° elevation. The sky was light in the northwest, but had it been darker and the ISS visible when at 10° elevation, it would have been visible for about 6 minutes 25 seconds. I'll include my entire post about it. The figures at the bottom are from the Heavens-Above website and modified a little for laypeople, and other details come from the ground track map and an atlas.
http://www.heavens-above.com/

Quote
International Space Station tonight 10 July 2015

The ISS crosses central New Zealand tonight, northwest to southeast and offshore from Taranaki and Wanganui, then directly above the southern Manawatu and Wairarapa.

Easily visible (if skies are clear) from between lines from Auckland to East Cape and Hokitika to Christchurch, and low in the sky from further away.

The sky might be too light to see the ISS when it's low in the NW, but if so, it should be visible higher up and in darker sky around 5:51:00 to 5:52:30,

5:52:50 pm onward, passes along and above the Taranaki Bight, just offshore from Opunake, Hawera, Patea, Waverly, Wanganui and Ratana.

5:53:14 passes above and between Himatangi and Foxton on the Manawatu coast.

5:53:27 crosses the Wairarapa coast near Castlepoint.

5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow E of Clutha, SE of the Chatham Islands.

Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 28, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
So here's the thing, Neil.  When you are saying that Apollo was hoaxed, you are by definition calling everyone involved in it who would have had enough knowledge to know if it had been hoaxed a liar.  There's no way around that.  When Buzz Aldrin says he walked on the Moon, by your own standards, he must be lying.  When someone who works with sublimators tells you that they work in vacuum, by your own standards, they must be lying.  When geologists the world over report on the obvious factors in the rocks that show they cannot be from the Earth, by your own standards, they must either be lying or deluded--which means bad at their jobs.  And if they're bad enough at their jobs that they can't tell the difference between Moon rocks and Earth rocks, well, when they got their degrees, guess what?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 12:34:46 PM
Does anybody remember a couple weeks ago when I posted this is another thread:

One thing I’ve noticed about many hoax theorists is that they attack us, the defenders of Apollo, and they attack NASA as an organization, but they tend to hesitate personally attacking any of the high-profile individuals at NASA.  Of course by making the claims that they do, and by going after NASA, they are by extension attacking the astronauts and all the people who were part of Apollo.  When we point that fact out, the HB will often start backpedaling.  They’ll sometimes say something like the astronauts were forced into it, or they we just doing what their country asked of them, etc.  I guess some HBs just don’t have the guts to put a name and a face to the people they are calling criminals.  Instead they blame the namely and faceless “powers that be”.

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 12:35:57 PM
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles.  1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph.  I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated.  Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 28, 2015, 12:41:42 PM
Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

I don't believe for a second that a test would satisfy you. Anybody who reads this thread can see you have no intention of letting this subject go no matter how sick you supposedly are of it. Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen. The test is never going to happen but if it did and proved you wrong, you would just go onto another multi-year campaign for the next smoking gun anomaly your mind would contrive about Apollo. So once again Neal. How much more of your life are you prepared to ruin for something that's never going to happen?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 01:06:26 PM
Your ultimate goal is to get 9/11 investigated and you somehow got in your head that this is the way to make it happen.

...and it has been investigated. There is the 9-11 Commission Report that is freely available on the internet which makes clear recommendations following the hi-jacking of the four planes and their suicide missions into the Twin towers and Pentagon. The veracity of Apollo is not at question here, it's about Neil's obsession with 9-11 and his position of grandeur as the person who found the twoof and saved us all from nasty Uncle Same. Let's face it, who demands former Generals and Admirals to witness and verify the function of a widget. Again, another condition that we cannot possibly meet, unless of course Neil has confirmed that they have agree to act as referees. Have you Neil?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:14:12 PM
And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 01:24:58 PM
Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

A near perfect vacuum is not needed for the test to succeed.  The pressure just needs to be below the triple point of water, which is about 600 Pa.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:33:04 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 01:36:07 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Careful with those goalposts, they could hurt someone if you move them too quickly.

Prepared to retract your BS about Lunar Orbiter yet?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:37:04 PM

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 28, 2015, 01:40:26 PM
I picked the timing from in-the-sky.org for my location. I didn't time it myself, but 5.5mins seems fairly accurate from watching experience. Fairly close to sea level at observation point, but land rises both at the point where it enters my view and where it departs.

If the timing from that source takes terrain into account, it will give you considerable less time of visibility than a calculation with a spherical Earth. Anything rising above the sea level horizon reduces visibility time considerably (because at the horizon is where the ISS has the slowest apparent speed; maximum is overhead). Maybe their computation makes more assumptions, like "anything closer than 3° to the horizon is out of sight". What about asking them about the details of their computation?

The actual time of visibility for an observer on a spherical Eearth, ignoring atmospheric diffraction, is 607 seconds (~10min) for a 92 minute orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 01:41:54 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:45:30 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007...

Your attempt to limit the evidence to exclude modern sources derives solely from your unevidenced and patently absurd claim that any relevant evidence dating since then is necessarily a response to your personal discovery of the concept and is presumed to be a fictitious description invented by the industry and calculated only to undermine your credibility.  You have failed to establish that claim on any relevant grounds, and therefore your critics are not bound to it.

Quote
...I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Have you read the book in question?  Yes or no.

Quote
I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.

No, you do not get to saddle your critics with burdensome requests for production.  You have claimed no relevant records existed prior to your personal discovery of the concept.  When confronted with contrary evidence, you lied and continue to lie.  It is therefore reasonable to conclude (a) that you have not performed the exhaustive and thorough research required to make a claim of nonexistence, and have no intent to do so, and (b) that any evidence your critics uncover to contradict your claim will be ignored just as you have ignored all the production to date.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 01:46:21 PM
Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

You do not understand.  He has already borne his witness and you are being asked to account for it.  Bob B. is not proposing that this author be a witness to the stunt you demand.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 01:47:13 PM

Careful with those goalposts, they could hurt someone if you move them too quickly.

Prepared to retract your BS about Lunar Orbiter yet?
The goalpost nearly hit me.  Thanks for stating it before me. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 28, 2015, 01:48:48 PM

Why is James Philip Shero not an independent witness?  Remember him?  He's the guy from Rice University who, in 1969, wrote his doctoral thesis "Porous Plate Sublimator Analysis".  I linked to his paper way back on page 1, post 7.  In case you've forgot, here's the link again:

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

Dr. Shero ran experimental tests in a vacuum on several different porous plates.  He not only proved that they work, but he computed their effectiveness.

Why do you ignore that this independent researcher performed and documented exactly what you've been asking for?


Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

You mean the independent witness group that will never be formed or used because despite years of trying, you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Oh sorry. You have done an outstanding job of ruining your life and completely destroying your credibility. That's some accomplishment there Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 01:58:10 PM
Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659

Cut the dramatics. The work has already been reviewed and the veracity of its findings accepted by others. Who are you to question its findings? Where is your evidence that sublimators do not work as reported in the literature?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 02:03:07 PM

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum.

Stop making stuff up. You are just wildly thrashing about now. I showed you two images that you clearly had never seen before. One was an astronaut inside the test chamber- the other was as he was about to enter. Or are you that ignorant of things that you never heard of an airlock???
Here's a quote from Schweikart "I remember standing at the bottom of the huge altitude test chamber A in Houston-this thing something like one hundred and twenty feet high and eighty feet in diameter [...] testing and checking out the spacesuit. [....] Not only did I have all of the systems of the systems in the suit which could fail, and the backpack which could fail, but I had all of the failure modes of the test chamber, which could also kill me" http://librarun.org/book/51138/371
The backpack didn't fail and it didn't kill him, ergo, it worked.
Of course, you'll just handwave this away or just ignore it. Again.

I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth.

Your doubt is based on your ignorance of the test. Doubt and ignorance does not mean that something didn't happen. Again, I have shown you the test images and provided a quotation from the man that carried out the test. A normal person would change their view, but you aren't normal, are you Mr Baker? (https://web.archive.org/web/20070126172014/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=12946)

If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you??). Read the quotation that I linked to, "...I'm the little thing at the bottom in a cage of heaters, testing and checking out the spacesuit, stepping up and down on the step to put a controlled heat input into the suit"
Again, here's the image:  https://archive.org/details/S68-55391  See the cage of heating elements that surrounds him???? Note the date of the image publication: December 1968. Are you going to claim that that image is only available due to you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for your analysis of the document that I showed you here:
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge this:
Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 02:14:17 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659
He already performed the test you say never happened.
Like most CT's you are never going to admit your failure to understand the engineering/science that actually preceded  the events that you fail to embrace.
Your inability and incompetence has been pointed out by many on this thread.  Only someone wrapped up in their own egotistical persona can be so stupid.  Get over it, NASA has/continues to use the PLSS in space operations including the ISS that even a normally sighted person can see without a telescope.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
Neil, have you ever taken any form of medication such as painkillers or anti-histamines? Serious question.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 28, 2015, 02:23:30 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators. 
That was published in November, 1969. What more do you want?

Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.
Did you buy the book or not?  Or did you simply view the few excerpts available online and give up?

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007.
Once again, your abject failures do not apply to everyone else. They are your failures and yours alone.

I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet.
I am sure you are incapable of finding your butt with both hands when it comes to research. You have demonstrated such right here.

Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator.
I will indulge you if you will honour the invoice for your education.

Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search.
Then you are doing it wrong. You have been provided with copious images, videos and technical documentation gratis. All of which are freely available on the webernets, all of which you could have googled all on your lonesome.

Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Will you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 02:27:36 PM

Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.
Quote
Will you accept and honour the invoice for such an expenditure of time and effort? I ask because so far, you seem to be reluctant to acquire any learning at all, and given that, I would be reluctant to impart any education which will fall upon deaf feet of clay.

Make sure the currency is deposited and cleared for the proper time before spending your time and effort. ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 02:28:07 PM
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 28, 2015, 02:39:19 PM
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Scathing Abaddon - but fair :)
Commercial reality. All of the products that my company produces have a hari-kiri routine built in. You no pay? Software no work anymore. It is pure self defense against those who attempt to score a freebie.

Neil is attempting to garner a free education whilst also attempting to maintain his delusions. Very sorry, but that ain't how it works. The art of searching the intertubes is a skill which may be acquired freely...on the intertubes. Any jackass can find out how to effectively search for anything for free. Neil cannot even be bothered to do that for himself like anyone else, but appeals for an education to be provided to him. Fine. Pay for it, or else make the effort to do it for yourself sez I.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 28, 2015, 02:56:52 PM

Consider him ignored no longer. I think he would be an excellent addition to the independent witness group.

Damn the bad luck. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/OBITUARIES/2008-06/1212306659

Let's say Dr. Shero was still alive. Why would you consider him an important "independent witness" when he published data that he did such tests, and the sublimator plate technology worked as advertised? If it doesn't, he was lying, so how would he be a trustworthy witness for you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 03:27:15 PM
Figures for Manawatu
5:47:52 pm – Rises (not visible yet) – NW – 2,315 km distant
5:49:56 pm – Reaches altitude 10° (becoming visible) – NW – 1,463 km distant
5:53:12 pm – Maximum altitude 85° – SW – 415 km distant
5:56:15 pm – Enters Earth's shadow, altitude 12° – SE – 1,361 km distant

I agree with those figures so we are left with (20/360)*26500=1458 miles.  1458 m/(5 min/60 min/hr) results in 17496 mph.  I believe the right triangle Apollo 957 is not as he stated.  Now all these figures are average and precise calculations would refine the answers down to less errors.

Even of you ignore the right triangle and just use the two distance figures divided by the time

(2315km + 1361km) / 8min 23s

► 3676 / 8.38

= 438.7 km/min

= 26,319 km/hr

= 16,354 mph

Its in the right ball park.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 03:34:42 PM
I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

No, its been settled; 50 years and thousands of hours of use by hundreds of astronauts from dozens of countries has settled it... you just won't accept it.

I have no doubt that were such a test be done, then even if you were satisfied with the results, and accepted that the sublimator really did work as advertised (like everyone else already does), you would simply do what all crackpot hoax believers do, invent another perceived "anomaly" out of whole cloth!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 04:34:01 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe Bob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

You're welcome.  Can I assume that Dr. Shero's analysis satisfies all your doubts about porous plate sublimators?  His methods seem quite thorough and his results convincing.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Since you are still making the claim in 2015, 2007 is irrelevant.  Nonetheless, here are a few publications that I found with a couple minutes of looking.

ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory, The Society, 1978  (https://books.google.com/books?id=wTlSAAAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMI4YOY7MnMxwIVhJQeCh0hEQrN)

Control of Thermal Balance by a Liquid Circulating Garment Based on a Mathematical Representation of the Human Thermoregulatory System, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FbhHUi5wDQ8C&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgUahUKEwi2xfjKzMzHAhWKpB4KHRjkBTs)

A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA Crew Equipment Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 1973 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sEUNAQAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwA2oVChMIzYzo5cvMxwIVAXYeCh2duAY8)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 04:36:54 PM
The term sublimator has been defined in the Clavius glossary since 2002.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 04:59:31 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe Bob B. for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

You're welcome.  Can I assume that Dr. Shero's analysis satisfies all your doubts about porous plate sublimators?  His methods seem quite thorough and his results convincing.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Since you are still making the claim in 2015, 2007 is irrelevant.  Nonetheless, here are a few publications that I found with a couple minutes of looking.

ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory, The Society, 1978  (https://books.google.com/books?id=wTlSAAAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAmoVChMI4YOY7MnMxwIVhJQeCh0hEQrN)

Control of Thermal Balance by a Liquid Circulating Garment Based on a Mathematical Representation of the Human Thermoregulatory System, University of California, Berkeley, 1975 (https://books.google.com/books?id=FbhHUi5wDQ8C&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgUahUKEwi2xfjKzMzHAhWKpB4KHRjkBTs)

A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA Crew Equipment Systems Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 1973 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sEUNAQAAMAAJ&q=porous+plate+sublimator&dq=porous+plate+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwA2oVChMIzYzo5cvMxwIVAXYeCh2duAY8)

So Neil, can we now close the before 2007 issue. Bob has done your donkey work for you. I think we can conclude that you are a poor researcher and a lazy one at that too. What does grates me the most is when you are given what you are looking for on a plate you change horses and show complete denial. I find that disappointing and unacceptable.

Thanks for doing this Bob. These articles are a useful repository for future reference. You see Neil, this is what happens when people like you, full of bluster, arrive here. The likes of Bob set their wheels in motion an we learn more. Thanks for playing and pop by any time you want with new claims, it's great to learn isn't it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 05:02:38 PM
The term sublimator has been defined in the Clavius glossary since 2002.

Now that you mention it, the term is in my glossary as well.  I know it's been there at least since 1998.

C:\Users\Robert Braeunig\Documents\WWW\space\glossary.htm
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 05:03:39 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators

A 16 minute 1966 NASA-JSC film on Lunar Spacesuits



A simple explanation of the heat exchange system begins at 7:26

The vacuum test begins at 10:02

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 05:09:44 PM
Thanks for doing this Bob.

There were actually far more books and papers than the ones I listed, though most were NASA publications.  I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.  This is also just what came up in Google Books.  As we know, the Internet is not the sole depository of human knowledge.  I'm sure there is quite a bit more information sitting on bookshelves.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.

Wise in the circumstances.

ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
I limited my selection to non-NASA sources.

Wise in the circumstances.

ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D
Ironically, it came out of a vacuum in the first place, practically ex nihilo, pulled out of thin . . . not even air.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 05:28:28 PM
ETA: In fact Neil, are you aware of Google Scholar. Type porous plate sublimator into the search bar, and your before 2007 argument evaporates into thin air, or should I say sublimates into the vacuum.  ;D

Wow... just wow!!

1992 - https://www.google.com/patents/US5092129

1999 - http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/


and especially this one...

1965 - https://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Which contains a detailed & comprehensive description of how the porous plate sublimator works...complete with cutaway diagrams

(https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3170303-1.png) (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US3170303-0.png)


edited to add extra diagram
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 28, 2015, 05:30:14 PM
But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.

Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Grashtel on August 28, 2015, 05:40:51 PM
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?
Apparently that is when Neil started looking for them causing NASA to plant info about them in books and on the web or something
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 05:42:47 PM
Why? Would these things suddenly start working on their own after 2007 and not before?

Baker claims that until he personally started researching sublimators in 2007 there was insufficient material available to determine whether they existed and worked as claimed.  He further claims that all references after 2007 were made in response to his activity, in an apparent attempt to backfill the record and create a fictional history for them and thereby undermine his prior claim to a dearth of evidence.

Yes, he literally claims he's that important.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 05:49:18 PM
It seems that Mr. Baker suffers from paranoia also.
Woo is me everyone and everything is against me. Only I stand against the tyranny of the world.
http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=3603
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:51:14 PM
Baker claims that until he personally started researching sublimators in 2007 there was insufficient material available to determine whether they existed and worked as claimed.

He changed horses though, and switched to demanding a video demonstrating that the PLSS sublimator works in a vacuum. When provided with a photo he asked how that proves the PLSS is in a vacuum. So, how do we prove that the video is in a vacuum? I would imagine if he was shown footage of the vacuum gauge this would not be enough either. I woke this morning to find he had jumped back on the pre-2007 evidence horse.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 05:56:26 PM
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding a video demonstrating that the PLSS sublimator works in a vacuum. When provided with a photo he asked how that proves the PLSS is in a vacuum. So, how do we prove that the video is in a vacuum? I would imagine if he was shown footage of the vacuum gauge this would not be enough either. I woke this morning to find he had jumped back on the pre-2007 evidence horse.
Rather like pushing against a puddle of mercury.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 28, 2015, 05:57:38 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 05:58:56 PM
Rather like pushing against a puddle mound of mercury bullshit.

There, corrected that for you  ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
and especially this one...

1965 - https://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Which contains a detailed & comprehensive description of how the porous plate sublimator works...complete with cutaway diagrams

That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:01:01 PM
Rather like pushing against a puddle mound of mercury bullshit.

There, corrected that for you  ;)
Ok I can accept that correction, poor janitors around here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:01:19 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

I never thought about that scenario. There will be a small tremor felt around the world as he explodes.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:02:21 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:04:11 PM
When he finds out that the books written after 2007 refer to material written before 2007 it's really going to mess his mind up.

Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:04:23 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:05:41 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

Which goes to show how so many of us have found the information, yet Neil has singly failed in this endeavour. I think Dr Shero's thesis was the nail in the coffin though.

I wonder if Neil has used aspirin to remedy a headache, and then went away and told people that the drug could not have worked because all the research examining aspirin's effectiveness had been written many years ago.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 28, 2015, 06:12:23 PM

Stop making stuff up. You are just wildly thrashing about now. I showed you two images that you clearly had never seen before. One was an astronaut inside the test chamber- the other was as he was about to enter. Or are you that ignorant of things that you never heard of an airlock???
Here's a quote from Schweikart "I remember standing at the bottom of the huge altitude test chamber A in Houston-this thing something like one hundred and twenty feet high and eighty feet in diameter [...] testing and checking out the spacesuit. [....] Not only did I have all of the systems of the systems in the suit which could fail, and the backpack which could fail, but I had all of the failure modes of the test chamber, which could also kill me" http://librarun.org/book/51138/371
The backpack didn't fail and it didn't kill him, ergo, it worked.
Of course, you'll just handwave this away or just ignore it. Again.

Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them. The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.


Your doubt is based on your ignorance of the test. Doubt and ignorance does not mean that something didn't happen. Again, I have shown you the test images and provided a quotation from the man that carried out the test. A normal person would change their view, but you aren't normal, are you Mr Baker? (https://web.archive.org/web/20070126172014/http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=12946)

I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.

Which they did (surely you don't believe that they would send an untested suit into space, now do you?
Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your analysis of the document that I showed you here:
Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.

I'm also waiting for you to acknowledge this:
Have you ever tried to look at the ISS through a small telescope? It's not that hard...transit times are publicly available from a myriad of sources.
www.heavens-above.com

No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:12:50 PM
He changed horses though, and switched to demanding...

This is how this particular form of conspiracism works.  As I've been quoted, the goal of conspiracism is not to arrive at an answer, but to mire down the debate in meaningless details or philosophy so that it never ends.  As long as Baker can keep the hamster wheel spinning, he can keep insinuating that NASA and its cronies are "stonewalling" him.  Then he can attribute that alleged stonewalling to evading a test that he deems crucial to their credibility.  And if he can thus keep impugning the credibility of one government agency, he can keep hope alive that his 9/11 fantasies may still come true.

Baker, like many others, seems to like to burden his critics with demanding the production of copious amounts of documentary evidence, which he then invariably rejects according to ad hoc criteria.  Most conspiracists who make the claim, "There's no pertinent record," do so knowing that it's nearly impossible to prove the claimant hasn't done the exhaustive search such a claim would ordinarily require, that few if any gullible readers will question the claim, and that his critics -- in order to refute him -- will have to make an affirmative case.  "No, it has to be before 2007" is just another spin of this particular hamster wheel.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 28, 2015, 06:13:39 PM
Maybe they just continue to run the pumps while the tests are running? Now, I am not nearly so educated as many of the fine folks here, and I don't claim to be, but that would keep it from building up at least, yes?

But he'd allegedly be in a hermetically sealed suit for more than twelve hours requiring sublimator cooling at vacuum and other cooling on the way to vacuum. He'd need an umbilical to augment the sublimator. Once low earth vacuum was reached the sublimator could be turned on but that would probably result in an immediate loss of vacuum. I doubt this test can be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth. If they wanted to simulate real moon surface conditions, they'd have to illuminate the spacesuit with enough light that on the moon brings the surface temperature up to about 240 degrees F.
Raul Blanco at NASA's Johnson Space Center, a salt of the Earth sounding guy, assured me they test the spacesuits with sublimators in vacuum chambers regularly. He also assured me there's nothing classified about a spacesuit or it's cooling system.

Let me paraphrase the above:

"Only the specific test I dreamed up can be used to defend the reality of the Apollo landings. Oh, wait; let me come up with a bunch of ways in which that test is impossible to perform, and while I'm at it, throw in a bunch of ways it could be faked, thus be incapable of proving anything."

Do you even read your own posts?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 28, 2015, 06:19:27 PM
And apparently he didn't read the very page giving (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html) Chamber A's specifications, not seeing the 'crewlocks' mentioned that would allow entry and exit without having to pressurize and de-pressurize the whole thing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 06:21:49 PM
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.

Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest. NASA has not been accountable.

Are you aware of the inherent problem with the two statements you have made? On one hand you claim ignorance about the sublimators, but then tell us you are scientifically honest. How can you be scientifically honest about something you are ignorant about?

I would not walk into Stephen Hawking's office, declare my ignorance of quantum loop gravity and then declare that he should be more accountable for his work. I would become a laughing stock.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 06:24:55 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.

He specialises in that.



... if you have the time and the patience to count the number of threads where I challenged him and his wild-ass theories, and it went eerily silent....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 28, 2015, 06:27:46 PM
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.

Apples and oranges.  You, like many people, have no personal experience with the device in question.  The difference between you and those others similarly situated is that they don't ignorantly deny its operation.

Quote
I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.

And upon that solipsist basis you are free to harbor continuing personal doubt.  You are not free, however, to suggest that your personal doubt, fed by your ongoing incompetence, laziness, and deception, constitutes a legitimate controversy or hobbles anyone else from drawing reasoned conclusions.

Quote
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.

Nonsense.  You simply make up personal standards of proof and foist them on other people.  That is expressly contradicted in the scientific method.  Further, you freely admit your desire for a particular outcome.  And you happily draw conclusions in the depths of self-admitted ignorance.  Nothing could possibly be more scientifically dishonest.

Quote
NASA has not been accountable.

Of course it has.  Your ongoing denial in the face of it proves only your purposeful intransigence.  You desperately need NASA to be vilified as a stepping stone to your obsession over 9/11.  You have explicitly said so.

Quote
So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video.

Straw man.

Quote
It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside.

Ad hoc revision.  Do not move the goalposts.

Quote
Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer.

No, you need to provide right now a justification for why an appropriate test of the sublimator in a vacuum requires a human subject.  You may not evade accountability by asking for arbitrary time-outs so that you can dream up more speculation.

Quote
What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.

You have a degree in engineering and subsequent experience in engineering fields.  You have made a argument in the form of doubting the capacity of vacuum test chambers to facilitate a sublimator test on various quantitative grounds.  Surely as an engineer you must know that a quantitative argument must be accompanied by the relevant calculation.  Please provide it, or admit that you are incompetent to do so.

Quote
No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?

Because they have been directly observed in the manner suggested to you, which you admit you have not done.  Do not simply continue to spin the hamster wheel of denial.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 28, 2015, 06:28:13 PM
A big thank you to Zakalwe for posting this: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Bravo! Good stuff.

But I'm still looking for a book published before 2007 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.  Abaddon  gave Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439 but I don't see anything about spacesuit ice sublimators.

Also, I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Because apparently one photograph isn't good enough. And if you find a second, then two photographs won't be good enough.

And has anyone else noticed that every time "it is in a book" comes up, it somehow turns into "But I want to see a picture that's conveniently on-line," and every time "a test was made" comes up, the plaint is immediately "I need to see a video of guys standing around doing a test -- actual testimony, numbers, scientific papers, etc. mean nothing to me."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 28, 2015, 06:31:48 PM
"No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?"

I'm going to assume this was Neil speaking;

Neil, there is hour upon hour of video, live streaming, still photos, etc. Amateur radio enthusiasts have spoken to the astronauts on board as it passes by.

Your stated theory that all the footage is done with 'green screen' and/or CGI is fanciful, to say the least.

There are regular Soyuz launches from Baikonur, and touchdowns in Kazakhstan, in full view of representatives from all the countries involved.

You don't REALLY imagine they're all pretending, do you?

Note also - it isn't JUST NASA that states this. Canada, Russia, Europe, Japan, etc have all been involved, and have published their own accounts and videos of their own astronauts' time on the station.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 28, 2015, 06:34:49 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

That's the nice thing about delusions, there's no limit to the possibilities.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:39:13 PM
That patent was linked to on page 1 of the thread just over an hour after Baker's opening post.  Along with Dr. Shero's thesis.

And Baker ignored them then, just as he has largely ignored them now.

He specialises in that.



... if you have the time and the patience to count the number of threads where I challenged him and his wild-ass theories, and it went eerily silent....
I have listened to that video on the past and finally make the connection, thanks.
The questions he asks border on the absurd. I'm glad Dr. Kaku kept his cool and went about answering a lot of quests some not asked by Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 06:40:02 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

That's the nice thing about delusions, there's no limit to the possibilities.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 06:50:22 PM
His assertion will be all of this material was post written because he agitated for the information.

It will be very hard to claim that for a US Patent Application dated 1965... unless of course, the Patent Office is in on the hoax. That would be the next logical step for a person with such a distorted worldview.

But as we have said here before, the people who benefit most from the likes of ACW, Adrian and Baker coming here and getting an ass whipping is not them; they are beyond help IMO. Its the lurkers and those who might be teetering on the edge of hoax belief.

Every one of those we can educate, and show the preposterous lengths to which the Neil Bakers of this would will go to in order to deny what is right in front of them, is one that I hope will not fall into the trap.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 06:54:00 PM
Actually, I'd seen those photos before. But so long ago that I forgot about them.

How convenient.

The one photo with the radiative heaters? on is interesting because they apparently have bars blocking the direct radiation. The size of the chamber sure seems like overkill but then again with a sublimator sublimating maybe it's necessary.
So, one one hand you say (in an earlier post) that using a sublimator would destroy the vacuum (how, exactly?), now the chamber is too big. However, you don't appear to have a problem with the fact that there WAS a spacesuit test that took place in a vacuum chamber, so that must infer that you acknowledge that the spacesuit worked, as designed.


I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators. I can only believe. I haven't witnessed PROOF of anything.
Well, perhaps you could start with reading the copious information that you have been presented with? Then you might learn something about the very items that you are claiming that do not work. You could also withdraw this claim:
Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.
In fact, I insist on it. As you have now been provided with and acknowledged copious sources your claims that there "there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books" have now shown to be incorrect. Do yourself a favour, try and regain a shred of decency and withdraw this claim.

I'm also scientifically honest.

No you're not. But if you were then you would withdraw the claim above. Lets see you do this.


Which is the basis of this discussion. Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

Why the obsession on a video? Why would a video suddenly make the copious documents that you have been supplied with suddenly conclusive? Either they are or they are not. Or are you saying that only a video of a suited person in a high vacuum is a suitable proof?
If that is the case, then why is a still photo not conclusive? After all, a video is nothing more than a series of stills.
If your obsession demands a video, then how can you handwave away the many tens of hours of video that is freely available (assuming you can search them out- a subject that you so far have failed to demonstrate ANY particular skill in) of suits using sublimators in a vacuum environment?

Of course, we all know the answer to this. Your obsession is similar to Anders Bjorkmann's obsession with a $1Million test. You have constructed a test that is impossible to be carried out, and you then you have convinced yourself that that is the only proof that can possible apply. It isn't. Your test will never happen for many reasons. Why would you expect NASA to waste taxpayer's money on a ridiculous test for the benefit of one deranged obsessionist? Why would NASA allow a convicted felon into a critical installation? Why would your so-called witnesses want to be associated with a convicted felon's obsession?
However, your obsession with this ridiculous test is nothing more than that- an obsession. It does not remove the fact that sublimators have been shown to work, by many different nations,for over 50 years.


Let's see your detailed analysis of this document. With calculations please.
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720005423

It's an interesting document and thank you again for posting it. It's interesting how they say they did the sublimator test. They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer. What calculations are you expecting? Don't hold your breath waiting.
Think away. When you have finished thinking then feel free to come back and either acknowledge that it works as described OR provide evidence to the contrary. With calculations and test results to back up your findings.
As you say though, I won't hold my breath....



No, but I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?
Well try it with a small telescope. Or even a pair of binoculars. Then you will find that it fits the description of the ISS. And not an inflated construction.

Finally, can you please make an effort to work out how this forum uses quotations? It's very simple and it makes seeing where you have made comments much easier. It's a small detail, but a little courtesy would go a long way.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 28, 2015, 07:15:14 PM
Taking the ISS question and astronauts being on board, I have a question for Neil, well more of an observation. My understanding of a theory is that it must be consistent across the evidence upon which it draws. You claim that the ISS is an inflatable prop, yet there are many moonhoax CTs that draw upon the accepted story to underpin their hoax arguments. So, we arrive at a position where you have offered evidence that undermines all the hard work of Jarrah White, David Percy and others.

Do you realise that this does not look good for the side of the fence you sit on as the theory descends into a patchwork quilt of conflicting ideas? Thanks for you input in helping unstitch the consistency of the hoax theory even more. Kudos to you. To think that you want people to take you seriously about 9-11 through the platform of the moonhoax, yet you cannot provide a consistent narrative with your compatriots.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 28, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
Can we have a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a CSM in as well, to test the evaporative cooling systems on that?

Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.  In fact, individual spacecraft generally must pass a round of these kinds of tests as part of customer acceptance.
Is this the Chamber B or is there another one around somewhere?

Well, the LM was tested in Chamber B.  I have done spacecraft test in Chamber B myself, and it goes as Jay describes.  The mammoth Chamber A is right nearby, and that was where the CSM stack was tested.

ETA: however, there aren't armed guards around the chambers, unless things have changed dramatically since I was at JSC.  No, I'm not claiming a T-shirt for a minor nontechnical point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 08:36:12 PM
Baker:

NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)

Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 28, 2015, 08:58:24 PM
Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment.

Rubbish
From Hamilton Standard:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1964-1211

From the Second Conference on Portable Life Support Systems (May 1971)
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720019456

From Hamilton Standard (remember, the people who "only release very elementary information"  ::) ) Pages B-17
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjABahUKEwjAxJ3Zic3HAhWFOhQKHTm9BR8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fntrs.nasa.gov%2Farchive%2Fnasa%2Fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2F19750016288.pdf&ei=KALhVcCQAoX1ULn6lvgB&usg=AFQjCNFWtxtq7BrAevvrapr2vGBIcKr53A&sig2=iMHWI6kVBlWS1u51Wot-YQ&cad=rja

From the New York Academy of Sciences (Volume 134) The Design and Development of the Apollo Extravehicular Mobility Unit
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1965.tb56174.x/pdf

How come your research hasn't found these? Are you saying that all these documents are bunkum and would only be validated by a video of a test?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 28, 2015, 09:19:35 PM
Baker:

NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)

Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?
It is utterly amazing what information is available IF one looks.  Those silly boys at NASA did so much work to fabricate a hoax. ::)

EDIT: Very through report on the operation and testing of the whole system including the PLSS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 28, 2015, 09:29:20 PM
Unlike most of you, I'm also scientifically honest.

You are not scientifically honest. neither are you intellectually honest. In fact you are not honest at all in any way!

You come here and have;

► claimed to have extensively researched your so-called "anomaly", namely, the alleged non-functionality of the PLSS porous plate sublimator, and that you have been unable to find out any information about it.

The members here have provided dozens of links and examples of pages and pages of technical documentation, widely available to anyone carrying out the simplest of internet searches. 

► claimed that you have been stonewalled by NASA and the manufacturer.

The members here have provided both NASA and manufacturers documentation, as well as documentation from non-NASA sources.

► claimed that information  has only been released post 2007 when you first started agitating

The members here have provided proof that there is relevant technical information going back to as early as 1965.

► claimed that the PLSS has never been tested in a hard vacuum

The members here have provided documentary and video proof that the PLSS has been extensively tested, including a number of tests in hard vacuum.

You have had all your research done for you! You have had everything thing you asked for handed to you on a silver platter, and yet you still persist in denying the facts that are right in front of your face.

You are both scientifically and intellectually dishonest...

The fact is, you are a liar!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 12:10:40 AM

IHaving worked with UHV systems, water has a very nasty habit of sticking to the walls of vacuum systems. It's a real pain to remove from UHV systems
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 12:29:00 AM
Yes, that was done.  And we still do it today, in much the same way.  The spacecraft is wheeled into the altitude test chamber and the pressure brought down to the appropriate vacuum.  Then radiant heat is applied, and the thermal control systems allowed to come to equilibrium.  Lots of telemetry ensues.
My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation. It can be done, but is expensive. The spacecraft is powered and operated through hardlines that go through the chamber walls. Usually the walls of the chamber have lines through which coolant at various temperatures can be circulated. The spacecraft is allowed to come to radiative equilibrium with the walls and its correct operation at that temperature is verified. From memory, the range might be -25 C to +50 C, with one of the most severe tests being a power-up at the lowest temperature to see if the crystal oscillators start.

At the same time, witness plates chilled with liquid nitrogen capture any volatiles (grease, plasticizers, badly chosen adhesives, etc). This is especially important if you're flying with a spacecraft with optics (weather, earth resources, or astronomy; I guess spy would also qualify).

So the purpose is to verify correct operation in vacuum at a range of temperatures; the thermal design of the spacecraft is not checked, so you just have to make sure you get the surface coatings right.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 12:32:43 AM
My understanding is that thermal vacuum tests, at least for communications satellites, rarely involve solar simulation.

Well, I personally witnessed the Boeing 601HP and 701 thermal validation tests.  It was a Hughes design that Boeing bought.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 01:02:01 AM
Well, it was a little too strong to say that the thermal design is not checked. With or without a solar simulator the test will generate heat loads that will flow through the spacecraft just as they will in space (internal radiation and conduction but not air convection) so you'll know if there's a problem getting heat out of some module like a power amplifier.

But the spacecraft I'm familiar with were not tested to ensure their surfaces would achieve the desired temperatures in space. We relied on physics and the known properties of the surface coatings (multilayer blankets, second-surface mirrors, paints, solar cells, etc).

Then again our budget was a little lower than some.

Edited to add: Ah, I see you said "radiant heat", which I read to mean a solar simulator. The chambers I've seen had coolant lines on the walls to bring them to any desired temperature, which would in turn bring the spacecraft under test to the same temperature. Perhaps we're talking about the same thing.

I know that some of the large chambers originally built for Apollo did have solar simulators, but they're awfully expensive to run.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 01:10:03 AM
The fact is, you are a liar!

And I, for one, have no problem using the word.  We are saying that someone is knowingly saying things they know to be untrue.  Where I come from, the word for such behaviour is "lying."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 29, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
SNIPPED A BIT.

...NASA has not been accountable...

Of course they wouldn't send an untested suit. So where's the video of one being tested. Oh sure, they tested them and tested them for more than 50 years but not a single video. Plenty of video of spacesuits in swimming pools but none in a vacuum chamber down the hall. Anomaly. Focus.

They put the sublimator in a vacuum chamber without putting the astronaut inside. Something is very suspicious about that but I need to think about it a bit longer...

If it's all as suspicious as you say, why didn't the Soviets say anything at the time? Or were they in on the hoax?

Quote
I have watched with the naked eye what NASA says is a manned ISS passing by overhead. How do you KNOW there are people aboard?

Because countries other than the USA send astronauts to the ISS. What do the Russians, Canadians and miscellaneous Europeans get out of hoaxing the ISS?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 29, 2015, 01:30:43 AM
Because countries other than the USA send astronauts to the ISS. What do the Russians, Canadians and miscellaneous Europeans get out of hoaxing the ISS?
Not to mention some of the wealthiest  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism#List_of_flown_space_tourists)people on the planet. How would you feel, if you were the kind of person who can spend 25 million or so on a vacation, specifically to spend it on the ISS, only to find you have to spend those couple of weeks cramped up in the Soyuz capsule and then, then find out you have to lie about it and say you spent it in the far roomier ISS. Remember, these are people who are wealthy beyond most of our realistic dreams, powerful individuals who are probably used to getting things their way.
I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 29, 2015, 02:31:19 AM
If it's all as suspicious as you say, why didn't the Soviets say anything at the time? Or were they in on the hoax?

Of course they had to be in on the hoax.  Their spacesuits use porous plate sublimators too. ::)

Russian Spacesuits, Isaak P. Abramov and A. Ingemar Skoog, 2003 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7pZosHqkbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From page 242 (with photo on page 243):

Quote
The design of the sublimator/CHX for heat and humidity removal was proven in the spacesuit programmes of the USA and USSR and was also selected for breadboarding the ESSS project.  The design consisted of a stainless steel heat exchanger core with nickel fins and a sublimator porous plate built up of several layers of wire meshes rolled together (Figure 11.2.18).  The breadboard model of an all-European-manufactured sublimator/CHX proved the design worked, but heat removal capacity was lower than predicted.  Detailed analyses of the test results revealed the likely cause of reduced heat removal, and the unit was modified to give improved performance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 29, 2015, 02:45:06 AM
He'll probably quit posting soon. 2 or 3 weeks from now he'll be back starting a new thread about all the absurdities and how the only way to prove the landings were real is with the demo and act like none of the past few days has even happened. Standard procedure for him over at his usual hang-out, the Michio Kaku video.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 29, 2015, 05:06:50 AM
He'll probably quit posting soon. 2 or 3 weeks from now he'll be back starting a new thread about all the absurdities and how the only way to prove the landings were real is with the demo and act like none of the past few days has even happened. Standard procedure for him over at his usual hang-out, the Michio Kaku video.

If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on August 29, 2015, 05:42:02 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 29, 2015, 05:56:49 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Because they don't have to think as hard.

There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.

It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.

Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.

They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 06:22:00 AM
My educated guess is that this is one reason why thermal vacuum chambers have plates cooled by liquid nitrogen. Several volatiles (water, carbon dioxide) would freeze out on such plates, making the job easier for the vacuum pumps.

I certainly didn't work with systems the size of chamber A, but ultra-high vacuums are not achieved using mechanical pumps alone. Once in the ultra-high range mechanical pumps are not really that helpful. High vacuum is normally achieved using a rotary pump. We then switched on an oil diffusion pump once high vacuum was achieved (you need to obtain high vacuum first otherwise the diffusion pump would stall). The entire rig was then wrapped like a turkey and heated to out gas the walls for 24 - 36 hours (mainly of water). The last procedure was carried for such a long time because we were quite a poor research group and no one wanted to purchase getter or cryo pumps. Heating the chamber with a turbo pump running was found to reduce the vacuum by another 2 orders of magnitude :)

But yes, once you reach ultra-high vacuum adsorption techniques are employed. Titanium cryopumps are used as they remove helium really well, no one would buy one of these for us :(

It was quite a feat to achieve 10-9 Torr, but we managed it. We once got 10-10 and pretty much everyone came in and looked at the ion gauge to witness our achievement, although most people thought the ion gauge was faulty at this point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 29, 2015, 06:24:19 AM
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....
Schadenfreude is not made-up. It's not even specific to German as many other languages have a word meaning exactly the same. Would you believe it, the ancient Greeks called it ἐπιχαιρεκακία (epichairekakía), and, I'm told, epicaricacy is an English word.
If I may, a suggestion for the newly coined word: since in German, -en indicates the infinitive of a verb, I'd remove it from the "assen" part, leaving (note capitalization) Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude.

On the other hand, maybe such word-coining is like beating a man already on the ground ("poking a donkey with a stick" as I read elsewhere). We don't make fun of handicapped people, why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 29, 2015, 07:06:16 AM
 
...Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude...

Shouldn't the middle part be "arse" instead of "ass"? In that context "ass" is a distinctly North American (US and Canadian) euphemism which is not used by many Europeans and English-speaking people.

It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.

Oh, we Kiwis can be a pretty blunt lot, just the same as Australians.  :)

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on August 29, 2015, 07:18:40 AM
How about Bäckerarschtrittenschadenfreude? That uses correct terminology.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 07:18:50 AM
Of course they had to be in on the hoax.  Their spacesuits use porous plate sublimators too. ::)

Russian Spacesuits, Isaak P. Abramov and A. Ingemar Skoog, 2003 (https://books.google.com/books?id=f7pZosHqkbEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)
That book includes numerous other mentions of sublimation coolers, used from the early space station missions in the 1970s and still in use for EVAs from the Russian segment of the International Space Station.  It also includes several photos of test subjects wearing the suits inside thermal vacuum chambers.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 07:28:26 AM
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?

I have never seen that term before although the link is broken for me. I've fixed it for you in this post, hope you don't mind?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 07:28:31 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on August 29, 2015, 07:35:26 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.

That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it.  For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.  A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down.  But what good is that?  To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc.  The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: 12oh2alarm on August 29, 2015, 07:36:31 AM
...why would me make fun of otherwise ill people who ruined most of their life with an Idée fixe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_%28psychology%29)?

I have never seen that term before although the link is broken is broken for me. I've fixed it for you in this post, hope you don't mind?

Thanks, mate. I've corrected it in the original as well.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 29, 2015, 08:02:41 AM
If schadenfreude is truly the (made-up?) German word for taking pleasure at others' misfortunes, I may have to coin 'bakerwhippenassenkickenfreude' for the drubbing he's been receiving here.....

If I may, a suggestion for the newly coined word: since in German, -en indicates the infinitive of a verb, I'd remove it from the "assen" part, leaving (note capitalization) Bakerwhippenasskickenfreude.

I don't speak the language, but I approve.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:03:41 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...
Videos are the easiest way to get a conception. No long time spent reading, just ten minutes of your life. Society has become accustomed to ease of the internet, the privacy, the anonymity that it provides. In my later years, I too have spent far too long on the net. It can be rewarding as well as alluring.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 29, 2015, 08:26:18 AM
Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.
As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.

That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it.  For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.  A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down.  But what good is that?  To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc.  The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...

I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening (or, for that matter, of designing a device to output data on a continuous feed of paper).

So there are times when I can see that recording something on video (or film, whatever) might have value.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 08:26:44 AM
For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway. 
That involved at least two cine cameras and, in the days before digital images, a lot of measuring of the position within each frame of film of several points on the object you were interested in, so as to reconstruct the trajectory and a record of how the attitude was changing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 08:28:03 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.

Because they seem to use sources such as YouTube as "research". The content that they seem to absorb is emotion-led arguments from the likes of the Blunder, hunchbacked and others. Plus, a video is a one-sided discussion, with no room for rebuttals or debate, so they can "tune out" any contradictory ideas. It's the ultimate from of confirmation bias and it reinforces their perceptions. Lets face it the modern crop of hoaxies seem exclusively to be poorly educated and unable to lift their discussions above cut'n'paste jobs.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

He knows, either consciously or unconsciously, that his test is never likely to happen. Therefore he will never have to come to that conclusion. It's the equivalent of saying "If NASA went to the Moon then they should be able to show me a unicorn. As they refuse to enter into a unicorn-based discussion, they are clearly hiding something. Further, proof of the Moon landings can only happen if they show me a unicorn. As they won't discuss it and as there are no videos of unicorns, then the whole thing is a fake". There is no recognition of the fact that unicorns do not exist and even if they did, why would NASA waste time (and taxpayers money) arranging a unicorn demonstration to a convicted felon who is utterly obsessed with conspiracy theories?

Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge- one where he is in total control and where the rules vary at whim. One where he can selectively ignore any evidence that has a chance of winning his mythical prize. As no-one can possibly win the "competition" then he uses this as evidence that his claims of a hoax are correct.

The other thing to consider is that most of the hoax arguments are emotion-based. The hoaxies build their belief system into their personality and any attempt to debunk their beliefs are seen as a personal challenge and insult. Showing them scientific evidence and facts generally won't change their minds as their belies are based on emotion. Look at the Blunder and how much emotion he has invested in his beliefs, not to mention that he is probably making a few bucks from the sale of Rene's horse-manure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 29, 2015, 08:39:01 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening.

Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:39:53 AM
Because they don't have to think as hard.

There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.

It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.

Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.

They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.
I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:46:10 AM


Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything ;)
The veil of secrecy that helps hide the very large Hoax. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on August 29, 2015, 08:48:09 AM
The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G. 
Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 29, 2015, 08:52:07 AM
Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does not occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day, and that is just the film. There is the set up on top of that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:52:11 AM

Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.
Wait you are applying logic and thinking to your post, surely you don't expect THAT BEHAVIOR from a Hoaxer? ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 08:54:36 AM
Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does no occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day.
Are you suggesting that there was activities prior to the advent of the internet? We all have Al Gore to thank for this. ::)  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 08:56:36 AM
I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:10:57 AM

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.
It may well have been him, but maybe someone else.  Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links(in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular was a parallax issue that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on August 29, 2015, 09:23:56 AM
...I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Sigh!  ::)

Neil Baker, just like many other hoax-believers have done, you really are putting an immense effort into proving to us just how stupid you can be, aren't you? Whatever for? It just makes you look foolish.

However, I must congratulate you because you have had such resounding success that you have convinced me. But having done that, isn't it a good idea that you start using your brains just a little bit? Obviously, I'm assuming that you have some to use but for reasons of your own have hardly done so.

Try this: Go back to pages one and two and study the posts sufficiently to understand them. Note that in reply No. 8 Gazpar gave you the link to what you ask for above, but instead of following it properly you had the audacity to insult him and other members of this forum with the following remark in your second post:

If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.

In another post you stated:

Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

You have been shown with copious examples what nonsense those two statements are, starting with links on pages one and two. And even after having been given some of them a second time, still you are foolish enough to not accept most of the information. All you have done is shift the goalposts.

In reply 27 on page 2, Raven gave you the link that shows the PLSS data was on the internet in 1997, which you later acknowledged in post 115, page 8:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31217#msg31217

But you also added, like a true intellectual giant, "I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later."

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals (ALSJ) have never been buried anywhere in cyberspace since they were first put on the internet, so the article and its photos never appeared to you and others much later. They have always been there.

I have both the CD-ROM version of the ALSJ of 1 May 1999, and the DVD-ROM version of 10 August 2006, and the articles and photos are in both versions. The photo you claimed responsibility for getting on the internet, was created (probably scanned from a print or slide) on 30 March 1999 for the CD-ROM version, but had obviously been on the internet earlier than that.

Had you done your homework properly and examined the information given to you, you would have read that  the original editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals, Eric Jones, took the photo plss04.jpg.

Here, allow me to spoon-feed you the information that you didn't seem to find from Raven's link:

Quote
These photos are cutaway views of a full-scale, engineering model of the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The colors of the internal components are used to enhance the identification of critical components only. Production models were not color coded.

...All these photographs were taken the Journal Editor, Eric Jones, and were scanned by Frank O'Brien. Our thanks to Joe Kosmo at the NASA Johnson Space Center for providing access to the PLSS model.

See that?  Unlike production models of the PLSS, that one was colour-coded for your viewing ease, and the photo was taken by Eric Jones.

One thing you should know about the ALSJ, is that a direct link like Gazpar's is okay for looking at a specific document or photo, but is not the best way to access the entire journals.  You need the frames for that, by starting with (and recording), this link:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

To navigate to the PLSS article from there, click on the link
Introductory Material
then page down to
Flight Hardware
Suits and Life Support Equipment

and click on
Portable Life Support System (PLSS)

Easy, huh? You could spend many years studying the information at the ALSJ. Quite a few of us here have contributed to the journals.

Then there are also the Apollo Flight Journals:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/

One little hint about what you call "stonewalling" in your own empty opinions:  Nasa and aerospace companies don't suffer fools gladly. As you have amply shown in this thread, it's a waste of time.  Even here, many of us are not really posting for your benefit, we are instead posting for other members and the more intelligent onlookers who will understand and appreciate the things that you don't.

Some time back one HB claimed that the lurkers would all be on his side, so we persuaded them to de-lurk and say whose side they were on.  A few did, and not one of them was on his side.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 09:31:16 AM
Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links (in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular  [question] was an parallax issue effective exhaust velocity problem  that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 09:42:01 AM

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.
I never pursued any of that series whether blunder or not.  I have only contributed to a few on YT quite ineffectively at either obtaining a convert or comment about the HB proposal being wrong.  The only conclusive blunder thread was the disgusting series on Apollo 1 fire, that was the last video I've watched or will ever from him.
This forum has been great to learn new aspects of the Apollo program that I didn't know, but suspected or at least thought about.  As well being able to stop and think about the absurd "anomalies" presented by HB's and how to show that their isn't one and/or being able to do a little research to finding answers trolling the net. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 29, 2015, 11:17:03 AM
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 11:58:25 AM
It's similar to the American euphemism "bathroom" that is used when the speaker actually means toilet, lavatory, dunny, thunderbox etcetera. If anyone ever comes to my place and asks for directions to the bathroom, they will be given them, and if they return and explain that they actually wanted that "other room", they might be loudly asked why they didn't have the good sense say so in the first place.

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 12:56:13 PM
Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge-

For the record, it's one million euro.

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero. ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 01:05:42 PM

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 01:07:39 PM

Thanks for the correction.
It could be one million Koh-i-Noors as the chances of Bjorkman actually having it, or him declaring that anyone has won it are zero. ;)
Evasive goal changing M. O. I suspect, to protect "No one has proven me wrong".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 29, 2015, 01:35:53 PM

Because it's a perfectly legitimate word and all those other terms are euphemisms, too?
Besides many but not all contain a shower/tub in the same room.

Certainly mine does.  And the real estate term for ones that don't, in the US, is "half-bath."  Or "3/4 bath" if it has a shower but not a tub.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 29, 2015, 03:13:16 PM
I bet that would go as well as stampeding cattle through the Vatican.
Kinky...!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on August 29, 2015, 03:35:49 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 04:09:44 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test, and vacuum chamber systems -ultra-high vacuum, or UHV as Luke mentioned, to be precise (10-6 torr is a crappy vacuum).  If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

While there might be movies of sublimators, the idea that it is some sort of vital evidence is laughable - only an ignoramus would make such a silly claim.  Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant, rather than actually think about the issue.
I believe you have correctly described Mr. Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 04:34:16 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.

Indeed.  I can see some value in video documents of a bench test where, conceivably, you might use the video to measure the rate of ice formation or some such thing.  But that would only be a shorthand to other forms of data collection.  A sublimator literally just sits there.

Besides, Baker insists that he has to see an all-up test:  an astronaut in a sublimation-cooled space suit, demonstrably in a vacuum.  But the sublimator is necessarily inside the PLSS out of sight -- in vacuum, but also in shade.  As we have seen, Baker nit-picks all the video evidence shown to him.  The video he demands as ultimate proof is ripe for exactly the kind of solipsist nit-picking he uses to sidestep all the other evidence.

Quote
It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Not quite the same, but I've actually imaged microprocessors in the infrared while they were running certain specific code.  When you build a supercomputer to run a particular software package (custom finite-element analysis) there is actual value in determining how to cool the apparatus for that particular application.

Quote
Moreover, only an ignoramus who is determined to remain ignorant...

Or alternatively, an ignoramus determined to portray to the equally ignorant public that there is a legitimate controversy when, in fact, there isn't.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 29, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
I have experience in, among other things, spacecraft integration and test

Just an off topic question.

I am assuming that these integration tests are effectively a test to make sure that everything on the spacecraft works with everything else on the spacecraft that it is expected to work with, and to ensure that systems continue to function correctly when other non-related systems are turned on or turned off.

Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11? The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
Did Apollo undergo integration tests prior to Apollo 11?

Yes, and your understanding of what the test is meant to study is correct.

Quote
The reason I ask is that it occurs to me such a test would have picked up the problem with the 1201 and 1202 alarms caused by the AGC running out of resources when the LM's rendezvous radar was left switched on.

The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing.  The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized).  Hence it was written off as "no big deal."

Quote
Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

No.  Integration tests focus on the nominal mission, and only drift slightly into contingency flight plans.  The LM Lifeboat scenario was well down the list of contingencies.

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 05:05:53 PM


With regard to Apollo 13, I read somewhere that using the LM as a lifeboat was something that had been considered well in advance of the launch, and that they knew if they were going to do have to that, they would have problems with the carbon dioxide build up. Would an integration test for that scenario have picked up the non-interchangeability of the Lithium Hydroxide cartridges?

Some, but not all, lifeboat procedures had been simulated and documented. Sy Liebergot (page 142 of his autobiography) "I stood up and called TELMU Bob Heselmeyer, my LM counterpart. He was only ten feet to my right, but I called him on is loop. "Bob, do you remember the lifeboat procedures that we started to develop on that sim where we went round the Moon and lost cabin pressure? Did you guys ever work on those lifeboat procedures?"" The procedures weren't fully developed because NASA thought that a multiple failure of so many systems was unlikely (http://www.zshiftgroup.com/blog/simulation-and-the-true-story-behind-apollo-13-1286/).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 05:10:45 PM

The LM LiHO cartridges were annular, like some older car air filters.  The inlet supplied air to the outer perimeter, and the discharge was at the center.  This best fit the form factor of the LM ECS, tacked onto the bulkhead on the LMP's side.  The CM LiHO were straightforward axial filters.  The need to use one filter in the other system was considered, but not deemed sufficiently important to warrant attempting an extensive redesign of either ECS system.
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem?  They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 29, 2015, 05:17:46 PM
Given that this was the case, why not start studying how to solve the problem in advance of when the CO2 partial pressure began to be a problem?  They might have instituted the corrective measures before the event actually happened?

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO2 problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 29, 2015, 05:36:03 PM

There was just too much to think about in the reactive mode.  The Apollo 13 incident is one of the most widely studied incidents in failure analysis, not only from the technical standpoint but from the psychological standpoint.  Engineers ironically have to study a lot of pyschology if they build systems that rely on human operators.  And the ground teams were focused first on how to save the mission, and thereafter on how to save the crew based on the failures that had already occurred.  The movie Apollo 13 overdramatizes it a little, but the CO2 problem wasn't considered crucial until the telemetry made the ground controllers take notice.

Engineers responding to a failure generally think first about how to drive the system to a stable state in order to buy time to fully analyze various solutions.  Hence with the crew "safely" in the LM it wasn't immediately apparent that they would overtax the LM's ECS.
I agree with crew safety concerns were paramount in the initial stages of the event.  And I agree with studying a design to be used by someone else especially when you are only talking to them about the procedure by voice.  I wasn't really referring to the movie when asked the question, rather since we have a situation like they were faced with do some problem solving (after the initial crew safety issues) into what more COULD happen.  I know that is how "we" react to situations where I work, identify the problem, solutions to fix/abate the problem and what more could happen with the given set of circumstances.  But that is the engineer in me talking, not the engineers at MCC.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 29, 2015, 06:41:17 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of us want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 29, 2015, 06:57:47 PM
If someone asked me to film a test of a sublimator, my first question would be "Why?"  It just sits there.  It's like proving software works by filming a microprocessor.

Quite. Ralph Rene wrote about the PLSS sublimator and asked why water vapour/ice crystals were not seen being ejected into space from the 'blow-hole' of the PLSS.

I won't labour the reasons for that here, but Neil's demand for a video had me think about Ralph's claim. The reality is that we would not see a thing from the sublimator. That's why I think many of use want him to explain what sublimation means (with or without a phase diagram). One could film a vacuum needle showing a system is being pumped and just sit an unconneted sublimator in the vacuum and it would give the same visual result as the PLSS sublimator operating.

What is Neil expecting? Ralph Rene's venting blow hole? As Andromeda said, the video will show nothing, it is the data obtained that shows the effectiveness.

And let's assume that Baker gets his video and even his ridiculous test. Does that then mean that he agrees with all of the documentation that has been presented to him? If that's the case, then he should be able to analyse the documentation and declare it bogus or valid. That's assuming that he has the skills and wherewithal to do so. if he hasn't, then he certainly would not be able to validate what is happening in a test or video.
The absence or presence of the video and/or test doesn't alter the documentation one jot. Either the documentation stands on its own or it doesn't Either which way, seeing it in action in a test chamber won't alter the veracity of the documentation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 01:17:51 AM
The decision to leave it switched on was a late change, after integration testing.  The phase lock protocol between the redundant radar power supplies wasn't considered a critical factor (or even, at the time, well publicized).  Hence it was written off as "no big deal."

Turning on the rendezvous radar (actually leaving it in "standby") was not a "checklist error" as is often reported. But it was added to the checklist at a late date. The idea was to have it warmed up in case it was needed for an abort.

The specs for the two 800 Hz references only called for frequency lock, not phase lock. This was even noted during test but forgotten as unimportant. It wasn't noticed in the simulator because it wasn't a complete simulation of the LM, only those parts relevant to training the crew.

Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro) that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

The whole gory story is here: http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html (http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 30, 2015, 02:08:33 AM
I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 30, 2015, 05:06:16 AM
Apollo was before the days of optical shaft encoders so the rendezvous radar adapted an device called a Synchro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchro) that had been widely used during WW2 in naval fire control systems. An actual synchro motor was used on the antenna and a "virtual" one was used on the computer to produce angle information for the A/D converters.

Jeez that brings back a few fond memories.

My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad. He had a synchro transmitter in his ham shack with a 360° dial and a knob with a pointer. He would read off a Great Circle map the bearing he wanted, turn the knob around to the desired bearing and the motor on the mast head would turn the antenna accordingly.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 09:05:20 AM
I've read that before I believe, and it raises, yet again, a question us non-techy types can ask: Why, in all heck, would NASA pretend to make mistakes like this that would make them and their contractors look bad? It's not quite on the level of proof, or anything more than circumstantial evidence, but it's a good question nonetheless, I think.

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 09:59:13 AM

The late Dr. Patrick claimed that NASA put mistakes in the "narrative" and even faked Borman's illness to increase the drama or something like that.   I'm not digging through hundreds of pages of threads to get his exact words on the subject.
I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175
Quote
During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 11:50:09 AM

I believe that Dr. Patrick's narrative is incorrect.  According to the post flight report http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/a08-missionreport.pdf page 175
Quote
During the 6.l-day lunar orbital flight, the three crewmen accumulated
441 man-hours of space flight experience. For the first time in
the space program, the crew reported symptoms of motion sickness during
the adaptation phase of the intravehicular activity.

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 12:23:35 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on August 30, 2015, 01:33:51 PM
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

Sorry, I didn't realize that you weren't familiar with the stupendous intellect of Dr Socks.   Here's a very long thread started by him if you are curious.    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531&highlight=lick (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216531&highlight=lick)

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 30, 2015, 01:44:44 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 02:02:17 PM

Saying Patrick Tekel AKA, DR T, fattydash, Patrick1000 and numerous sock puppets was incorrect is a lot like saying the Pacific Ocean has water in it.
Ah ok, I thought that might have been someone who knew something.

I don't dispute that he must have known something, but nothing relevant.

I stand corrected again. :)

EDIT: Moved my comment outside the last closed quote
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 05:09:21 PM
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.
Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.

Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 30, 2015, 07:26:58 PM
My dad had a selsyn synchro motor system to drive his 20m band cubical quad.
Sure it was a Selsyn? They were generally rather low torque, much too low to drive a large HF antenna.

Antenna rotors are common, and virtually all use AC (some use DC) motors to drive gears that turn the antenna. A potentiometer detects mast angle, and this is sent back to the control box where it drives the indicator and stops rotation when it reaches the desired spot.

Well it was a long time ago, I was about 10 years old (I am 60 next month), however, I remember Dad calling it a "selsyn motor".

It also had a separate dial that sat on top of his HRO right next to the speaker (in fact it was housed in an identical box to the speaker, a stippled black finish). It showed where the antenna was actually pointing; he would turn the knob (sometimes he would let me turn it) until the pointer pointed to, say, 270°. You could hear the humming of the motor and the dial would track around gradually until it too pointed to 270°. Perhaps I misunderstood and the dial arrangement was a selsyn?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 30, 2015, 07:45:12 PM
Although I've never seen it done that way, yes, it's quite possible that a selsyn was used to display the position of the rotator on the control box. This is just how a lot of Navy warships used them to display gun positions at remote locations.

But the rotator itself was almost certainly driven by a conventional motor. A very popular design uses a two (rather than three) phase AC induction motor with a capacitor between the hot sides of the two windings. You apply AC power to one winding or the other and the motor turns in the corresponding direction.

Nearly all rotators today use a potentiometer to produce a DC voltage proportional to the position, and this voltage is sent back down to the control box where it is displayed on an analog or digital meter.

As a kid in the 1960s we had a TV rotator that pulsed a switch every N degrees that would energize an electromagnet in the control box and step an indicator needle around the circle. It kept getting out of sync, so you'd have to run the rotator into one stop and then push a button on the control box until it also read at the stop. I've never seen it anywhere else.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 30, 2015, 10:54:03 PM
I found this book published in 1993 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fb4QAQAAMAAJ&q=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&dq=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjty7GimNLHAhXVKYgKHZUTC2k

I searched hard for a second Internet photo of a spacesuit ice sublimator with no success but in 2007 Harold McCann, coauthor of U.S. Spacesuits

http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/144199565X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440988637&sr=8-1&keywords=u.S.+spacesuits

sent me two additional photos of ice sublimators from his private collection so I know they exist even though they weren't on the Internet.

And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others. I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.

Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.

Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 30, 2015, 11:04:47 PM
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.

Of course you do.  You had those doubts before you were told how they worked.  And you still have that doubt, because you explained why you need that doubt in order to satisfy your personal pet projects in other areas.  As such, it will never go away despite that the available information satisfies everyone except you, including those who work in the field.  As was amply shown, your willy-nilly requests for others to provide information, accompanied by goalposts that move so fast they create sonic booms, cannot possibly be calculated to form part of any serious study.

Since you've conceded that information regarding sublimators existed prior to 2007, please retract your claim that you instigated recent publication.  And please apologize to your critics for insinuating that you had made a thorough enough search prior to the claim, which you have now admitted indirectly was not true.

Quote
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

It is, for the reasons already specified and which you stubbornly refuse to address.  You are the only one who doubts they work.  And frankly, you're just not that important.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 30, 2015, 11:23:15 PM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.
Why exactly?
I don't think you have ever given an actual reason why the sublimation of water in a vacuum would not be a suitable way to remove heat.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 30, 2015, 11:44:52 PM
Ah, yes. We've tested that hammers work. We've tested that nails work. But there is no possible way of telling if you could hammer a nail. Because something mysterious might happen when you put together an astronaut AND radiant heat AND "high" vacuum AND a sublimator AND...I dunno, a Mickey Mouse Wristwatch, because if you are going to assume completely unpredictable interactions between individually well-behaved elements, you can't rule any addition to the system out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 30, 2015, 11:57:02 PM

Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.
Why is this surprising?  The sublimators in the vacuum chamber worked as expected cooling the individual on the tread mill.  Only your narrow perspective of how a test should be conducted is in question by all of us.
Quote

Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.
It is when you are the only one asking for the test, when it has been made abundantly clear they work as advertised in a vacuum.  You are holed up in your opinion of yourself and refuse to learn what has been presented.
Quote

If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.
The only validation is in your mind, the rest of the world accepts that they work, and even has imagery of them working at various locations.  These locations you also refuse to acknowledge even though one of them you can see with the naked eye.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.

As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary.  The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base.  But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.

But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.

And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:20:58 AM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space.
Why exactly?
Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat.
So what is the problem exactly?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:24:48 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test. I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.

I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:32:17 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.  A single photo has since appeared and I have today identified a book from 1993 that mentions them but still it's far less than what I expected considering that spacesuit ice sublimators are one of the most exotic heat transfer devices ever developed. I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated. If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:32:39 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains...

Not a fact.  You've already pled incompetent at net searches, so we're done with that point.

Quote
As for the no textbook...

Weasel words.  You said no textbook mentioned it.  You were wrong, but you won't admit it.  This means you're arguing in bad faith.

Quote
But even you should confess that it is strange.

No, I should not.  I was writing about sublimators in 2002.  Your attempt to trump up a controversy about it years later convinces no one.

Quote
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit...

Shifting goalposts.  And you probably don't realize that this latest shift pretty much exposes you as entirely ignorant of human test subject protocols and engineering test protocols.  Give it up, Baker.  You're a complete ignoramus on this subject, and that -- not some farfetched conspiracy -- is why no one pays attention to you.

Quote
your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded...

Nice try, Baker.  This is an emotional argument for you, not me.

Quote
...this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

Let me repeat that you're talking about my profession, about which you demonstrate absolutely no correct knowledge.  Maybe your explicitly stated zeal to use NASA and Apollo as proxies for your 9/11 obsession -- which has reached criminal proportions -- has blinded you to the fairly obvious fact that you're the only one who claims nickel porous plate sublimators can't work and weren't adequately tested.

Quote
..it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.

But you didn't actually go, as we've determined and as you've lately, indirectly, admitted.  And your expectations are laughably absurd.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:32:48 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?

I see no reason why I would not, because the space suits have been tested many, many times in orbit by several countries. What exactly do you think the problem is here?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 12:33:21 AM
And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others. I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.
More Orlan vacuum chamber testing


Early US pressure suit vacuum chamber testing


You really are incredibly incompetent at research, aren't you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:35:01 AM
When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

We've already demonstrated how incompetent you are at the relevant research.  That, not some conspiracy, is why you were "unable" to find relevant information.  That, and the stated need to find NASA in some sort of intellectual default so that you could leverage that for your 9/11 fantasy.

Quote
I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.

They are.  Every manned spacefaring country uses them.  Your ignorance does not create a legitimate controversy.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 12:38:25 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

And from what we have seen, that is just down to you not being very good at searching for information.

.. it's far less than what I expected considering that spacesuit ice sublimators are one of the most exotic heat transfer devices ever developed.

Exotic? Really? It is an extremely basic principle.
Neatly demonstrated in this video :

I can't understand why they aren't more appreciated.
Probably because there is nothing 'exotic' about them, it is a basic behaviour of water in a vacuum.

Which leads back into my original question; What is the problem with this system? Is there any particular reason you think it would not work?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 12:39:05 AM
I found this book published in 1993 that mentions spacesuit ice sublimators.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fb4QAQAAMAAJ&q=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&dq=spacesuit+ice+sublimator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjty7GimNLHAhXVKYgKHZUTC2k

I searched hard for a second Internet photo of a spacesuit ice sublimator with no success but in 2007 Harold McCann, coauthor of U.S. Spacesuits

http://www.amazon.com/Spacesuits-Springer-Praxis-Books-Exploration/dp/144199565X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440988637&sr=8-1&keywords=u.S.+spacesuits

sent me two additional photos of ice sublimators from his private collection so I know they exist even though they weren't on the Internet.

And except for that one 1966 video of a spacesuit without sublimator failing with a near-fatality, I can't find any others.

What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

Quote
I've read the comments and I agree that there would be little to see  if a vacuum chamber were filmed and little could be proven by it...

Fair enough.

Quote
...but considering the crucial nature of those tests and the unique nature of the heat transfer device, I'm surprised more public attention wasn't focused on the sublimators.

Aaaargh!

You just accepted that there'd be "little to see" if the test was done the way you want. Why do you think the "public" would show any interest in a white box sitting in a chamber where there was "little to see"? What sort of insight do you think you have into where "public attention" should be focused?

Quote
Reading many of the links provided, it was surprising to learn that none of the test reports indicated that an astronaut was in the vacuum chamber at the same time the sublimator was being tested. They would place the sublimator in a vacuum chamber with a suited astronaut outside on a treadmill. The Rice University tests used an electric heater to supply the heat load for the sublimator in a vacuum chamber. I didn't understand the units he used to describe vacuum chamber pressure.

Why the surprise? If the purpose of the test is to ensure the sublimator works in a vacuum, why put anything else in the vacuum chamber? Why risk the astronaut's life from having something unexpected happen to some other piece of hardware? You can save all-up tests until you've confirmed the sublimator works according to specs.

To provide an alternative example, when the RAF first tested Barnes Wallis's dam-buster bomb during World War Two, they didn't put live explosives inside the casings. They simply substituted it with another material of the same weight, because all they were testing was whether the casings were strong enough.

Quote
Anyway, although I now know much more about the sublimators, I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

Quote
If NASA is using those spacesuit for EVAs as they allege then they've been regularly testing them for more than 50 years as they also allege. It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers. Plus it would add validation to NASA's Citizen supported activity.

The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:39:55 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first?

The sublimators were tested.  You've been given copious amount of documentation on that, which you have predictably swept aside in favor of your new goalposts.  Now you say an astronaut has to be in the suit for the tests, as if the sublimator cares where its heat load comes from.

Honestly, you have an engineering degree.  How frankly inept are you going to be in order to pursue your obsession?

Quote
Is my perspective really that narrow?

Yes.

Quote
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.

Yeah, you should continue to ponder that.  When it's you on one side and every other smart, qualified, experienced person on the other side, that should give you pause.

Quote
I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.

Bare denial.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:47:18 AM
The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

Well, what Congress wants it to do is another whole debate.

But yes, you've hit the nail on the head.  Neil Baker is convinced he's the special snowflake, so important in the grand scheme of things that the government had to "trump up" charges against him to silence him.  Nothing is so dangerous as a crackpot on a mission.  And for the present time, that mission is to show that some singular component in a $23 billion civil engineering project is so worth verifying to him personally that NASA has to allow him and his "witnesses" unfettered access.

Neil, please get this into your head very firmly:

You're not important and you don't know what you're taking about.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 12:49:16 AM
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

No radiator? Isn't that what a sublimator is? A device to radiate heat?

How can you say a spacesuit with a sublimator has no radiator?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 12:55:12 AM
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html
Quote

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.
Quote

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.

I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 12:57:27 AM
If I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

No radiator? Isn't that what a sublimator is? A device to radiate heat?

How can you say a spacesuit with a sublimator has no radiator?

Well, a radiator is something that rejects heat via radiative heat transfer.  Car "radiators" are really convective heat exchangers.  The notion that there's "no radiator" in space is absolutely ludicrous.  We don't typically use water-operator porous plate sublimators on long-term missions because they require a consumable supply of water.  The most typical phase-change heat sink in space engineering uses paraffin as the phase-susceptible material.  There are closed-cycle paraffin exchangers and open-cycle ones, typically reserved for emergencies.  Radiation is the most common method of rejecting heat aboard a spacecraft.

For spacesuits, the radiator assembly would be cumbersome.  And since EVAs are time-bounded for other reasons (e.g., astronaut fatigue), it's perfectly acceptable to use a highly efficient heat reject method that nevertheless requires a replenishable consumable -- cooling water.

Thermodynamics is not the same as heat transfer.  If I were teaching a freshman thermodynamics course and some freshman said in class that porous plate sublimators couldn't work, he'd be going home that night with a very hefty homework assignment.  Note that Baker, for all his bluster, has evaded every single request to show from a thermodynamics or heat transfer standpoint, complete with equations etc., that his claim has merit in the physical sciences.

That's because he can't, and he knows he can't.  He just needs to stir up enough doubt by handwaving at test protocols to plausibly (to laymen) accuse NASA of lying.  Then he can, as he as stated is his aim, try to say that the government also lied about 9/11.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 01:00:24 AM

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.
here:

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Apollo_portable_life_support_system.jpg&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System&h=3727&w=4711&tbnid=sd6LaOuIDyffGM:&docid=h01wvtICf35bjM&ei=mt3jVfewJ8ud7gbGnJfoBg&tbm=isch&ved=0CCcQMygGMAZqFQoTCPflo6HD0scCFcuO2wodRs4FbQ

And here:
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/A7L_plss.jpg&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System&h=1958&w=1234&tbnid=8UrDKoYXdGTBEM:&docid=h01wvtICf35bjM&ei=mt3jVfewJ8ud7gbGnJfoBg&tbm=isch&ved=0CEIQMygXMBdqFQoTCPflo6HD0scCFcuO2wodRs4FbQ

And so forth. Hell, the sublimators are so old hat alternatives are being actively worked on, like here:
http://www.tda.com/Library/docs/2008-01-2111.pdf
with pictures for your viewing pleasure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 01:02:49 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:04:34 AM
I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test.

Try to work out why.

Quote
And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

Hogwash.  You said you wanted your witnesses to be able to integrate their own monitoring equipment into the test.  Why do you think that wouldn't cost NASA extra?  NASA doesn't test every individual sublimator in an all-up test in a full-scale, high-vacuum test with a human subject.  Why?  Because it's not necessary, and to do so would be unnecessary, immoral, and inefficient.  Hence the next vacuum-chamber test of a sublimator is likely to be well into the future, when new sublimator designs require it.

You are not at all conversant in engineering test protocols.  Your assessment of what is required and what it would additionally cost is pure fantasy.

Quote
I don't speak or read Russian,

Your ongoing incompetence at the relevant research is not a valid excuse.

Quote
...I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you...

False.  You don't get to dictate what, for everyone, is "scientific validation."  In fact, what you've proposed is eminently non-scientific.  You may assiduously wish to believe otherwise for personal reasons, but not everyone is as ignorantly in the dark as you are.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 01:06:17 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

Then maybe you should go back to school and learn that energy is required to turn a solid to a gas...
Why exactly would the sublimation of ice in a vacuum not work very effectively to remove heat?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:09:48 AM
I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

Then I would have failed you if I were teaching that class.  Phase-change cooling predates rational engineering.  It was discovered via practical application.  It was covered at length, including its history, in several of the references provided to you, which you obviously have taken little if any time to read.

Astronaut to LGC:  conductive.
LGC to sublimator:  convective.
Sublimator secondary to primary:  conductive
Sublimator primary to working substance:  conductive

If it's a mystery to you that the phase change in the working substance has a heat component to its computation, then I would petition your university to withdraw your engineering degree.  Heat of sublimation is a very elementary concept.  If you don't understand that phase changes in a substance, not involving a temperature change, results in heat changes then you are not competent to practice engineering.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 01:12:07 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you. Please behave. You're very bright. You don't have to be ugly.

Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 01:16:40 AM
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Validation? Of what?
It is really basic physics here. It is known exactly how much energy is needed to turn ice to a gas.
What is the actual mystery?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 01:23:14 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.

Why would this be any different than what you've done for the past eight years?  You can't get traction among the engineering community because you are demonstrably incompetent, criminally sociopathic, and you ignore every attempt to educate you.  No, you don't enjoy a discussion with me because you've disingenuously ignored already nearly everything I've said.

I am not the only professional engineer here, and frankly you are an embarrassment to the profession.  The codes of ethics promulgated by ASME, NSPE, AIAA and other professional organizations encourage us to crack down on the incompetent and unqualified practice of the profession.  You have demonstrated that and more.  If you feel you have been unfairly insulted, you're free to report me to the moderator.

I know you want nothing more than an excuse to ignore your critics.  You desperately need to believe that you're a great American hero on a mission.  But you are not.  You are a failed engineer and a criminal vandal.  You have no credibility, and you deserve none for your inexcusable misuse of the engineering profession.  If ignoring me is how you continue to believe you're somehow the only human on earth who can find truth, so be it.  But it will not make the facts go away, and the more you rage against them, the more likely you are to find yourself ostracized from civil society.

Quote
The issue is the validation that it works.

They have been validated to work by hundreds of bench tests and fifty years of practical application.  Your unwillingness to accept that is your own problem.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 01:57:29 AM
What about this page: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html

That's the same photo. Absurdly, the only photo on the Internet. (I possess two others not on the Internet)

What do you mean "the same photo"? That page has about a dozen photos of the PLSS. You don't get to say there's only one photo when that page has more than one.

Quote
Do you realise how tight NASA's budget is? You may think your request is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that there's any number of people with similar "perfectly reasonable" requests, and if NASA was to meet your request they'd have to meet everyone else's too. NASA would be left with no money to actually do what the US Congress wants it to.

I suspect I'm the only person that has called NASA asking to witness a spacesuit in a vacuum chamber test. And it wouldn't cost them anything extra.

How would it not cost extra? You want NASA to test its spacesuits according to your standards rather than theirs. Changing the test setup is going to cost money in equipment and in the salaries of the staff needed to make the changes - presumably all the while with you breathing down their necks to make sure it's all done to your standards.

At the moment my gig is payroll. If you were to tell me that you didn't trust the way I calculated your pay and you wanted to sit with me while I calculated your payroll individually (as opposed to the other few hundred people I'm responsible for), all the while questioning every calculation I did, I'd be getting my time for that job charged back to your work area. I wonder how long your boss would put up with that expense, along with your unproductive time watching me?

Quote
The Soviets/Russians have been using similar techniques for years. Why don't you ask them? Or do you think they've been faking their space record too? Please answer this question as I've now asked it three times.
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.

Seriously, your personal validation is the only way you verify facts? Isn't there anyone you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with?

I trust the historians of the Soviet and Russian space programs, who've verified to their satisfaction what's real and not real about the programs.

In any case, if NASA faked Apollo because the sublimators didn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the fake too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:06:35 AM
Apollo 11 report on the suit & PLSS, pre- and post-flight.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11CSD.pdf

See how many times the words 'test' and 'testing' comes up.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:07:55 AM
If you were to tell me that you didn't trust the way I calculated your pay and you wanted to sit with me while I calculated your payroll individually (as opposed to the other few hundred people I'm responsible for), all the while questioning every calculation I did, I'd be getting my time for that job charged back to your work area. I wonder how long your boss would put up with that expense, along with your unproductive time watching me?

I think he might also get the Aldrin treatment...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 31, 2015, 02:17:52 AM
Astronaut to LGC:  conductive.
LGC to sublimator:  convective.
Sublimator secondary to primary:  conductive
Sublimator primary to working substance:  conductive
And "working substance to space" is arguably convection.

Convection is heat transfer by the physical movement of a heat-carrying substance. In this case, steam is physically moving from the sublimator to space, carrying heat with it. The pressure within the steam vent is quite low, but it is not a vacuum.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:24:27 AM
Apollo 12 PLSS location in LRO image, as one example:



Apollo 17 located at the foot of the ladder:



You can see that PLSS in the 16mm footage taken inside.

There is footage on youtube of the PLSS actually being discarded, and the full broadcast ended with a time and date specific shot of Earth.

There are also images of a discarded PLSS showing where it bounced.

Not only does Mr Baker need to disprove that the PLSS are not capable of use on the lunar surface, he also needs to prove that discarded PLSS units can't be seen on the lunar surface in probe images and in live TV and video that shows other verifiable lunar surface features.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 02:42:50 AM
Here's an astronaut wearing a PLSS on the front page of a newspaper:

(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sights/wpimages/wp9f15b330_05_06.jpg)

It appeared in the newspaper on the day after it was broadcast to Earth.

There are features in that image that were not photographed by any pre-Apollo probes.

What exactly is keeping this astronaut cool then?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 02:50:52 AM
f I had a freshman thermo class, the question I'd ask them in the course is, how would you cool a spacesuit in the vacuum of space if you had nothing to conduct to, nothing to convect to and no radiator?

I'd conduct (excuse the pun) research and find that there are many documents on the internet dating back to the 1960s that explain how porous plate sublimators are used in the PLSS of spacesuits. Hardly a testing question Professor. Hell, there's even a PhD thesis on the topic that reports the vacuum parameters that are used. I would then write up my research as a paper and you could mark it. If you failed me I'd report you to the Dean and explain that I think you are wholly incompetent to teach. How do you like them apples?

A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.

So finally, we have arrived at you describing the phase change associated with sublimators. So, what would expect to see from a video of a sublimator in a vacuum exactly? Do you expect it to look like a boiling kettle?

Also, why do we need a human to test a sublimator? Why can we not simulate the thermal load of a human and measure the effectiveness of a sublimator to remove heat from a coolant?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:14:24 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:06:54 AM
I still have doubts that astronauts have performed EVAs in the vacuum of space. Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Neil, I've posted this so many times over on YouTube;

The whole world, including its scientific community, has watched these suits in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so. On film, video, stills, and in live broadcasts, as well as in the form of telemetry and other data sent by devices the astronauts have installed whilst wearing the suits.

This is good enough for the rest of the world, why isn't it good enough for you?

Simply sidestepping this with 'it could be an inflatable' (when referring to the ISS), or 'they might be doing it with green screen' is inadequate, against the volume of evidence that shows them for real.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:30:19 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.

... which leaves us with the impression that was the only search term you used, which, if it was, was a bit remiss of you....

None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

There's nothing wrong with the myriad of pictures, videos and live broadcasts of these spacesuits in use, in a natural vacuum, watched by the whole wide world, for 50 years or so - unless you can prove otherwise?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:45:51 AM
would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

Does the 747 pilot insist on performing the flight-worthiness testing on every 747 he flies himself? No. He turns up at the airport and places his trust in Boeing, their test pilots, the airline's maintenance staff, and possibly his trust in Rolls-Royce, who likely made the engines.

Does the Naval Captain, or any of his crew, taking the submarine out of port for a mission of a few months, insist on running a test programme against his vessel? Again, no - they turn up and place their trust in others.

Both examples equally risky. Far more in terms of casualties if something goes wrong.

Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:49:16 AM

So what is the problem exactly?

When I went to find more information about them in 2007, I couldn't find a photograph, or a video or a citation in any academic-level book.

But you gave no indication of how far you looked, nor which libraries you looked in.

Did you travel to libraries outside your current town or city of residence? Outwith your state of residence? Did you make any effort to consult any sources outwith the USA? Or did you just google a limited set of search terms?

Once we know the answers to these, we can place some context on you not finding stuff.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:54:58 AM
I don't speak or read Russian, I don't know who to contact. I don't know if they're faking it just like I don't know if we're faking it. I have my doubts because I don't have scientific validation. Neither do you but that hasn't kept you from saying you know something that there's no way for you to know. The best we can do is believe and that's unacceptable.

The best we can do is to look at the available evidence, and that shows a number of astronauts, from various nations, including Russia, using these suits, for real, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

You seem to be very skilled at sidestepping or ignoring this evidence. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 06:56:07 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?

Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.

At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/

Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:57:28 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you. Please behave. You're very bright.

You don't get to ignore him, especially when he provides such a reasoned argument against you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:09:34 AM
Jay--Well, the fact remains that the photo of the ice sublimator didn't appear in 2007 when I searched. Harold McCann looked also and couldn't find the photo. Also, I was able to make the claim that no photo existed on the Internet until only recently. I don't know exactly when it appeared. It may very well have been there buried deep and we didn't use the correct description to bring it up but it didn't come up when "spacesuit ice sublimator" was typed in the Google search engine.
You continue this line of thought, why?  Posters have spoon fed you multiple images and documents that pre-date 2007.  I believe you are either inept at researching or too dumb/lazy to do it.
Quote

As for the no textbook mentioning ice sublimators, I'm not sure the Chinese publication in 2010 was not instigated by my dispute regarding the subject of ice sublimators since I was disputing them in 2007 in many places and nobody presented me with any evidence to the contrary.  The Chinese performed a spacewalk in suits that I suspect they say they cooled with sublimators and so might have thought they needed to cover that base.  But still, 1993 is the earliest I can find and that's odd too since they've allegedly been using them since at least 1969. But it just might be that I haven't located the book yet. It might be there from 1968. I'll keep searching.
You were given two links of patents that occurred prior to 1993, again you are a poor researcher at best.
Quote

But even you should confess that it is strange. Despite being one of the most interesting heat transfer devices, so little visual information is given regarding them. Except for the one photo and some different line drawings, there's nothing. Yes, video of the tests might not show much but they could have shown the experiment setups with treadmill and suited subject outside the vacuum chamber. Roughing pumps, turbo pumps, gauges. It is an interesting, potentially dangerous and very crucial aspect of the testing program and so, if only from a PR perspective, it is expected that NASA would cover it. If not then, then now when they've finally been challenged to do so.
One or a thousand, what difference does that make?
Quote

And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.
As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill.  Why does this invalidate the test?  Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.
Quote

Trebor--I have no reason why it wouldn't be a suitable way to remove heat. It sounds cool (no pun intended). I was fascinated when I first learned about it but like I described in my first post, it was when I went to learn more and found so little of what I expected to find that I started to doubt.
All in all of your posts you continue circling around this specific test when similar tests information have been spoon fed.  I gave you the benefit of doubt in the beginning, but your continued refusal to comprehend the data and literature linked to you covering well over 50 years and present days usage change that benefit to definitely  negative.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 07:12:12 AM
PeterB--one of the things I learned in heat transfer class was that there are only three modes of heat transfer--conduction, convection and radiation. I haven't been able decide which mode is represented by an ice sublimator.

A radiator is not a sublimator nor vice versa.
A radiator radiates heat.
A sublimator liberates heat by facilitating the phase change of ice directly to steam.

Okay, so please spell it out: Do you doubt the physics of sublimation? Is there any reason why spacesuit sublimators can't operate the way space agencies say they do?

At the moment your comments read like you're trying to have it both ways - that sublimation as a concept works but that spacesuit sublimators for some reason can't.

And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

Finally, could you please explain: if NASA faked Apollo because the sublimators didn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the fake too?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:18:14 AM
bknight--would you go into space to perform an EVA without having donned that suit and sublimator and tested them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth first? Is my perspective really that narrow? I think it should represent common sense of any reasonably responsible astronaut that the answer is no.

Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum.  The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber.  Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.[/quote]

It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test. I have learned what is presented and it's not clear at all that they work as advertised.[/quote]
It is really puzzling to the rest of the board why you won't/can't understand that the device works as advertised since it is apparent to all of us save you that testing has been successfully completed.
Quote

I've heard the Latin word for truth is veritas. It's where we get the word verify. In a way, from a semantics perspective, the Scientific Method is older than we ever thought although Francis Bacon is supposed to have formalized the procedure.
And this pertains to what portion of the information linked to you many times?  Your inability to understand prevents your brain from accepting the obvious.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 08:40:54 AM
Trebor--Sublimation should work but that's not the issue. The issue is the validation that it works.

Since you utterly fail to understand what actually qualifies as validation, this issue exists solely in your mind.

Now I repeat: we have video of astronauts in spacesuits with sublimators on the lunar surface. There is plenty of evidence that this is in a vacuum. What do you say about that? And if you say 'it could be faked' explain why we should think you won't say the same about any film or video that does show an astronaut in a vacuum chamber, and explain how it could be faked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 08:44:48 AM
Testimony of Independent witnesses observing a spacesuit with sublimator operating in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable request.

Provided already. As long as the sublimator connected to the suit cooling system is in a vacuum, why does the astronaut have to be? The test is not invalidated by that difference from practical usage in space. This is how real science works.

Quote
It should cost nothing extra and pose little inconvenience to allow independent observers.

Rubbish. If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology. It is not a trivial task, especially to someone as obviously ignorant as you are who would need every bit of the test explained.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: RAF on August 31, 2015, 09:02:40 AM
Jay--I'd enjoy a discussion with you....

You enjoy being told you are wrong??

 
Quote
...but if you're going to hurl hard names and insults at me, I'll just ignore you.

"hard names"??.... no, Jay was just informing you that you obviously do not know what you are talking about...he knows that because he does know what he is talking about.

If you can't "handle" being told that you are wrong, then perhaps you should seek another board where the standards of evidence are not that high...otherwise expect to be "schooled" by the members here.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 09:03:13 AM

Abaddon--I'm sorry but I'm looking for a second photo of a sublimator.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT1Fqkun-qpbbPxfR2dfG3OJ5h7NZbjER9eYLFrJ9iguU-mPyN

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxGWG8dqlw4MBN-OvLl4kNVhC2aFD_SMDYL8fzbFjOsbcGAdy6

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-5187.pdf

And?

Out of interest, I had a look at the article at the last link.

At the end of the article were three referenced articles. I Googled the last and got this:

http://papers.sae.org/1999-01-2004/

Only an abstract. But I'm sure that if Mr Baker is serious about getting to the bottom of this issue he shouldn't have a problem spending $25 to buy the full article which, I note, was published in 1999.
There are any amount of related papers on the subject on that site alone.

Another from 1991 http://papers.sae.org/911577/
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:23:02 AM
And frankly, you sound like someone looking at a platypus swimming around, and saying that because it isn't a mammal (because it lays eggs) and isn't a reptile (because it has fur) then it can't possibly exist.

It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
If I was expected to provide demonstrations of the technology I work on to 'independent observers' on request I would have no time to do the work I am actually paid for in developing that technology.

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:27:41 AM
It's more like someone banging on the door of the Westminster clock tower demanding to take the innards of the clock apart because he doesn't believe in pendulums.

Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:34:30 AM
Given the scale of the Apollo project, there's other, far more significant aspects that the astronauts could have taken issue with, but remember they were experienced test pilots, and they were used to placing their trust in their designers and builders.

Many were engineers themselves and knew intimately how their equipment worked.  And no, the sublimator is not a critical piece of equipment.  If one failed, the result would be the astronaut slowly heating up -- a condition that could be tolerated while he returned to the spacecraft and attached his suit to the ship's environmental control system for relief.  There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.  Obviously we want sublimators to work and be reliable.  But if one failed, would the astronaut be in immediate peril of his life?  Heavens no!  Baker is amping up the criticality of this component to buttress his fantasy for how he thinks they should have been tested.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 09:35:48 AM

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here.  I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:37:12 AM
Funny you should mention the Westminster Clock.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34051053

No coincidence.  That story was reported a few days ago in the U.S. and is naturally of particular interest to engineers, or anyone fascinated by mechanisms.

Quote
Although BBC sometimes insist on referring to the clock as Big Ben.

During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on August 31, 2015, 09:40:09 AM
He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here).
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:48:19 AM
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

I saw that admittance. As is common with CTs, they cannot keep a consistent story.  If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 09:50:15 AM
During my stay in London I was properly schooled that Big Ben is not the tower, not the clock, but the 13-ton bell that strikes the hour -- named for Sir Benjamin Hall, the commissioner of works when the clock was installed.

Yes, we English take great pride in schooling others with this factoid. I do like the picture in the news article, the one with the pennies on the pendulum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 09:57:37 AM
When I asked him earlier he said he saw no reason why it would not work. Which is what I find especially puzzling.

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 10:07:45 AM
Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

When changing software code for a model I worked on validation was the process whereby (a) we checked the model represented the physics of the problem and (b) whether we were actually producing code to answer the question that the change was designed to answer. Verification was the process where we ensured the model was behaving sensibly against a set of criteria and the rest of the model still provided 'sensible' results once the change was made. I recall the forms we had to fill in for the model QA process. Verification and validation were separate processes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 10:08:11 AM

Indeed in other forums he has made it plain that he doesn't disagree with the physics or the engineering -- only the testing.  It shouldn't puzzle you if you remember how conspiracists work.  They don't focus so much on stuff that can be independently or factually verified.  Having found his McGuffin, Baker settles in for a long goalpost-shifting, nit-picking, quibble over what constitutes a proper, scientifically acceptable test for validation.  (Despite his Latin lesson, Baker mistakes "validation" for verification."  In the world of engineering test, those mean entirely different things.)

The tests have validated and verified that the sublimator works.  As you note the goal post set  at a ridiculous distance to give him comfort levels that NASA will not indulge him.  The test presented here suffice to everyone except one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 31, 2015, 10:40:12 AM
Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum? After all, NASA are hoaxers and frauds, aren't they? Then a bloke in a suit enters the chamber through an airlock. How do you know that he has a working sublimator? Perhaps he just has a liquid cooled garment with an iced-water tank on his back. How long would you want the test to run for? What exactly would you expect to see to verify that the sublimator was working as intended?

Finally, after you had seen the test, would you then admit that all the technical data that you've been shown was correct? If so, what's stopping you from doing so now? Unless, of course, you are not able to check the maths in the documentation that you've been shown. If that's the case, then how would you verify your imaginary test??

Come to think of it, given your clear incompetence at research, it seems to me that even if you got your ridiculous test that you would not be able to verify what you were seeing. Given that, then what's the point of demanding a test that you are incapable of verifying?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on August 31, 2015, 10:50:00 AM
I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on August 31, 2015, 11:01:00 AM
It is very puzzling to me why it's only me, especially among this very smart crowd, that is asking for the test.

That leaves three options:
1. Your idea that this is a useful and necessary test is wrong
2. You think that those who disagree with you must be lying
3. You think that those who disagree with you must be stupid (which makes "smart crowd" a lie)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luckmeister on August 31, 2015, 11:21:43 AM
I must admit that although I have no sympathy for this approach by Neil, but as an engineer I have an empathy for administering my own tests to a problem. In telecommunications, when a new network is brought into service, it goes through a process of NVQ or Network validation. I was the technical project manager for the first (Pan-european) STM64 Fiber Optic network and was in charge of the testing process. In my mind however the NVQ was written by our manufacturer (Nortel, now long gone), this was tantamount to them sitting an exam, where they not only wrote the questions but marked the exam paper. The arguments I had when elements failed because I introduced my own tests, they called them invalid tests, but I only went down "plausible" paths. I think the end product was a "more" robust network.
In the case of the PLSS testing however, the tests carried out were sufficient and the results are there for people to see. The fact that it did/does work should be sufficient for anybody who does not have a separate agenda for disagreeing with the process.

Yes, the tests were certainly done.

I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB). I'm talking about my direct experience from 1960 to 1964 with state-of-art engineering practices at the time. Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 11:32:09 AM
Baker- what exactly would you expect to see if (and it's a massive "if") yo ruled the world and were able to get NASA to test a suit? A big chamber gets evacuated -how would you verify the vacuum?

He has said he wants his witnesses to be able to instrument the test with their own equipment.  But then he says this won't increase the cost, so there should be no objection to letting him do that.

How ridiculous.

Those of you who are fans of the American movie Office Space might be amused to learn NASA indeed has such a thing as a TPS Report, for "Test Procedure Step."  Testing at NASA (and in aerospace in general) is not just plugging in the gizmo and making sure it works.  Test procedures are worked out well in advance, with each step and sub-step numbered, validated, and cross-checked with all who have roles in the test.  The TPS report is the test director's report of what was observed at each test step.  These run to dozens of pages in most cases, and up to hundreds for major tests, or for tests involving human subjects (where safety checks are made at each step and reported).

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 11:37:35 AM
...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 11:39:55 AM
Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
...

The notion that Baker or his delegates can just show up on the morning of the test with a suitcase full of test equipment, and be allowed to participate, is so ludicrously naive as to merit only laughter.  There has to be engineering integration exercises for that type of observation, as well as approvals from the engineering, management, test, and legal representatives of both NASA and the manufacturers involved.  Contrary to Baker's naive assurances, his request would add tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the test.  Baker simply has no accurate idea whatsoever what is involved in aerospace test involving human subjects.
In addition to the cost of the test itself, which I'm sure would be hundreds of thousands of dollars of NASA's budget.

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 11:49:13 AM

I assume Mr Baker was planning on piggy-backing on a test which NASA was going to conduct anyway, thus his naive assumption of no additional costs...
Naivety is a gross exaggeration, IMHO. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 31, 2015, 12:04:06 PM
And still, having read what I've read, I'm still a bit confused. None of the test reports indicate that any human in a spacesuit ever entered a vacuum chamber that was pumped down to high vacuum conditions. Something is very wrong with the picture and I'm wondering if your dedicated enthusiasm for Apollo has blinded you to the possibility that this area of the technology was not adequately documented to avoid suspicion.

As my previous post indicated the sublimator was in the vacuum chamber connected by hoses to the individual on the tread mill.  Why does this invalidate the test?  Your immature obsession with this test is really poorly build.

I think this reflects a certain way of thinking that does lead to a susceptibility to conspiracy theorizing when it comes to science. It's a lack of faith in repeatability, that things will behave in the same way, even if you change the parameters slightly.

To NASA, it would be obvious that the sublimators will cool the suit, even if the suited astronaut is not put in the chamber with them for testing. Their function would be repeatable whether the rest of the suit is there or not. But to some people, the jump from one situation to another is too much. Yes, apples fall down today. They did yesterday, too. But you can't extrapolate from that to tomorrow, because tomorrow things might be slightly different. It's raining, say, or you're one day later in the year. That, they believe, could make everything different.

It's an unsettling way to view the world, that we can't trust it to keep doing what it's always done, and that may well lead to searches for conspiracies to explain a world which to them is essentially uncontrolled and unpredictable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on August 31, 2015, 12:08:20 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on August 31, 2015, 12:13:04 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.

But I think in his own mind he has an out. If the testing wasn't done the way he wanted it, it doesn't prove anything. Because you couldn't possibly extrapolate from those tests and say that the PLSS worked. His testing is the only system that would ever be able to prove it. So if NASA didn't do it his way, they must have not been interested in knowing if the PLSS worked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 12:15:24 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.
Maybe Neil should stalk Rusty and jump out with a Bible and...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 12:25:25 PM
I worked in the pre-Apollo space program helping to develop testing and verification procedures on-site for Atlas and Titan booster systems (at VAFB and DMAFB).

That's a pretty impressive CV. But clearly, by Neil's standards I don't believe that those vehicles worked as I have not had independent witnesses to verify their performance.

Quote
Believe me, extensive testing and verification was critical to anything space-related, especially to systems used both as our last line of defense and to boost humans into orbit. But then, that's no surprise to everyone here except one.

Shooting one's self in one's foot, quite literally, with nuclear warheads would be a bit of a home goal. You've got to be fairly sure that such vehicles do what they say on the tin.

Right, I was going out, but I'm not sure that my car safety features work. I'd like to have them tested independently, despite the whole world using seat belts, collapsible steering columns, air bags and crumple zones in their cars.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
The thing is, Baker already has an image of Schweickart testing the suit AND a direct quotation from the man himself. So he is basically calling him a flat out liar.

Yes, but once his ineptitude for research had been exposed it was easier to call liar. People in glass houses and all that.  ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 01:03:17 PM
I asked this before, but either you didn't see it or you didn't respond, Neil Baker. If this wouldn't work, why not come up with other solutions? Plenty of Apollo went through iterative designs. Just look at the changes in the LM design as the program went on. Let's say the engineers at Hamilton Standard found that testing with the sublimation cooling system wasn't working so well. Would they go 'Oh, hell, guess we're going to have to fake the whole darn thing', or would they try to work some other solution out?
I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on TV, but that doesn't sound like something they would do.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 31, 2015, 01:09:38 PM

The pharmaceutical industry would be crippled if they had to meet Neil's acid test for each drug they produce. Of course, the real issue here is that Neil believes he and the PLSS sublimator are special cases. He only makes this demand for the PLSS sublimator, where he has chosen a small piece of technology that he thinks does not work because he unable to carry out basic research (as shown by the record here). He thought he had all the aces up his sleeve. In his own words, if he can prove Apollo was hoaxed, maybe his 9-11 claims would be taken more seriously. Sadly for Neil, no one will ever take him seriously now, because we can point to the record here and show that he is a useless researcher that jumps horses and moves goalposts in an attempt to save face.

Neil - Having read Jason's two posts, he does know what he is talking about where biology and human science is concerned. He is also a keen Apollo enthusiast and that is evident from his postings at this forum and the old pro-boards.  In as much as Jay and sts60 know about aerospace engineering, and ka9q/smartcooky know about communication systems, and RAF knows about flight systems, and andromeda knows about physics, and OBM/Kiwi know about photography and its analysis. Sorry for those that I have not mentioned (Bob/Raven/AllanF/gwiz/peter/bknight/Apollo957/trebor/gillianren et al)

Neil, the people here know their stuff, and if we don't we tend not to comment and leave it to others with the expertise and knowledge. That's how this forum works, and that's because all of us know how science/engineering works. You do not. For the record, I know how to tie my shoelaces ;)
I'm not trained in any of those sciences/technologies so no problem here.  I'm interested in learning from those on the board of a passionate belief.

I'm not trained in them, either, but it's astonishing to discover that I actually understand sublimation better than Neil.

Another point here, Neil, is that proving Apollo to be a hoax (assuming it were, which it wasn't) proves nothing about 9/11.  They are two separate events.  You want to argue 9/11?  We have a segment of the board for that, where you can be shown to be just as ignorant as you are of Apollo.  (Seriously, I understand sublimation better than you do because of the aforementioned Amazing Disappearing Ice Cubes and a single course of Oceanography 101.)  But Apollo happened or didn't on its own merits, and what happened on 9/11 happened or didn't on its own merits.  When you try to connect them, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of, well, everything.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on August 31, 2015, 01:19:12 PM
There was even a contingency plan where he could turn off his oxygen loop heater and let the oxygen come from the cryogenic tank as a very cool gas.
Oxygen was stored in both the PLSS and OPS tanks at ambient temperature under high pressure. The OPS provided cooling by letting the oxygen flow once through the suit and out to space through a purge valve. It could provide only 30 or 60 minutes of operation even though the OPS bottles contained considerably more oxygen than the PLSS.

The PLSS was analogous to a diving rebreather; the OPS to SCUBA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 01:33:24 PM

I'm not trained in them, either, but it's astonishing to discover that I actually understand sublimation better than Neil.
...
And this does not surprise me in any way after 37 pages of going around and around.  He gets shown almost 100% of what he seeks and still does not accept the facts.  It seems obvious to me that he doesn't really want the sublimator test, it is in operation on a routine basis on a space station he does not acknowledge. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on August 31, 2015, 01:57:57 PM
Well this was worth my while for three things today:

I knew that it was the bell that was Big Ben, thanks to Arthur C. Clarke, but never knew why.

I now know how adjustments to the Westminster Clock are made.

And that Davis-Monthan is more than a storage/reclamation depot.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 02:06:21 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
...
If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
I'm utterly flabbergasted by your stating the obvious.  But the volunteers work in spacesuits cooled by the very device you ask.  You have been shown many images and yet you fail to connect the obvious to the test you so blatantly ask, which by the way will not ever happen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 02:33:37 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Oh, goody. Reading comprehension fail.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.
So what? NASA is not a military outfit, different health and safety rules apply, and it would add nothing to test a sublimator with an actual live astronaut present. The sublimator simply deals with a heat load. Whence that heat load originates is irrelevant. If you are going to claim that it does, then you are faced with the inevitable consequence that you must perforce claim that the sublimator is able to distinguish between human body heat and other sources of heat, by magic. You must claim that there are different and identifiable characteristics to heat energy all of which are detected by a sublimator and that such data is used by the sublimator to modulate it's behaviour.

All of which is rendered moot by the fact that a sublimator does not care what the heat source is, you have been provided with pictures, technical reports, peer reviewed papers and video as requested and as denied by you to even exist.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.
You have been provided with such. Stop pretending you have not.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.
And they do those very things. You are labouring under the delusion that all data must be uploaded to the internet, even though it plainly is not, and that your established ineptitude at finding that which has been uploaded is probative of anything other than your incompetence.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.
It is immoral to exposed people to insane and pointless risk.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.
Yet that is exactly what is done. You have been provided with photographic, video, scientific and witness evidence that you claim does not exist. You have demonstrated your ineptitude at research to the point where you had to beg "How did you find that?" like a plaintive child.

At this point, you have burned your own credibility and any goodwill helping you find or learn anything. You have amply demonstrated that credibility, finding, researching and learning are simply skills with which you are negatively equipped. I wouldn't have believed it physically possible, but you simultaneously suck and blow at all of those and you have admitted so in your very own posts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on August 31, 2015, 02:41:14 PM
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.


Why this fixation on video? Maybe they did test each individual suit to the satisfaction of the astronaut that would be using it. It doesn't follow that they would automatically video it. How would video be of any use or help?


If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.


Does the efficiency or otherwise of the sublimator make any difference to the effectiveness of the spacesuit in a vacuum, at least for a short while? Are you suggesting the spacesuits didn't work now?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 02:50:00 PM
Again, Neil Baker, you seek forget they wouldn't need to have the tester in the suit in the room for the entire atmospheric removal process, even if they were to do a manned test.
Let's go back to this page (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/index.html). Even though you've linked it in your own posts, you don't seem to be reading it, otherwise you would have noticed this, under Access.
Quote
Access:    a) 12.2 m (40 ft) diameter side-hinged door
b) Dual crewlocks at floor level and 9.4 m (31 ft) level, measuring 2.4 m high, 3.4 m wide, and 3.9m long (8 x 11 x 12.8 ft)
c) 13.7 m (45 ft) diameter (180( rotating floor
d) Door at 18.9 m (62 ft) level
e) Catwalk platform at 9.4 m (31 ft) and 18.9 m (62 ft) levels
[bolded for emphases]
Now, I'm not an engineer, but I know what an airlock is, and I am guessing, guessing mind, a crewlock is something of the same breed, with a similar purpose. If they were to do a manned test, it would be the perfect access way for the tester to enter the chamber without having to wait out, as you seem to imply, the entire evacuation process.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:03:42 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on August 31, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Best brush up on your political skills Neil. Not sure how much support you got when you ran for Governor of California but the only way your going to get your test is to become President.   
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:11:40 PM
Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.


Why do you insist on repeating this lie?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:12:32 PM
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.

If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:13:08 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Nope they didn't say immoral. They explained there were ethical issues to be considered when using humans when testing. It is always the duty of the scientist to reduce any testing on animals. A human is also an animal, we're part of the animal kingdom. So, a scientist will carry out several actions before carrying out human trials.

(a) Check whether the work has been done before (that's called research).
(b) Consider suitable simulation tests.
(c) Consider ways of reducing the number of humans taking part in a trial.
(d) Reduce the exposure of the human to the trial.
(e) Examine statistical techniques to reduce the number of human participants.
(f) Write an ethical protocol for the trial.

In the case of the sublimator you can test it using energy outputs that are representative of the human metabolic load. That would cover part (a) and (b) above, so there is no need to move to human trials. Metabolic loads for varying intensity of activity are easily found on the interweb... oh hang one, that means you looking. You're not much good at that. Anyway...

It's fairly simple to test a sublimator without a human, you could heat a coolant by passing it around a heated mannequin, run the coolant through a sublimator, and find the outgoing temperature of the coolant once it has passed through the sublimator. The sublimator could sit in a small vacuum chamber, maybe the size of a bell jar. I would consider that approach. Point being, I wouldn't even consider a human trial. Why would you, that is the real question?

Not only are there ethical issues with using human beings - there is also a cost and time issue. So as a scientist that has been involved with human trials; research into possible simulation are exhausted before moving to human trials. There are some cases where it very clear that one cannot pursue (a) and (b), and that applies to niche technologies or when one is looking at integration between man and machine. For example, the space suit would be tested for integration with the space craft. The integration plans I worked with are huge lists of activities that the user would normally perform while wearing the new technology under development. This would be part of the validation and verification processes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:13:37 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:16:46 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.

Are you a holocaust denier too? Is there a reason you have ignored all but one of my posts, and that reason being the Einstein quote in my signature?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 31, 2015, 03:18:40 PM
[SNIP]
I am very ignorant. I don't KNOW anything about the sublimators.
[SNIP]
Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:20:03 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.
We have other places on this forum if you wish to discuss such conjectures, Neil Baker.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:20:43 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:22:36 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Nope they didn't say immoral.

Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:24:24 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:25:43 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:26:33 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:27:24 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

This is the Apollo forum.  Please do not deviate from that topic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:29:39 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.

Because NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible. There shouldn't be no video. There shouldn't be only one video. There shouldn't be only ten videos. There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on August 31, 2015, 03:31:58 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

You aren't worth the effort.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:32:24 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .

The end of the First, the beginning of the Second.
France is on their Fifth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:32:44 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Such has been spoonfed to you, yet you continue to lie about it.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.
Another lie. Is there no end to your duplicity?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.
And this would be evidence of what, exactly?

I can tell you what, exactly. You will simply shift your goalposts no matter what to preserve your delusion. First, you demanded pictures, you were given them, then you demanded videos, you were given them, then you demanded text books, you were given them, then you demanded peer reviewed scientific papers, you were given them.

Now, you bizarrely demand "an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill." WTF is the intent and purpose of such a pointless thing? Why would anyone in their right mind set up such a pointless "test" of something you cannot identify?

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.
"Our space program"? Really? ESA, Roscosmos,  China, India, Pakistan and so forth might be tapping on your shoulder.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:34:02 PM
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.

I read the post, and in context it would be unethical which would lead to it being immoral. There is a distinct difference. Ethical pertains to professional practice, moral pertains to society. The two are intrinsically linked.

If I were to gas animals with HCN to find out if they would die, then that would be unethical. We know from research and toxicology that HCN kills, there is no need to carry out that test. Society would then seek my punishment for my immorality.

In any case, you ignored all of my well thought out post about why scientists do not always carry out tests with humans. I asked you a question, why would you carry out a test on a PLSS sublimator with humans when you can carry out bench tests using a simulated metabolic load? Why do you need to go to the expense and trouble of human trials? Why would you not follow scientific practices that are well recognised?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:34:20 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

You aren't worth the effort.

The TRUTH shall set ye free but first it shall make ye miserable.
Dare to be miserable.
Dare to be free.
The misery is temporary. With eternal diligence, the freedom is forever.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:36:28 PM
the only way your going to get your test is to become President.

If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.
Sweet nobshabkemming help us. Are you now claiming NASA did 911 or is in any way related to 911? I might be true on planet sausage perhaps, but not in the real world.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on August 31, 2015, 03:36:41 PM
Oh brother, here we go again. They said immoral.

I read the post, and in context it would be unethical which would lead to it being immoral. There is a distinct difference. Ethical pertains to professional practice, moral pertains to society. The two are intrinsically linked.

If I were to gas animals with HCN to find out if they would die, then that would be unethical. We know from research and toxicology that HCN kills, there is no need to carry out that test. Society would then seek my punishment for my immorality.

In any case, you ignored all of my well thought out post about why scientists do not always carry out tests with humans. I asked you a question, why would you carry out a test on a PLSS sublimator with humans when you can carry out bench tests using a simulated metabolic load? Why do you need to go to the expense and trouble of human trials? Why would you not follow scientific practices that are well recognised?

Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 03:38:00 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 31, 2015, 03:39:34 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.

Why did I just KNOW that would would also be a holocaust denier. What a plonker!

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 03:40:01 PM
Unfortunately Neil you aren't a white knight saving mankind from big bad government, you're a pathetic Don Quixote riding a nag against a windmill.

EDIT: To add Don's last name.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:40:22 PM
It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

I despise your existence on this planet for even suggesting that the holocaust was hoaxed. I can run with people that believe the moon landings were hoaxed, or the JFK conspiracy. I usually find they're ignorant, duped or egotistical. 9-11 truthers I find offensive to the memories of the victims, and don't entertain it at all. But holohoax, sorry, I have nothing but contempt for you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 03:42:58 PM
Neil, there is video of the PLSS being used in a vacuum. Not on Earth, on the Moon. It is full of evidence that it IS a vacuum, and more than you would get from watching a video of an astronaut in a vacuum chamber.

Why should every test be videoed rather than documented and reported on? Why should every video of every test be retained indefinitely and made available online even if it was made at the time?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 31, 2015, 03:43:50 PM
And now we've moved into holocaust denial and accusing people of editing their posts to undermine your own misinterpretations we have clearly reached the point where you have no argument worth speaking of.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 03:46:05 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.

IF you have anything to post on any other subject start a new thread.
But I doubt you will do any better there than you have demonstrated in this thread.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

And you seem to be the only person on the face of the planet that gives a crap.  They tested it.  It works.  A public demonstration with independent witnesses is unnecessary.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

How did you come up with this?

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

You mean, why isn't there a video posted on the Internet that I can easily find?  How do you know that there's not a can of film sitting around somewhere on a dusty shelf that shows this?  It could be that nobody thinks it's interesting or important enough to go find it, convert it to video, and post it on the web.

Because NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.
NASA alleges they test them now.
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible. There shouldn't be no video. There shouldn't be only one video. There shouldn't be only ten videos. There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.
Terribly sorry old chap, but your expectation of what is or is not loaded on the internet is baseless. Not everything is uploaded to the internet and nobody is under any obligation to do so. You should know this since you claim professional credentials.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 03:48:09 PM
Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.

Rich coming from a despicable piece of human trash such as yourself, and you still cannot answer the questions I posed. Instead you divert your attention to the OP and avoid the real nuts and bolts of why you need to test the PLSS sublimator with humans. You've failed miserably at every hurdle. You're a laughing stock, and in some ways I am glad that you have exposed yourself as a Crank Magnet by invoking the most despicable of all crank theories. The record stands showing the person you are.

To the regulars here, I'm sorry for lowering the tone. I'm heading out. I really cannot cope with this. LO, deal with me as you must for my transgression. I just felt I wanted my online words to reflect how I would react to Neil's face.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 03:53:37 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

No.  Testing the sublimator by applying it to a human subject at risk is immoral.  You don't risk human life to validate equipment.  You can determine whether the sublimator performs its function correctly without requiring a human to supply the heat load.

Quote
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...

Yes, that's to train you to do something.  You can't do that without some risk to a human.  I would have thought the difference would be obvious.  At least in real life engineering the difference is obvious.

Quote
There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

Begging the question.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 03:54:16 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
It is funny. You think I give a rats butt about the US gubbmint? Don't live there, not a citizen, have no interest in living in a land which gives rise to cranks like you.

And I am not the only one here who is in similar circumstance. The simple fact is that the US is under 5% of the totality of humanity, a paltry minority. And it is failing because of baseless opinions like yours which deprecate science, education and learning in favour of superstitious nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 03:55:59 PM
The TRUTH shall set ye free but first it shall make ye miserable.
Dare to be miserable.
Dare to be free.
The misery is temporary. With eternal diligence, the freedom is forever.

Lying and criminal activity also make one miserable.  You aren't right because you're miserable.  You're miserable because you are so very wrong that no one anymore will pay attention to you and you're left spouting pseudo-revolutionary vomitus instead of being accountable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on August 31, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

Here is the "immoral" quote in context:

Hogwash.  You said you wanted your witnesses to be able to integrate their own monitoring equipment into the test.  Why do you think that wouldn't cost NASA extra?  NASA doesn't test every individual sublimator in an all-up test in a full-scale, high-vacuum test with a human subject.  Why?  Because it's not necessary, and to do so would be unnecessary, immoral, and inefficient.  Hence the next vacuum-chamber test of a sublimator is likely to be well into the future, when new sublimator designs require it.

Jay didn't say that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut inside was immoral.  He was talking about unnecessary human testing of every single individual sublimator that comes off the assembly line.  Putting humans at risk in unnecessary and pointless testing is immoral.


ETA:  While I was typing Jay showed up to defend himself.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:00:11 PM

Actually, I think the post of interest was removed or altered. Perhaps it sounded just too foolish to he who wrote it.
I presume you are ready to retract tis comment?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 04:01:11 PM
An astronaut would be a fool not to test them under conditions as realistic to being at the ISS as possible.

No, an astronaut would be a fool to subject himself bodily to a highly risky test (the vacuum chamber environment is hazardous for reasons besides heat rejection) solely to validate a piece of equipment.  NASA spends literally millions of dollars training each individual astronaut.  They are not guinea pigs.

Quote
There should be post test videos for every vacuum chamber simulated-EVA.

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:11:18 PM

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay,  it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on August 31, 2015, 04:17:22 PM
How did you manage to get a degree?

That's what I've been wondering for some time now.  My standard tends to be "when I know more about science than you do, you've really failed."  By that standards, Neil shouldn't have gotten out of seventh grade science, much less gotten a degree in anything relying on science.  And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 04:24:33 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.
<snigger>
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 04:37:47 PM
Again, Neil, we do have a sub forum (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) for this kind of bullshit. Dump it and yourself there if you want, I am sure some members will be willing to disprove your claims, but this is not the place.
I agree with all that have posted this proposition, Neil DISCONTINUE any posting that is not closely associated with the sublimator.

IF you have anything to post on any other subject start a new thread.
But I doubt you will do any better there than you have demonstrated in this thread.
Well, I tried that forum again to see if he's posted anything there, but, nope, nothing. I guess he isn't so interested after all.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on August 31, 2015, 04:42:52 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Newt?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 04:45:43 PM
Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing.

Currently, with the ISS it isn't YOUR space programme (an American one), but an INTERNATIONAL effort.

However, the evidence for the existence of Apollo, Gemini, Mir, Skylab, ISS and any other manned programme that I've missed easily outweighs your lack of research on the suits and sublimators.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 04:46:29 PM

Newt?
I miss any connection Allan. :-[
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 04:51:23 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 05:01:14 PM
And were I so inclined, I could shred him on history, too, but since he isn't responding to me, either, why should I bother?

We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Newt?
Yup.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on August 31, 2015, 05:03:01 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on August 31, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."
I'm still lost, this one zinged over my head.

EDIT: I get it now thanks to Allan.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 05:14:02 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"
"I got better!"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:13:13 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on August 31, 2015, 06:28:45 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?

Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 06:32:22 PM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?

Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
The Orlan is a beautiful piece of engineering, from its easy 'open the back and climb in' entry to its ingenious 'sunroof' porthole in the top of the helmet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on August 31, 2015, 06:35:58 PM

You misunderstand.  When NASA tests sublimators, they don't test them using human subjects.  They don't run all-up EVA tests in vacuum chambers, with the highly trained astronauts, just to validate equipment.

You really have absolutely no clue whatsoever what is involved in engineering test.  How did you manage to get a degree?
Exactly my thoughts, as a fellow engineer, you Jay,  it is too embarrassing to call Neil a fellow engineer.

Heavens, I'm not even an engineer to the level that you guys are (just a former Avionics Engineer) and even I cringe at the thought if calling him an "engineer". Embarrassment to the name IMO.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on August 31, 2015, 06:37:25 PM
Newt?

You've got it.
Although, with respect to our current protagonist, perhaps a better one would be...

"Game over, man. Game over."

I was thinking more "Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"

Maybe if Neil got some o' that Arcturian poontang, he might see some sense....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.

That's funny.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 07:06:55 PM
Quote
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school...
Yes, that's to train you to do something.  You can't do that without some risk to a human.  I would have thought the difference would be obvious.  At least in real life engineering the difference is obvious.

To finish the thought, astronauts do train extensively for space walks, and some of the training can be dangerous. Just like it was worthwhile to train firefighters in a potentially dangerous way to improve the chances that they would be successful in a life-threatening emergency.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 07:09:10 PM
We'd better stop contributing, the threads getting long now, and they mostly respond to Jay... mostly.

Game over man!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on August 31, 2015, 07:16:46 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.
A government you tried to get elected to be part of . . .

The end of the First, the beginning of the Second.
France is on their Fifth.
You know, you've made so many delusional statements, like a picture available since at least 1997 online is only online and/or available because of your agitation in the mid-late 2000's, it's hard to tell if you don't think your election to Governor of California is enough to make that change.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on August 31, 2015, 07:23:10 PM
To finish the thought, astronauts do train extensively for space walks, and some of the training can be dangerous. Just like it was worthwhile to train firefighters in a potentially dangerous way to improve the chances that they would be successful in a life-threatening emergency.

Exactly.  The point of training is to impart experience and skill to the person being trained.  If the person is being trained to do a potentially hazardous thing, there is generally a tradeoff between the fidelity of the training and its safety.  There is simply no other way to acquire practical knowledge than to put the human into a realistic situation that may at times transcend the capability of simulation.  You train firefighters by having them put out fires in buildings erected solely for that purpose.  And yes, it is dangerous to expose a firefighter trainee to the hazards of a real fire.  You mitigate that risk by surrounding him with highly experienced firefighters, escalating the hazards across training in a controlled fashion, and having abort facilities such as fire-suppression systems that work independently of his efforts.  But there simply is no other way for the trainee to learn how to fight fires.

But you don't test a new respirator system by putting it on a trainee and sending him into a fire.  You don't test new nozzle designs by making a fireman stand and fight a real fire with it.  Respirators and nozzles are verified in ways that don't expose a human to danger in case of test failure.  Similarly when NASA says they test sublimators, they don't expose a human to risk if the sublimator fails in testing.  They don't need to, and yes, to risk a human unnecessarily for such a test would indeed be immoral.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on August 31, 2015, 07:33:21 PM
In Neil's world, the infantry would undergo FIBUA training using fragmentation grenades and live round ammunition and cavalry training would use HESH and sabot rounds.  :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 07:47:15 PM
In Neil's world, the infantry would undergo FIBUA training using fragmentation grenades and live round ammunition and cavalry training would use HESH and sabot rounds.  :o
Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 31, 2015, 08:30:52 PM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /


This is off topic and not welcome in my forum. Start your own forum if you want to discuss things like that. This is your only warning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on August 31, 2015, 08:40:14 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 08:49:04 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.
His true colors became vivid this afternoon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on August 31, 2015, 08:58:47 PM
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
My contempt just turned to loathing and disgust. If I posted what I think about you and your ilk I would be banned from the forum.

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.

I could not possibly agree more. Holocaust deniers are the amongst the worst sort of scum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on August 31, 2015, 09:02:47 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.

When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA.

In boot camp we had to enter a teargas-filled room wearing a gas mask and then take off the mask before rushing out of the room suffering the expected horrible symptoms.

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis.

There's nothing immoral about it. It's very moral. There's not a single NASA astrounaut that has trained for an EVA that shouldn't have some test video. It's absurd that it doesn't exist.

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.

The difference being, the soldier getting a nose full of CS is the one being tested, not the "gas." Try to make arbitrary changes to the training equipment without oversight and testing and see how they'd react to that idea.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 09:58:25 PM
[SNIP]

If somehow the witnessed test that I want was ordered, I doubt they'd find any volunteers to wear the suit inside while the chamber got pumped down to high vacuum. I'm still doubting. I lean even a bit more toward hoax.

To repeat what I posted in Reply #535:

Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 09:59:34 PM
NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.

Once again reminding you of what I asked in Reply #535:

Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 10:04:57 PM

Once again reminding you of what I asked in Reply #535:

Neil Baker

I'd be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Anyone that would have knowledge of his irrational behavior and illogical thought processes would back away from working for/with him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 10:16:01 PM
[SNIP]

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.

This page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election#Results) doesn't list you, and it includes people who got as few as 1 vote. So how reliable are you if you either (a) can't report the result accurately, or (b) couldn't even bring yourself to vote for you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on August 31, 2015, 10:20:34 PM

Funnily enough, a week ago I had never even heard of a sublimator. Now I know a fair bit about them, and have a ton of sources I could easily pursue to learn more were I so inclined.

Funny? You think that's funny? It's not funny. It's the anomaly that could, if more of the engineers here would demonstrate courage, bring down the government of the First Republic of the United States.

So why didn't the Soviet Union manage it back at the time of Apollo? If proving now that Apollo was faked would bring down the Republic, what do you think would have happened if the USSR had proved it back in 1969, just a year after that tumultuous year of 1968?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on August 31, 2015, 10:31:00 PM

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
This is precisely why Eisenhower ordered filming of the death camps and all associated mechanism, ordered townspeople to parade through them, just so history could not ever come up with a story line that this was all fabricated.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on August 31, 2015, 11:29:28 PM
Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.
But at least you weren't doing it to test the barbed wire.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 12:44:14 AM
Yah.

And make this context bigger. Obviously, there are unforeseen interactions between systems. That's why there are a series of integration tests in any complex device. But what Neil is suggesting is not vibration or loss of efficiency or something else that happens when everything is in the same box. For the all-up test he requires to be necessary to "prove" humans-in-space, this unforeseen interaction is that sublimation cooling totally fails. Doesn't work. Can't be tweaked, can't be patched, can't be re-engineered.

It is as if making GI's crawl under wire while a machine gun fires (quite a bit higher than it feels like, fortunately!) is necessary because otherwise you'd never know if the trainee might turn into a werewolf because of it. Or something else equally astounding, unpredictable, and completely incompatible with their continuing service in the armed forces.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 01:31:26 AM
NASA alleges they've been testing them for more than fifty years.

NASA alleges they test them now.

NASA and others have been seen, by the whole wide world, to have been USING them, in the environment for which they were intended, for the last 50 years or so.

You'd have to be a half-blind wombat not to have seen this. There's been live broadcasts, there's been film, video, stills, and a raft of accounts of their activities from the astronauts concerned.

Which bit of this did you miss?

Not to mention Russian (which have been in use just as long and more recently Chinese space suits.
The Orlan is a beautiful piece of engineering, from its easy 'open the back and climb in' entry to its ingenious 'sunroof' porthole in the top of the helmet.

Indeed it is.  The English translation of the training manual is available from http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf . It too uses a sublimator for cooling. 

So does Mr Baker consider every EVA since Alexi Leonov a fake?  Although that would be small beer compared to denying the Holocaust.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 01, 2015, 01:40:56 AM
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?  I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique.  There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.

Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 01, 2015, 01:45:42 AM

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.

Do you want to discuss it or not?
It's your site. I'll follow the rules.
If you want to discuss it, please start the Holocuast thread.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 01, 2015, 02:03:24 AM

And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.


Wow. Just. Wow.

It's worse than NASA.
No documented gas chambers.
Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /

Now we get to the swivel-eyed lunacy that exists in your core. Sorry, Mr. Baker, but you are beneath contempt. Perhaps, someday, you will look back on the car-crash that you have made of your short time on this planet and wonder why you filled your life with moronic thoughts as the one expressed above.
Then again, you will probably go to your grave in the sole belief that you are some sort of truther-finder. You're not- you are lower than low.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 02:04:48 AM
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?  I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique.  There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.

Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

Someone who denies the holocaust is not capable of rational discussion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 01, 2015, 02:52:03 AM

NASA has never publicly demonstrated before independent witnesses a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Now it appears they've never tested a spacesuited astronaut while in a vacuum chamber at all except for that last documented test way back in 1966 when the suit failed causing a near fatality.

I'm puzzled more why they won't even show a video of an ice sublimator in a vacuum chamber with the astronaut outside running on the treadmill.

Our space program is currently a mythological faith-based thing. You insist upon it remaining so.

They did.  April, 1969, followed up several hundred times, starting July, 1969 onward.  Get over it, already.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 02:58:40 AM
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?  I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique.  There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.

Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

Maybe they've performed those tests and videoed them as you proposed. Why do they then need to release them on the Internet? How much does it cost to employ a bunch of people to go through archives of videos, digitise them, add extra pages to the NASA website and put the video clips in there?

I mean, putting my payroll hat on again, the job of digitising the payroll files of the current and former employees of my employer hasn't happened because they don't have the money to employ even a junior to do the job. And if they want the files to be digitised at a rate faster than we're adding papers to the current files, they're going to need to employ several people. In the minds of the people who make these sorts of decisions it's cheaper to keep using paper files.

In any case...

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 01, 2015, 03:00:00 AM

the only way your going to get your test is to become President.

If I were President, I'd bypass NASA and go straight for the jugular by ordering the establishment of an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 investigation.
And then we'd have an Independent Holocaust Investigation.
And then we'd have NASA perform a demo.

I think I got zero votes (except mine of course )and Arnold's vision won.  Cruz Bustamante came in second. Poor California.

Four airplanes were hijacked on September 11, 2001 and, as a result, several thousand innocent people died.

A culture was hijacked 1933 - 1945 and, as a result, six million+ innocent people died, not to mention the millions more as a result of the war that happened.  As an ethnic German, it is painful for me to say, but it is a fact.  I pray,  daily, that we remember the lessons and how precious life is.  People like you trying to unlearn and deny the lessons of history, in effect trying to condemn us to repeat those sins, are beneath contempt.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 03:01:56 AM

I'll defend a Apollo hoax believer if I believe they are being treated unfairly... but I won't defend a holocaust denying scumbag. They're fair game.

Do you want to discuss it or not?
It's your site. I'll follow the rules.
If you want to discuss it, please start the Holocuast thread.

Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 03:13:55 AM
2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

Not to mention why they use sublimators for their own EVA suits, including the Kretchet lunar EVA suit and the current Orlan if they technology doesn't work.  Surplus Kretchets and Orlans have been available for purchase on the open market.  Anyone with enough money to buy one could probably afford to return it to operational condition and test in a vacuum chamber.   Several have been purchased by museums, they could do the same.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 01, 2015, 03:19:59 AM
The whole training vs. testing discussion got me to thinking.

I teach people to fly.  Often, under controlled circumstances, I put them in what could be hazardous situations if I weren't there, much as Jay described firefighter trainees have experienced firefighters standing by to guide and protect the inexperienced.  I can talk all day long about an aerodynamic stall, but, until you experience one, particularly if it departs into a spin, you don't really know.

This is vs. an aircraft like the Cirrus, which has a ballistic recovery system. I've seen the films, I've read the training material, and I know where the handle is, but it is not a good idea, both for safety and economic reasons, to actually fire the thing off as a training exercise.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 01, 2015, 03:23:06 AM
I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch.

Why? By that logic every astronaut shold test their spacecraft in a vacuum chamber before flying a mission, however many astronauts have previously flown in it.

Quote
There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears.

How many tests are required? How many sublimators do you think were made and flown? How many times does each PLSS unit get flown? Why should every astronaut insist on personally verifying that it works in a vacuum chamber?

Quote
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

Yes, I would. Because I understand what validation actually is, and if the testing regime is well documented I will trust my life to the team of engineers who built and tested that suit, just as I would be trusting my life to the engineers who built and tested the spacecraft I am about to fly in. Just as I trust my life to the engineers and pilots who fly the airliners I fly in when I go on a business trip or holiday.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 01, 2015, 03:32:10 AM
By this logic, every astronaut should test fly their vehicle into orbit (or beyond). . . before they fly it.
How that is supposed to work?! :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 03:43:18 AM
The whole training vs. testing discussion got me to thinking.

I teach people to fly.  Often, under controlled circumstances, I put them in what could be hazardous situations if I weren't there, much as Jay described firefighter trainees have experienced firefighters standing by to guide and protect the inexperienced.  I can talk all day long about an aerodynamic stall, but, until you experience one, particularly if it departs into a spin, you don't really know.

This is vs. an aircraft like the Cirrus, which has a ballistic recovery system. I've seen the films, I've read the training material, and I know where the handle is, but it is not a good idea, both for safety and economic reasons, to actually fire the thing off as a training exercise.

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 01, 2015, 03:57:50 AM
NASA Technical Note D-8093
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760003073.pdf
The Apollo Experience Report-The Development of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit.
Published Nov 1975 (this blows your ridiculous 2007 argument into the weeds)

Pages 34-44 shows the development of the PLSS and OPS systems. Full schematics are included
Pages 45-59 details the development of the PLSS. Refer to pages 48-50. This details the change from the original design of the PLSS which incorporated a wick-filled water boiler to remove metabolic heat to a porous-plate sublimator. A sectional view shows the construction of the sublimator.
Pages 62-64 details the qualification testing of the PLSS:
"The PLSS was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

Baker- please acknowledge that you have read this document. Recognise the publication date- how come your research did not include this?

Of course, Baker singularly failed to acknowledge the post above, especially the point that the PLSS system was  "...was subjected to a total of 20 thermal-vacuum lunar mission profiles, each lasting 3 or 4 hours. Test conditions simulated lunar day, lunar night, and LM cabin temperatures and pressures as well as crewman heat loads and contaminant level inputs. The total PLSS functional performance was evaluated for the three possible startup conditions: after a cold soak (116-K (-250" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), after a hot soak (366-K (200" F) chamber wall temperature for 2 hours), and at ambient conditions."

So that's between 60 and 80 hours testing in hard vacuum conditions. Exactly the conditions that he is looking for. So, again Mr. Baker, why the insistence on a video?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 04:25:37 AM
By this logic, every astronaut should test fly their vehicle into orbit (or beyond). . . before they fly it.
How that is supposed to work?! :o

Sounds like the Irish match factory (or Polish if you're American, I suppose) testing each of their products.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 04:40:22 AM
When I was in the Navy I had to attend firefighting school three times where they would make us don an oxygen breathing apparatus (OBA) and enter a steel compartment on land modeled after the compartment of a ship that was engulfed in flames with smoke pouring out of it to put out the fire. It was seriously dangerous. People would sometimes get hurt. It was scary. But it was a tremendous confidence booster. We had fire drills twice a day on the carrier I was stationed aboard and we once had a bad fire in a paint locker that we had to extinguish. After the USS Forrestal fire, nobody could serve aboard ship without having gone through firefighting school. The entire crew, from the highest ranking officer to the lowest enlisted, consisted of trained firefighters that had experienced fighting fires in smoke-filled fire-engulged rooms while wearing an OBA...

So this situation where it appears due to alleged morality reasons that no spacesuit has been tested in a high vacuum chamber with a person in it just makes the alarms in my head go off even louder.  It's like saying it would be immoral to fight a fire in a compartment on land because it's dangerous; let's wait until we have a fire on a ship to fight one.

I think it's common sense. If I'm going to the ISS to perform an EVA, I first don the spacesuit and enter the high vacuum chamber on Earth and pump down to 1e-6 torr. I probably want to do it many times. While I'm in there they shut off the sublimator to perform the recovery drill. They drill other stuff too, loss of electricity, loss of air, loss of spacesuit integrity. I'd probably want to go in with another astronaut to practice the buddy system of PLSS troubleshooting and emergency procedures. And while we're in there we want the whole thing video recorded for replay and post-test analysis...

1. Did you test the contents of each fire extinguisher to make sure they matched the label on the outside? If not, does that mean you trusted every other person on the ship to not maliciously change the labels around to cause mischief?

2. Did you test each fire extinguisher regularly to make sure it worked? If so, did you set fire to part of the ship to make the test as realistic as possible? If not, how could you possibly trust that this equipment would work as intended if a real fire was to break out?

3. Did you videotape all this and then watch it afterwards, and save the videos for future reference and possible uploading to the Internet when it was later invented? If not, why not?

Do you understand the difference between a test of a piece of equipment and the training of personnel?

To once again put my payroll hat on, we have a training version of the payroll program that people can experiment with for training purposes. Much safer than training payroll staff on the real payroll system where it would affect employees' actual pays, particularly if the training involves something like deducting an overpayment recovery from their pay...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 04:46:25 AM
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

To answer your question... yes I would. That's because I trust the engineers and scientists that test the space suits and there is much documented video evidence of astronauts using the space suits on shuttle EVAs. But then I understand how validation and verification works and don't apply the ad hoc rules you have created to dig yourself out of a hole after your initial claims clattered around your head.

There is well documented evidence of a space suit going wrong on the first EVA. You might care to look up Alexi Nikolayevich Leonov. So, things can go wrong, despite the testing and checking on Earth. Lessons are learned and modifications are made.

But, I'm know that you will use this as further evidence of your claim that the suit used on the first space walk puffed up, so it is evidence that 50 years of space flight has been hoaxed. You're too predictable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 01, 2015, 04:46:57 AM
So that's between 60 and 80 hours testing in hard vacuum conditions. Exactly the conditions that he is looking for. So, again Mr. Baker, why the insistence on a video?

When you consider what it would have taken to film (not video, FILM), 60 to 80 hours of testing, you can easily understand why it was not done.

The Arriflex IIC I mentioned earlier was the most common professional 35mm cine camera in the 1960's when the PLSS was being developed. It was the camera of choice for any film-maker of the time. It shoots at 25 frames/sec, which will use about 123 feet of film every minute. Filming 70 hours of testing would consume over half a million feet of film, just under 100 miles.

Question: How are you going to store the processed film
Answer: You will have to use some of these...
(http://www.cinerdistan.co.uk/B&H142%20005.jpg)

This is an 11in diameter, 35mm film can that holds 1,200 feet of film. You will need 430 of them!!!!. Just to put this in perspective, if you stacked them about four feet high, you will end up with 14 piles!

Baker really doesn't have the slightest clue what he is asking for and expecting.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 04:56:11 AM
Do you want to discuss it or not?
It's your site. I'll follow the rules.
If you want to discuss it, please start the Holocuast thread.

I don't tend to speak for the mod, but you may wish to look at his previous post.

This is off topic and not welcome in my forum. Start your own forum if you want to discuss things like that. This is your only warning.

It's not welcome in the forum, and so much so that LO has removed all links to your holocaust revisionist filth. Do you have any comprehension at all. LO has told you to start your own forum if you want to debate holocaust revisionism, and not start a new thread here. I guess that it's natural that someone claiming to be the anti-Christ should take extreme views.

http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/

LO: By all means do what you must with this reply if it oversteps the decency of the forum. I feel that I am sailing close to the wind with the rule by posting this link.

ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. :) I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 05:08:07 AM
If space suits don't work, why have amateur astronomers on the ground seen astronauts working on the ISS and space shuttle? e.g. this guy in the Netherlands.

http://ralfvandebergh.startje.be/


Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 01, 2015, 05:21:45 AM
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

There's a few suits on the ISS. There's many more than a few astronauts have been to the ISS.

You don't really imagine that every astronaut has 'their' suit, do you, any more than an airline pilot would have 'their' 747 - one that they'd tested individually before flying it?

However, what would you see as the worst-case scenario if the sublimator fails? What effect does this have on the astronaut?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 01, 2015, 05:43:12 AM

http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/


Repeat offender, as shown by the public record.

http://www.police.ucsb.edu/files/docs/130820.pdf

Maybe he should contact convicted criminal Bart Sibrel and compare notes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 06:50:13 AM
Crawling through mud beneath barb wired with live fire above was a close simulation.
But at least you weren't doing it to test the barbed wire.
Nor the mud, but what was bring tested was keeping your butt down while crawling. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 06:55:03 AM
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject. Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?  I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch. Several times to perform several drills sometimes with another donned astronaut practicing buddy system troubleshooting. And they play the game film after exiting the vacuum chamber for game critique.  There should be astronauts in vacuum chamber testing video coming out of our ears. But, strangely, just that one from 1966. And a failure at that. Near fatality. Bizarre.

Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.
Immoral? Unbelievable.
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?
You still don't get what the test you propose would really test.  The sublimator would get tested as it only works in a vacuum.  The other part that is tested would be suit/connections/hoses to ensure that all don't have a leak.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:01:03 AM

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 07:02:49 AM
The NASA lunar surveyor program allegedly sent seven landers to the moon between 1966 and 1968. Could they have been used to retrieve rocks robotically so it could be claimed later that astronauts gathered them?
Yes, it's pure speculation but if it's all a hoax, would they have gone to such a length to make the hoax convincing?

Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.

Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.

As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:06:15 AM
...
ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. :) I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.
If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them.  Have fun on your trip.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:11:40 AM

Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.

Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.

As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 07:14:00 AM
...and adding to Peter's post Neil. Please explain the great big huge rockets that blasted into the sky. There is plenty of video evidence for those events; your criteria for proof. What's good enough for the goose and all that.

It would seem that the engineers could design a 3 stage rocket capable of TLI, yet they couldn't design a sublimator to keep an astronaut cool? I suggest the PLSS anomaly lies with your thinking, and not the events reported by NASA and other space/media/scientific agencies. (I took the liberty of answering my question, as I don't expect to get one from you any time soon.)

Tell me, if you are indeed the anti-christ, can I have video evidence of the 666 mark on your body. I'd like the independent witnesses to be me, God and Jesus. I think we can trust the integrity of the latter two, one is a heavenly deity that has infinite knowledge. The other has a fairly good track record on the honesty front.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 07:15:08 AM
If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them.  Have fun on your trip.


I'm taking a 75-300 mm lens, so I should be able to get close enough :) (Checking lens bag now).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 01, 2015, 07:16:38 AM
...
ETA: Off topic, but I'm off for a two day trip in London. I understand that the Apollo 10 CM is on display at the Science Museum and have been egging to go for some time, so I should have some nice pictures. :) I'm going to the Tower too. All the best dealing with Baker. I cannot say it has been fun with the Holohoax turn of events.
If you are able to get close enough, please take some pictures and post them.  Have fun on your trip.

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 07:18:12 AM
FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

Thanks, I really like the enthusiasm of James Burke.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 01, 2015, 07:25:55 AM
FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93

Thanks, I really like the enthusiasm of James Burke.

If you get the chance in London, try the Emirates Air Line from Greenwich to Albert Dock
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 07:28:16 AM

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:34:59 AM

FYI - Tour of the Command Module from 1989

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xq93
All those type videos a really cool.  I wish I were in one of them in the late 60's early 70's.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 07:35:08 AM

Please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms.

Please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft.

As we know for a fact these samples came from the Moon, please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:42:26 AM

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.
Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure.  From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though?  I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 07:43:06 AM

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

I think someone did a calculation of the aggregate risk from everyone doing this during training was greater than someone getting it wrong in a real emergency.
Knowing the possible effects of an improper ascent, I could testify about the risk for sure.  From an overall standpoint the calculation may indeed give results that the training risks outweigh the benefits of the training, but what happens in a real emergency though?  I'm not arguing with you just letting my experience speak. :)

Me neither - I am glad I did it!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:48:14 AM

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.

Yes it has been done with the result of .326 kg of samples versus the 380 kg returned by Apollo.  That was the rocket/fuel size I was referring.  Now the methods are another side of the problem with the claim. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:50:19 AM

Me neither - I am glad I did it!
Our senior instructor had a rather oddly bent arm from JUST a bends issue. So I have the same thought!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 08:10:04 AM

It has been done - Luna 16, 20,24.  But Peter B's point is that the diversity of samples is the problem.  It's a major challenge to built a machine to do one of these tasks, let alone all of them.  There were drill cores, push/hammer cores, rake samples o larger regolith fragments, scoop samples of bulk regolith, small rocks, larger rocks (the largest larger than the aggregate mass of all samples returned by unmanned missions), and solar wind samples on foil collectors.  Plus one sampling method - hammering pieces off larger rocks - makes sense only with astronauts. There is no way someone would choose this method with an unmanned mission.


Yes it has been done with the result of .326 kg of samples versus the 380 kg returned by Apollo.  That was the rocket/fuel size I was referring.  Now the methods are another side of the problem with the claim. :)

Obviously Luna 16, 20, 24 were much smaller than Apollo.  Which means that any unmanned system would have had to have been proportionally larger. 

No only were the samples more diverse, but also came from many sites, so there would have had to have been a rover. This sort of combined unmanned rover and sample return missions is extremely challenging even today, the proposed Mars missions are aiming to return at best a few 100 grams.

And of course multiple missions, as there different provinces (highlands, different mare provinces) in the sample suits. 

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 01, 2015, 08:15:30 AM
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.


It would be a real problem with today's robotic technology, with the technology available in 1969, it would be impossible.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
Many HB's make this claim, but have no idea what is required to return sample in respect to fuel/launch vehicle to accomplish the return.  Especially the cores, yes one could design a robot to drill cores but the mechanical devices to drill 6' and then disassemble/pack/store the tubes would be a real engineering problem.


It would be a real problem with today's robotic technology, with the technology available in 1969, it would be impossible.

Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule.  The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 08:23:06 AM

Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule.  The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.
I didn't know they used a flexible core tube.  One learns new information here all the time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 08:44:06 AM
By this logic, every astronaut should test fly their vehicle into orbit (or beyond). . . before they fly it.
How that is supposed to work?! :o

Yup.

Neil has managed to exceed the usual hoaxie requirement to make a complete test flight before making a test flight...but he has added the willingness to risk a test pilot in order to make that test flight! It just can't be an actual space missions; that pilot can volunteer for a test that is even riskier than going to space, but they can't actually, you know, go to space.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 01, 2015, 08:57:37 AM
Yup.

Neil has managed to exceed the usual hoaxie requirement to make a complete test flight before making a test flight...but he has added the willingness to risk a test pilot in order to make that test flight! It just can't be an actual space missions; that pilot can volunteer for a test that is even riskier than going to space, but they can't actually, you know, go to space.

Its essentially the same as the Mitchell and Web sketch. It's just as difficult to test to his standards as just doing it....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 09:00:44 AM

Its essentially the same as the Mitchell and Web sketch. It's just as difficult to test to his standards as just doing it....


That is a good parody of HB's claims.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on September 01, 2015, 09:36:12 AM
Here's another item for the heap that Neil needs to read:
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781441995650

As with the companion volume on the Russian suits, there are extensive mentions of porous plate sublimators and pictures of manned tests in vacuum chambers.

The 2012 date isn't a get-out for Neil, the first edition was in 2006 and also meets the description above.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on September 01, 2015, 09:46:09 AM
It's obvious that the answer he will give to any question about the launches or the rocks or any damn thing will be : it's all fake and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a dupe.

Putting aside the other nonsense he believes, he thinks the ISS is a fast-moving inflatable, for pity's sake!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 09:46:29 AM
So sure, the sublimator and suit get vacuum should be tested unmanned first. Then they should test them with a human subject.

No.  The second test unnecessarily risks human life to obtain no more information about the sublimator than the first test would reveal.

Quote
Are you saying it's only moral to wear them when you're already traveling 17,000 mph in an orbit about 250 miles high?

No.  I'm saying it's immoral to risk human life just to test a piece of equipment that can be adequately and faithfully tested without it.  When the astronaut is doing his job in orbit or on the lunar surface, he is exposed to risk.  But that risk is a necessary and acceptable one that is agreed to be outweighed by the benefit gained.  That is not immoral.

Quote
I say any responsible and reasonable astronaut strengthens and demonstrates their confidence by donning the suit with sublimator and using them in a high vacuum chamber on Earth prior to launch.

I say we've demonstrated you don't know anything about testing or training.  So your judgment is moot.

Quote
Yes, this is an absurd anomaly.

No.  It's you scraping the barrel even harder to come up with some sort of thing NASA did "wrong," for ulterior purposes which you've already revealed and which require you to keep scraping no matter what the facts say.  But you have no demonstrable skill, experience, knowledge, or expertise in this area, and you can't convince anyone else in the world that your judgment on the point has merit.

Quote
Would you don a spacesuit at the ISS to perform an EVA in orbit if you hadn't already donned that suit on Earth for an excursion in a high vacuum chamber on Earth?

Yes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 09:49:44 AM
Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?

I read LunarOrbit's warning as being clear Baker would have to start his own forum for that.  Hence I doubt he'd allow such a thread anywhere on the forum no matter who started it, and I would endorse such a rule.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on September 01, 2015, 09:53:58 AM

It's worse than NASA.Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an
No documented gas chambers.
agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
This is precisely why Eisenhower ordered filming of the death camps and all associated mechanism, ordered townspeople to parade through them, just so history could not ever come up with a story line that this was all fabricated.

Eisenhower underestimated idiots.

I think this is one reason why studying the moon hoax movement is important. It shows just how strongly people with a wish to deny can reject all obvious evidence, because of a trick of the light in Exhibit Photo 1 or the absence of Document X which the HBs think should absolutely, definitely have existed, if the landings had actually occurred, even though there are perfectly reasonable explanations why Document X would never even have been created. By seeing how such a sky-scraping edifice is built on trivialities and wishful thinking, we can learn to identify the logical flaws of other history deniers.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 09:56:48 AM

It's worse than NASA.Nowhere near enough ovens.
Lice insecticide, Zyklon B, still manufactured as Uragan D2 with the charges that it was used as an
No documented gas chambers.
agent of mass murder scoffed at by its Czech Republic manufacturers.
Worst, outrageous thought crime laws in 14 nations prohibiting the questioning or investigation of the holocaust.
GOD bless America!
An International group of forensic experts could make quick work of this hoax if they were allowed in.
I recommend this website to deprogram yourself from the holocaust garbage they fed you in public school.
http:// [LINK REMOVED] /
Now that I've calmed down from the shock and awe of this and one other post.
This is precisely why Eisenhower ordered filming of the death camps and all associated mechanism, ordered townspeople to parade through them, just so history could not ever come up with a story line that this was all fabricated.

Eisenhower underestimated idiots.
Cleaning coffee spew off monitor, ok you got me there!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 01, 2015, 10:06:51 AM
Lots more links to explore here, many of which predate the point when our OP started threatening to murder people because they sacked him and legitimised his professional victim status, you know, like the situtation with that reporter and cameraman.

http://www.therebreathersite.nl/03_Historical/apollo_rebreathers.htm

https://ia601703.us.archive.org/7/items/spacesimulationp00spac/spacesimulationp00spac.pdf

http://papers.sae.org/911577/

http://bookstore.ashrae.biz/journal/download.php?file=nair3.pdf

http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf

http://www.workingonthemoon.com/WOTM-ALMNR-PLSSOPS.pdf
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 01, 2015, 11:40:14 AM
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luckmeister on September 01, 2015, 12:15:13 PM
Neil Baker, Since you think the ISS is a balloon fake, take a look at this. It's 17 minutes of continuous weightless video in something that would be a very complex balloon (assuming it's even possible to put a balloon into the ISS orbit -- which it's not). The video, due to it's unbroken length, was obviously not made in the Vomit Comet. Where do you think it was made, Neil?



Do a YouTube search and you'll find many other videos made on the ISS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on September 01, 2015, 12:17:13 PM

Which is why Luna 16, 20 and 24 used a flexible core tube which was coiled up in the return capsule.  The proposed partial sample return mission (2020 rover) will retrieve short cores only.

I didn't know they used a flexible core tube.  One learns new information here all the time.
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on September 01, 2015, 12:22:47 PM
Sounds like the Irish match factory (or Polish if you're American...
Or in Kerry if you're Irish.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 01, 2015, 12:28:00 PM
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.

Indeed.  Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course.  I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps.  Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 01, 2015, 01:25:24 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 01, 2015, 01:30:58 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

He's been asked that numerous times at the discussion area of the Michio Kaku video. As far as I know, he's never responded. How about now Neil?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 01:40:54 PM
The last thing I read on this site last night was someone telling me that testing a spacesuit with an astronaut in it was immoral.
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

He's been asked that numerous times at the discussion area of the Michio Kaku video. As far as I know, he's never responded. How about now Neil?
He is rather like an owl, the more light you shine on him the less he sees.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 01, 2015, 02:00:55 PM
I think there ought to be a rule put in place for every HB, CT, and AA who posts on this forum.

"You will answer all questions put to you by the members, or your posting privileges will be moderated, and you will be given a written reminder of the pending question, until you do."

Think that can be fitted into the ToS ?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 02:57:32 PM
I think the forum runs fine, Baker is having rings run around him and the longer this goes on the more holes he digs and the less consistent his protests become. People can point to this as a record of incompetence that pervades conspiracism.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 03:53:46 PM
...the more holes [Baker] digs and the less consistent his protests become.

And the more foaming.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 01, 2015, 03:53:58 PM
I think there ought to be a rule put in place for every HB, CT, and AA who posts on this forum.

"You will answer all questions put to you by the members, or your posting privileges will be moderated, and you will be given a written reminder of the pending question, until you do."

Think that can be fitted into the ToS ?

Assuming that Baker doesn't leave due to his being continually made a public fool of and seeing his every pathetic argument torn to shreds, then at some point LO will put him on "watched" status, which allows him to monitor Baker's posts more easily, while putting him on notice that his posts are being checked.

If Baker still refuses to answer questions put to him, then LO will put him on "moderation", and that means LO will have to personally approve every post Baker makes before it gets displayed. This generally means no new claims will be allowed until he has answered the previous questions.

Once this point is reached, most hoax nut jobs flounce because their argument methodology (constantly dodging questions while hand-waving away the evidence and arguments against them) can no longer work.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 04:05:41 PM
Smartcooky is right. LO  has always been slow with sanctions providing decency is kept, and that is not a criticism. It's actually a compliment. Take a look at the awe130 thread. If you ever want to see an assemblage of nonsense that was left to pan out into rabid self-destruction because LO gave a CT enough rope, then that's the thread to study.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 01, 2015, 04:08:27 PM
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.

My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 01, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.

Indeed.  Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course.  I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps.  Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.

Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 01, 2015, 04:18:12 PM
Your inability to find and understand material doesn't mean it isn't there to be found and readily understood by others.

You've had your misconceptions corrected and explained repeatedly and very patiently.

NASA is accountable - you just don't want to accept what they've provided, even though every other engineer does.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 01, 2015, 04:19:04 PM
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.

Indeed.  Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course.  I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps.  Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.

Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?

Holocaust denial is abhorrent and not allowed here.  That's the rule for everyone, and you weren't threatened.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 04:20:36 PM
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.
You're inability to do even minor research has been proven many times in this thread.
Quote

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
What is preposterous is your inability to recognize the fact that they have been used on a routine basis for the last +40 years.
Quote

My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.
Why would NASA waste part of its budget on a device that has been proven to work?
Quote

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo.
Your are the one stumbling on the ropes because of the consent pressure by the members ridiculing your adolescent requests.
Quote

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
Again you obviously don't read responses, Jay gave a very good dissertation that the test would not be cheap nor easy since it would require a complete test schedule.
Quote

And why are we having this debate. Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
NASA is accountable every time an astronaut goes outside a habitable atmosphere into the vacuum of space, why can't you see that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 01, 2015, 04:34:18 PM
Most of your arguments are of the form "If I ran the zoo, there would be tigercamels and kangaroolions and ostrichcats". Basically, your ideas about "how things should be done" are simplistic, juvinile and has no relation to the real world.

Mass-produced things with a RECORD OF WORKING aren't tested full-up - just like airbags in cars aren't tested by ramming the car into a wall with a live human on board, and then sold.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 01, 2015, 04:39:32 PM
Despite coming to the conclusion that the world revolves around you, the fact is your wants and opinions are irrelevant. It would be almost criminal of NASA to even contemplate agreeing to this test of yours since you have made it clear that nothing will satisfy you until your ultimate goal of getting a 9/11 investigation result that suits you is complete. You can have hissy fits about it for the rest of your life but you best get used to that fact.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 01, 2015, 04:49:17 PM
No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one.

There's been more than one photo posted in this thread.  See reply #8 and reply #51.  And I believe I saw additional photos in some of the links provided.

ETA:  This page, https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/plss.html, has no less than 6 photos showing the sublimator from different angles.

most absurdly, no video.

I don't care about video.  The other documentation is more than adequate to demonstrate that porous plate sublimators have been tested and work as advertised.

I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.

You're the only one who keeps harping about the "I" word.  The important point is that human testing in high vacuum is "unnecessary".  The equipment can be tested without a human presence.

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise.

Then stop obsessing about it.
 
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 01, 2015, 04:52:08 PM
OR shown that document X actually exists, just jump right over it as it never happened and start right over again.

Indeed.  Everything Neil demands for the Holocaust has already been shown, too, and he's wrong there, of course.  I'd also like to point out that it isn't just the 6 million Jews who died, either; estimates include about 6.5 million gentiles of various types--Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, and so forth--who were also killed in the camps.  Probably including some of my own relatives, though tracing that branch of the family has proved difficult.

Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?

Really?  Really?  That's the first post of mine you respond to, and it isn't even anything substantive?  Neil.  You are wrong about just boatloads of things, including how evidence works.  I don't expect you to understand that, goodness knows, but I would like you to acknowledge that each piece of evidence--in anything--has to be weighed on its own merits.  Limiting it strictly to Apollo, proving that this one piece of equipment doesn't work as advertised doesn't explain the rocks.  The film.  The reflectors.  The telemetry.  The personal testimonials of actual freakin' astronauts.  Every single piece of evidence has been scrutinized by people working in relevant fields for literally decades.  In order to have a working claim of an Apollo hoax, you have to explain all of them, not merely demand one test that, to be blunt, wouldn't actually show anything.  What exactly do you think would show up on film in that test?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 04:59:33 PM
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?
You have been informed by the owner of this site that said aforementioned topic is inappropriate for this thread and not allowed on this site anyway.

This applies to you, me, and every member of this site, without fear or favour. If you want to raise such matters for discussion, take it elsewhere to some other site which will entertain such nonsense. It is explicitly prohibited here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 05:01:57 PM
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself...

That wasn't the question.  The question was what physical law prevents the nickel porous plate sublimator from working.  You are a degreed engineer, questioning an engineering item.  You can -- and will -- be expected to provide an engineering rationale for your claim of its non-operation, complete with any quantitative computations and citations to standard references.

You were not asked simply to repeat your claim, which has already been debunked as your obvious ineptitude at research.  It is quite obvious that your conspiracy theory is motivated far more by your desire to be a hero than by any specific, articulable scientific fact.  You don't get to accuse NASA of being unaccountable when you are unable to account for your accusation by means of a scientific proof.  Simply whining that you couldn't find information on the internet is inadequate, lazy, and unprofessional.

Quote
I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait...

Asked and answered.  You demonstrate no competence in aerospace training and testing.  Your opinion over its propriety, as conducted by those who are qualified, is therefore irrelevant.  Alluding to your also-debunked claims regarding the ISS does not salvage your overall argument from ignorance.

Quote
I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise.

Indeed it has.  It's obviously an aspect of your long-standing, often-repeated dog-and-pony show that you have not yet faced.  However, mocking it does not refute it.  Nor would various state authorities agree that you are an authority on what is moral.  You are clearly unable to deal with its effect on your claim that the test you propose would be a necessary and prudent step in validating a sublimator for space -- a goal you insist on conflating with personnel training despite several attempts to explain to you the difference.

Quote
I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

Try to get it into a secure NASA facility.  Especially you try to get it into a secure NASA facility.

Further, you were asked several times why you consider photo and video credible evidence of a human space-suited astronaut in a vacuum, cooled by sublimation, when you dismiss already-existing photos and video by speculatively claiming the vacuum (or some other aspect of the test) has been faked.  Your inconsistency and evasion in formulating the test you say is essential and probative reveals your ploy simply to be constantly moving goalposts.  You're demanding a specific activity that you know will never be undertaken, simply so you can get rhetorical mileage of complaining that it won't be.

Quote
And why are we having this debate?

Because you want attention, and are willing to stoop even to criminal activity to get it.

Quote
Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable.

NASA is fully accountable to the extent it is expected to be, and to an extent you simply refuse to acknowledge.  Without any justification, you simply want their accountability to include acquiescing to the demonstrably ignorant demands from a single crackpot.  You are simply not that important.

Quote
...and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Asked and answered.  Your argument for the necessity of that test is predicated entirely on your delusional denial, which no one else shares.  Your argument for the practicality of that test is predicted on a colossal level of ignorance for what it would actually entail.  You have addressed neither of these objections, except to state and restate the same ignorant beliefs.  Further, you have assiduously ignored every other form of documentary, eyewitness, and circumstantial evidence that has been placed before you, and which serves to convince literally the entire educated population of the planet that space suit cooling works as advertised.  You have sought to assuage that unanimity by claiming that everyone except you is a coward for not agreeing with you.  That is not persuasive.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 05:08:14 PM
Neil, I want you to produce numbers showing why the PLSS sublimator  does not work. So no, you have not answered the question about the physics of the sublimator. You've made demand after demand and been shown wrong at every hurdle and dodged some important questions. If I had made the pre-2007 info claim and received the shellshacking you did, I'd have walked away tail between legs by now. Surely someone with the power of the anti-Christ must realise that each link that was posted was a nail in the coffin of your opening gambit. You came here with 7 high and got shown a full house. You were found out early doors my pedigree chum. Forgive the slang, I'm sat having a beer in old London town. Walk through Hyde Park tomorrow to see the Apollo 10 CM. So excited.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 01, 2015, 05:12:25 PM
One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

1. Cellphones and video cameras didn't exist in 1965

2. Why would NASA need to test spacesuits and video those tests when they have successfully used them for 50 years and thousands of hours of EVA without incident?

It is only delusional nut-cases like you who make preposterous demands for this level of testing.

What level of trust do you have in technology?

Do you do a full test drive of your car, on a test track, complete with video for analysis before you drive down to the bodega for a pint of milk and a pack of cookies?

Do you haul your television set onto a test bench and carry out a full systems test and calibration,  complete with video for analysis, before turning it on to watch your favourite programmes?

Do you carry out a full functional and electrical safety check on your oven every morning complete with video for analysis before grilling you breakfast sausages and bacon?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 01, 2015, 05:17:28 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 01, 2015, 05:20:18 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

....and video the doctor doing the check-up for later analysis?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 01, 2015, 05:22:07 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

....and video the doctor doing the check-up for later analysis?
Obviously! ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 05:24:22 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 01, 2015, 05:30:51 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

That would be a "no".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 05:32:45 PM
I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
Oh goody. Now you admit there is now reason the sublimator would not work as advertised, yet...
I doubt it's operation because
Wait a minute, you just admitted that there is no physical reason to doubt it's operation. WTF?

when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and
And you discovered that you are really rubbish at any research, even the most basic, as has been demonstrated in this very thread. Not only has it been demonstrated, you have posted plaintive "How did you find that?" posts illustrating how utterly useless you are.

some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand,
Which company was formed in 1999 some thirty plus years after Apollo. Is there anything you can get right?

little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me.
Because you are an incompetent researcher.

No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one.
You have been providede with many in this very thread. Why must you lie?

And most absurdly, no video.
You have been provided with many in this very thread. Why must you lie?

Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so.
Crank callers tend to be treated thusly. You have only yourself and your reputation to blame.

I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.
You were provided with many in this very thread. Why must you continue to lie?

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test.
Except that manned test have been performed and you have been provided with that data. Why must you continue to lie about this?

This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.
Reading comprehension fail. I can only assume it is intentional given the preceding 48 pages.
My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Nope. There you go making crap up again.

Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.
Full up test of the sort you demand have been performed. You have been provided with photo evidence, video evidence, documentary evidence,  Peer reviewed scientific evidence, eyewitness evidence, qualified engineers evidence, what the hell more could you want?

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?
I find this unsurprising. Given your history, you are not an individual who demonstrates any moral awareness whatsoever.

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.
Does it have a vacuum chamber?


And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable.
Because you are too dense to read responses. That's why.

As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.
Whose government? Roscosmos had no issue demonstrating it's suits, nor did ESA, nor did NASA for that matter. Just because you paid no attention doesn't mean diddly squat. Just because you have some crackpot gripe with your government does not mean anything. Your government represents a mere sub 5% of humanity. Your government is not my government.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 01, 2015, 05:48:14 PM

What level of trust do you have in technology?

That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/

I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.


Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 01, 2015, 05:48:44 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?
. . . On yourself. Filmed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 05:51:48 PM
Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?
. . . On yourself. Filmed.
...in a double blind trial.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
Neil. I'm on Tapatalk so it's hard to reply. There is nothing metaphysical about providing the numerical physics of the PLSS sublimator. That's hard quantitative physics. You don't get to define terminology here. Provide the physics to show the sublimator did not work as advertised and as requested.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 01, 2015, 06:01:18 PM
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!


Well, you're the one who has shown a complete lack of understanding of . . . everything discussed thus far.  Again, what exactly would video testing show?  What would you expect it to look like if the sublimator were doing its job versus what it would look like if it weren't?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 01, 2015, 06:02:36 PM
Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 06:04:43 PM
Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?
How many times have you asked this question? :'(

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 06:07:16 PM
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

No.  One is a technical question that can be tested objectively, and relates to your claim.  The other is a political question that ultimately has only a subjective answer, and it does not relate to your claim except in the form of your circular argument.  You constantly desire to steer the conversation away from testable questions into subjective ones about which you can hand-wave and foam.

Quote
I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession...

Gotcha.  Anyone who disagrees with you on 9/11 or any other subject is not, in your estimation, trustworthy.  Consider that many in your profession do not trust you.  It probably has something to do with your threatening to kill them.

Quote
Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.

You have been invited many times to provide a technical rationale for your proposition, one that would be suitable to your claimed credentials and experience.  You refuse to do so, and offer instead the same handwaving assertions that boil down every time to nothing more than your incompetence at research.

Quote
Immoral? Please!

Continued bluster, mockery, and evasion do not absolve you from facing those issues, nor fix the problems with your argument that invokes it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 01, 2015, 06:10:01 PM
This is about the fourth time I think.

It doesn't matter because the answer Neil will offer is obvious: the stuff on the Moon is faked. Therefore we have no reason to believe he won't dismiss any evidence of the use of a PLSS in a vacuum chamber as faked anyway. It's pointless. He sets the goal such that no-one can ever satisfy his burden of proof, therefore he is always right and doesn't have to confront the fact that he really knows naff all about anything relevant to Apollo. He doesn't care about anything other than his utterly absurd 9/11 conspiracy crap, and doesn't care who he has to dismiss in order to do it. It's really rather sad.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 06:13:04 PM
Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?

I read LunarOrbit's warning as being clear Baker would have to start his own forum for that.  Hence I doubt he'd allow such a thread anywhere on the forum no matter who started it, and I would endorse such a rule.

Fair enough. My fault for not reading carefully.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 06:14:02 PM

What level of trust do you have in technology?

That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"
Once again, which government? Are you so naive to think there is only one?

And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/
Off topic nonsense.

I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.
More off topic nonsense.

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!

Yes. It has become ridiculous. Every single crackpot point you have feebly attempted to make has been copiously refuted. This is why you try to introduce unrelated buffoonery to distract from your paucity of evidence.

Kindly stick to the topic at hand. Take your 911 crap to appropriate threads and take your Holocaust crud to other sites which may entertain it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 01, 2015, 06:16:54 PM
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.

My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Neil Baker

Could you please answer these questions...

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 01, 2015, 06:18:13 PM
Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?

The clue is in the domain name, Neil. Look at it again, and again, and again, until you get why.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on September 01, 2015, 06:20:52 PM

http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/


Repeat offender, as shown by the public record.

http://www.police.ucsb.edu/files/docs/130820.pdf

Maybe he should contact convicted criminal Bart Sibrel and compare notes.

I can see exactly why he was sacked.
This is not a picture of someone who is stable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 06:22:47 PM
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 06:23:28 PM

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.
That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

For a moment I read that as "emergency accents" -- which is a lot more interesting a concept then anything Baker has put forward here.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 01, 2015, 06:24:18 PM
For a moment I read that as "emergency accents" -- which is a lot more interesting a concept then anything Baker has put forward here.

Especially in a theater context.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 06:25:21 PM
Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?

Apollo 9 too.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 01, 2015, 06:30:27 PM
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

Whose Government? Remember, the ISS is an INTERNATIONAL concern, and it's not just Americans who do spacewalks there....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 01, 2015, 06:34:23 PM
Jason, again on Tapatalk here. Yes. It does not matter. The point being Neil has ignored your question on numerous occasions. If he had entertained you he would probably refute the vacuum evidence with a bare assertion. It's a no win situation.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 06:37:32 PM
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.

My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

"None" would have sufficed.

We already understand that you were searching for evidence to support your existing beliefs, and we already understand that you believe your inability to find the kind of documentation you imagine must exist has any greater meaning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

Whose Government? Remember, the ISS is an INTERNATIONAL concern, and it's not just Americans who do spacewalks there....
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA.  And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 06:42:35 PM

What level of trust do you have in technology?

That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/

I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.


Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!

"The government" doesn't make the suits or the sublimators, test them, wear them in space, or provide the ad-hoc "documentation" (aka extensive video from astronauts of various nations performing duties outside the ISS, among other things).

Just because the State of California registers my automobile, I find no particular reason to perform politically independent, video-documented, double-blind testing on the concept of internal combustion engines!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 06:44:15 PM

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Your inability to read and comprehend posts leads you to the metaphysical direction.  Had you firstly done a better job at research you wouldn't have had much to say in this thread.  You have been shown and yet you refuse to acknowledge a nickel porous plate sublimator attached to a space suit works in a vacuum, whether it has been tested to your standards.  Your real purpose for this has been exposed and then you start with the 9/11 investigation.  This is off topic, I suggest you start a thread in the "Other Conspiracy" area and leave the comment towards the sublimator here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 06:46:29 PM
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA.  And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.
I don't think Neil is in on anything remotely connected to anything that encompasses technology, with the exception of bomb making perhaps.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 06:53:01 PM

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!
Your inability to read and comprehend posts leads you to the metaphysical direction.  Had you firstly done a better job at research you wouldn't have had much to say in this thread.  You have been shown and yet you refuse to acknowledge a nickel porous plate sublimator attached to a space suit works in a vacuum, whether it has been tested to your standards.  Your real purpose for this has been exposed and then you start with the 9/11 investigation.  This is off topic, I suggest you start a thread in the "Other Conspiracy" area and leave the comment towards the sublimator here.
Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:05:00 PM

Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
LO hands out badges also? ::) 
I agree he hasn't listened or comprehended anything that has been spoon fed.  He lacks the ability for any rationale behavior, here or in real life.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 01, 2015, 07:34:11 PM

Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
LO hands out badges also? ::) 
Perhaps he should.
I agree he hasn't listened or comprehended anything that has been spoon fed.  He lacks the ability for any rationale behavior, here or in real life.
He has been handed everything he demanded, yet immediately moved his goalposts, go figure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 07:51:02 PM

Prediction: He will ignore all of that in favour of garnering the HB badge of honour, a ban from a skeptic site. That is clearly what he seeks. he has already flagrantly broken the site rules, ignored admin directives, and willfully ignored site admin directives. Will there be any other inevitable result from such bizarre behaviour? Nope. He wants a ban.
LO hands out badges also? ::) 
Perhaps he should.
I agree he hasn't listened or comprehended anything that has been spoon fed.  He lacks the ability for any rationale behavior, here or in real life.
He has been handed everything he demanded, yet immediately moved his goalposts, go figure.
Rather like a dog chasing his tail.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 09:15:11 PM
Hello  Hello Hello  Hello
Must be all quiet on the western front. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 09:47:03 PM
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA.  And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.

Also Japan, Canada, Brazil, China......

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 01, 2015, 09:48:32 PM
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA.  And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.

Also Japan, Canada, Brazil, China......
. . .  incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 01, 2015, 09:49:31 PM
Especially true, given that the US must perforce rent seat space on russian launchers right now. And return to earth on russian Soyuz re-entry vehicles. The inevitable consequence of Neil's position is that they must be in on it. And ESA.  And..Well the only one who isn't in on it is Neil.

Also Japan, Canada, Brazil, China......
. . .  incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .

South Korea!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 09:53:40 PM

 . . .  incredibly wealthy private citizens . . .
That would be an experience, unfortunately I don't have the cash nor the friends.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 01, 2015, 10:37:12 PM
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 01, 2015, 10:42:24 PM
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"
Yes but we have to pay off Neil so he won't blab.  ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 02, 2015, 01:03:09 AM
Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
So, then we're done?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 02, 2015, 01:48:46 AM
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"
I made a very similar point back on page 27 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31554#msg31554). As far as I've been able to tell, Neil did not reply, but maybe it's been hidden in cyberspace, awaiting my agitation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on September 02, 2015, 06:21:08 AM
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
The return capsule diameter was 50 cm.  The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight.  Here's a good article with lots of references:
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 07:16:05 AM
Friend of mine mused that here you are, incredibly wealthy, used to getting your own way, you paid an amazing amount of money to go into space...then some CIA guys come up to you at Baikonur or whatever and say, "Sorry, you aren't actually going to space today. Nobody can, nobody ever has. And no, you aren't getting your money back. We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"
I made a very similar point back on page 27 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31554#msg31554). As far as I've been able to tell, Neil did not reply, but maybe it's been hidden in cyberspace, awaiting my agitation.
So start agitating and recover it from black hole it went.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 07:24:27 AM
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
The return capsule diameter was 50 cm.  The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight.  Here's a good article with lots of references:
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362
Seems likely that some of the cored material may have dropped out since it only returned about 70 more than Luna 16.  But the engineering is good.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 09:46:14 AM
So, then we're done?

You wish.  As Sts60 pointed out, sublimators are entirely irrelevant to his argument.  It's the McGuffin.  It serves no purpose other than to enable the plot of the "movie" Neil Baker is playing out in his mind where he's the big hero that brings the U.S. government to account for its sins.  Baker ignores all of the science and physics and focuses exclusively on policy -- something that revolves around opinions rather than facts.  Facts bring a discussion to a screeching conclusion rather abruptly.  Opinions do not.  They can be argued ad nauseam -- in Baker's case for eight years -- using the same rhetoric over and over again.

It's his judgment that sublimators are insufficiently tested.  It's his judgment that the record of prior tests is unclear or incomplete.  It's his judgment that the only way to restore NASA's credibility is to let him personally witness a test.  It's his judgment what should constitute that test.  It's his judgment how intrusive or expensive such observation would be.  As many have noted, his entire argument is just a colossal expression of his own egotism.  He dismisses all other members of his profession as ideologically compromised; he's the only one who can save the day.

His actual argument couldn't have any less to do with sublimators than it does now.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 02, 2015, 10:48:49 AM
It's really just a way of annoying people and getting a seat to himself:

Quote
Thursday, November 12, 2009

The airport is the worst and it's mostly men that are so rude. I have a whole series of rehearsed fake phone conversations that I use when I'm around obnoxious phone talkers. I start loudly spewing the rudest most offensive politically incorrect opinions to an imaginary person on the other end of the conversation. It's a way to be on a soapbox disguised as someone talking on the phone. I talk about how the Taleban had nothing to do with 9/11. How 9/11 was a Zionist job. How the holocaust was a hoax. How we never landed on the moon. etc. I get strange looks but so what; I'll be anonymously seated in a separate airplane from most of them within a short time and I have the benefit of knowing none of them has a weapon.

From this marvellous website detailing his insane ramblings:

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=3603

I particularly like the one where wants people committing suicide to send him money so he can build his own Tracey Island.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 10:55:51 AM
It's really just a way of annoying people and getting a seat to himself:

From this marvellous website detailing his insane ramblings:

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=3603

I particularly like the one where wants people committing suicide to send him money so he can build his own Tracey Island.
Clearly a deranged individual.  Its of little wonder that UCSB that him under surveillance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 11:27:29 AM
Clearly a deranged individual.

Which is only relevant to this discussion because he sets up his personal judgment as the standard.  If it were a matter strictly of fact or logic, his mental state would be irrelevant.  Even hard-core schizophrenics are able to do proper logical analysis.  So if he says "I can't find any information on sublimators, therefore they don't work." that's immediately rejectable as an argument from silence.  We don't even have to accuse him of slothful research; the reason why he doesn't have information doesn't bear on the lack of sustenance in the conclusion.  But if his argument is, "I don't think sublimators have been adequately tested, or the tests documented properly," then some subject-matter judgment comes into play.  The proponent's level of understanding and possible biases must then be examined.  You then cross over very quickly from subject-matter expertise (i.e., engineering testing) into matters of general judgment:  the ability to weigh variables in conflict and arrive at a "satisficial" ("satisfactory" + "sacrificial") solution.  (Author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisfice" to describe engineering reasoning among conflicting interests.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 11:45:11 AM

Which is only relevant to this discussion because he sets up his personal judgment as the standard.  If it were a matter strictly of fact or logic, his mental state would be irrelevant.  Even hard-core schizophrenics are able to do proper logical analysis.  So if he says "I can't find any information on sublimators, therefore they don't work." that's immediately rejectable as an argument from silence.  We don't even have to accuse him of slothful research; the reason why he doesn't have information doesn't bear on the lack of sustenance in the conclusion.  But if his argument is, "I don't think sublimators have been adequately tested, or the tests documented properly," then some subject-matter judgment comes into play.  The proponent's level of understanding and possible biases must then be examined.  You then cross over very quickly from subject-matter expertise (i.e., engineering testing) into matters of general judgment:  the ability to weigh variables in conflict and arrive at a "satisficial" ("satisfactory" + "sacrificial") solution.  (Author Henry Petroski coined the term "satisfice" to describe engineering reasoning among conflicting interests.)
From your extensive debates with the HB's Neil's behavior is atypical then?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 02, 2015, 12:10:37 PM
He helpfully listed his CV on Craigslist.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040426044244/http://oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf

I'm impressed that he was Propulsion Plant Operator on the USS Enterprise, which at means he as at least conversant with dilithium crystals,

His alma mater's current prospectus

http://bulletin.auburn.edu/undergraduate/samuelginncollegeofengineering/departmentofmechanicalengineering/materialsengineering_major/

lists Phase Transformations in Material Processing, Thermodynamics of Materials Systems and an Introduction To Thermodynamics, Fluids And Heat Transfer, so assuming no real significant changes in what is necessary for a Materials Engineer to know there really should be no excuse for claiming ignorance on sublimation as a process.

Thank God his meltdown didn't happen at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but if he's in touch with any former colleagues there maybe they could make use of the vacuum chamber for him:

http://www.lanl.gov/science/NSS/issue1_2011/story3full.shtml

Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 02, 2015, 12:11:59 PM
I've been at this for over ten years, and I'm not entirely convinced there's any such thing as a "typical" HB.  They all have the same basic disdain for science, usually without knowing they do, and they generally have a disdain for the US government--often with the subtext that there is no other government, even when that's logically inconsistent with their other stances--but the way they go about it varies pretty wildly.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 12:20:07 PM
I have to agree with Gillianren.  There are different traits we can ascribe to conspiracy theorists, and each individual displays different traits to different degrees.  Few if any become so enraptured with their conspiracy claims that they trip over into criminal territory, so that's certainly a distinction.  For some of the identifiable traits of conspiracy theorists (and psychologists have tentatively categorized a few), Baker's needles are definitely on the red zone of the gauge.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 02, 2015, 12:28:07 PM
Since he should be competent to understand the physics, how can he choose to mentally "look away" when he writes his nonsense? How and why can he be so dishonest to himself? And why does he see dishonesty as the way to gain "the truth" on 9/11?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 12:31:58 PM
I've only been at this for a little over 4 months, but I have seen the distain for science and government.  There is a lot that I learned concerning them reading old posts with them constantly circling about a proposition without giving any more evidence than "I don't see/understand", "There is no way that could have been done", "This contradicts what I expect/observe" and perhaps a few others that I can not remember at this time.  Most of the individuals I have seen/communicated have a preponderance at YT, as I'm watching a lot of movies there(not necessarily CT type).  Trying science/engineering don't go far there for sure.  I keep trying in my modest way so that maybe someone that is on the fence can see light instead of the dark.  Astorbrant2, Phil Webb and BertieSlack do a better job than I in this area.
Off the soap box. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 12:36:16 PM
Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.

Correct.  He has said his objection is not on physical science grounds.  He does not doubt the physics of phase-change cooling, or even the engineering of how to build one (which is rather non-trivial as it requires precise control over the sintering processes that create the porous plate).  The only thing he says he doubts is whether they were suitability tested and the tests suitably documented.  That moves the argument entirely out of science and technology, so he can safely sidestep the notion of whether it would work or not.  Of course he still slips in his various comments about all NASA manned space exploration being fake, and therefore obviating the need for working spacesuits.  But his focus is on something he can argue incessantly regardless of what's said to him, because it's policy and not science.  His evidence that NASA fakes manned space operations is not necessarily that the equipment doesn't work, but that NASA cannot document "proper" testing of equipment it says is required.

Still, that raises the question of what a "proper" test would uncover and why NASA is allegedly so fearful to conduct it.  It's not as if Baker's argument is particularly cogent or consistent.  But he's fastened on a little corner of the overall enterprise of space engineering and dug himself in to have a nice long discussion of the policy that applies to it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 02, 2015, 12:44:20 PM
I've been at this for over ten years, and I'm not entirely convinced there's any such thing as a "typical" HB.  They all have the same basic disdain for science, usually without knowing they do, and they generally have a disdain for the US government--often with the subtext that there is no other government, even when that's logically inconsistent with their other stances--but the way they go about it varies pretty wildly.
Don't forget the strangely frequent trait of being unable to use the "quote" function.

What is up with that? Can they just not accept repeating someone else's words without being able to twist them or take them out of context?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 02, 2015, 01:42:09 PM
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage. It’s difficult, can cost you your job or career and, consequently, much money.  And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those).
It doesn’t necessarily require silent complicity with something big like a 9-11 or a fraudulent space program for cowardice to be exhibited; some level of engineering cowardice is demonstrated by the majority of engineers on a daily basis.  It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling, insults and attempted defamation of character after retreating into a metaphysical black hole of self-delusion about “morality” of all things. (Didn’t  see that one coming)
I’ve held many engineering jobs and I’ve witnessed many disgusting displays of cowardice.

I’ve been fired from one job for internally blowing the whistle about illegal activity, nearly fired from one for protesting that a dangerous product was not being recalled (they changed their mind and it was) and laid off from one (defacto firing) for pointing out that the project they were foolishly changing course to pursue would not be competitive or profitable.

Because of a gag order attached to my probation agreement, I can’t write about the firing.

And the near firing before the recall is interesting too but I want to talk about the layoff because I was able to observe a large group of unethical engineers at very close range just like I’m doing now at this thread.

One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is:

“Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.”

In 2004 after being fired, I found my next job as Test Lead for Infinia Corporation working on a difficult subcontract for Stirling Engine Generators to be used as a power supply both for NASA satellites and the Dept. of Defense(DoD). It was the most challenging job I’ve ever had, most stressful and most enlightening. I’m sure that had I been allowed to continue my engineering career after the layoff that I and my future employer would have benefited greatly from the lessons I learned.  I was laid off after about a year with the company when the top management entered dispute over its subcontract with Lockheed Martin for the NASA generators resulting in no new orders. Then Infinia management announced that they were entering the commercial solar Stirling market with a Stirling engine generator powered by the sun using a parabolic mirror. I had studied Stirling engines and their history in college and knew that the British had unsuccessfully attempted the same thing in Egypt near the beginning of the 20th century.

In my first engineering job out of college at Manville Corp. I was mentored by an old school engineer who had spent most his career at General Motors. I remember that he taught me that a quick way to approximate the cost of a product is by multiplying the product weight by the price of steel. When I did, the cost of the Solar Stirling Generator came out to be about $10/Watt which was very bad news since the price of installed Photovoltaics at that time was about $4/Watt and dropping. The last I read, it’s now down below $2/Watt.

And then there was a meeting of the CEO, Marketing Manager, Head of Engineering and all the lead engineers.  I summoned the courage and presented the CEO with my concerns about the future success of the company and why. His response was to tell me, “Neil, Infinia is not a democracy. Infinia is going to be successful due to superior marketing, not superior engineering.”
I was momentarily dumbstruck. I was in disbelief. Did I just hear what I heard? What’s this guy thinking? Does he think we’re selling a solo-flex rubber band machine to pimply-faced fourteen year olds? Does he really think we can sell Stirling-solar electricity with moving parts to other engineers for $10/Watt when they can buy PV-solar electricity for $4/Watt without moving parts?
But I woke up because I quickly noticed that every other engineer in the room was laughing or giggling like the sycophantic lackeys they all were. I got laid off two days later. The most unethical ones stayed.

I watched the company as it got nearly $200 million in investments and I eventually watched it flail as they grew desperate for more investment. They claimed they got their price down to $7/Watt installed but I could never determine if that included the excavation and very large concrete foundation that anchored the generator.  The life of Infinia was extended by an Import/Export Bank contract to supply generators to India and they got a contract to sell generators to Tooele Army Base in Utah and they sold some locally in Washington State although I can’t find them on GoogleMaps so I have doubts they ever got installed. But eventually as expected Infina declared bankruptcy but not before slithering out of Kennewick, Washington to Utah after winning tax concessions from Washington legislators desperate to have them stay.  The assets of the company were purchased for a song by the Israeli company, Qnergy, operating out of Ogden, Utah. Then I’d discover during my pursuit of employment that my engineering employer before Infinia was defaming, blacklisting and sabotaging my hire elsewhere. What a creepy story.

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 02, 2015, 01:51:20 PM
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage. It’s difficult, can cost you your job or career and, consequently, much money.  And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those).
It doesn’t necessarily require silent complicity with something big like a 9-11 or a fraudulent space program for cowardice to be exhibited; some level of engineering cowardice is demonstrated by the majority of engineers on a daily basis. 

Yadda Yadda, until only the last para is on-topic ...

Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

Your doubts about the testing of the sublimator do NOT make the whole programme a 'faith-based' thing. There is AMPLE evidence, in abundance, to the contrary. 

Merely saying photos 'could be' faked, or that other aspects 'could be' artificial, is nought but a big fat nothingness. No proof, no evidence, no facts.

I asked you this already, but what's the worst that happens if a sublimator fails?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 02, 2015, 01:53:45 PM
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it. I don't expect a reply from you, but it does illustrate nicely your level of delusion when you disregard hour upon hour of evidence that something works because you can't find one specific example of something you insist should be available.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 02, 2015, 01:55:11 PM
You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything.

And there is the deluded arrogance summed up in your own words, thank you.

I think it's safe to say that I know many things you don't know, and vice versa. And if you don't KNOW anything, what exactly is your substitute for knowledge, since apparently faith is not acceptable?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 02, 2015, 02:00:36 PM
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.

As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 02, 2015, 02:28:07 PM
Neil Baker, let's say you went on a vacation to, oh, Latvia, and brought back photos, video, and souvenirs, kept your ticket stubs, and, naturally, decided to show them to me, and I said, "Yeah, those could be faked. I don't trust the Latvian government, so I'm going to assume they are. I don't think it's impossible to go to Latvia, but I don't know anything about how airplanes work, so I am going to assume no one does."
You would hopefully consider the whole thing quite ludicrous.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 02, 2015, 02:36:40 PM
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

There is nothing faith-based about it.  The evidence that sublimators work is undeniable.  Only a pigheaded fool would doubt it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 02:47:51 PM
...

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.
You don't know more than I.  You may claim that you don't know anything.  It is more an inability of reasonableness in engineering anticipate results versus anticipated costs.  As I am others have stated the only difference of a space suit with an individual in a vacuum, versus the working end of the sublimator, is nothing more than hoses.  That is all your testing verify, that the hoses don't leak.
Bottom line you don't know what you want concerning sublimators.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 02:49:32 PM

There is nothing faith-based about it.  The evidence that sublimators work is undeniable.  Only a pigheaded fool would doubt it.
Indeed as the record has clearly indicated.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 02, 2015, 02:52:23 PM
Since he should be competent to understand the physics, how can he choose to mentally "look away" when he writes his nonsense? How and why can he be so dishonest to himself? And why does he see dishonesty as the way to gain "the truth" on 9/11?

I'm not qualified to get into that.  I'm not a mental health professional, just someone who has done a fair amount of independent research.  It's possible there's an underlying condition; it's possible it's just an extreme version of the same sort of cognitive dissonance most people have about at least something in their lives.  I do not, however, believe it's a position you can logic yourself into unless something is broken with your sense of logic.

Don't forget the strangely frequent trait of being unable to use the "quote" function.

What is up with that? Can they just not accept repeating someone else's words without being able to twist them or take them out of context?

I got nothing, but it's hard not to say, "You're not competent to do this one simple task, but you think you know enough to overturn the work of hundreds if not thousands of qualified people?"

Hey, Neil--what would a video of a sublimator test show that would be different from not having a sublimator in there at all?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 02, 2015, 03:18:03 PM
[SNIP]
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
Just to state the obvious, no one has said that. What people have said, just to be totally clear, is that:

A) If you are not convinced that sublimators work, have been tested and have been used in a vacuum by the VAST amount of evidence already available and presented for you, it seems very unlikely that any evidence could possibly convince you.

B) IF there really were some vast multi-national super-powered conspiracy capable of the most complex deceptions in history - which would be required for all of the world's space programs to be fake - then it would be so simple for them to fake the vacuum chamber test that you describe that it wouldn't be worth actually bothering with, because obviously they would just fake it and you would never know the difference.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 03:43:28 PM
I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage.
...
It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling...

Such as calling everyone else in your profession cowards for disagreeing with you?  No, you are not the hero.  You are not God's gift to the profession.  You do not stand on superlatively high moral ground.

Your position on the subject of this thread is entirely political.  It has nothing to do with science or professional practice.  It is simply you on a crusade to embarrass the federal government so that you can feel good about the various conspiracy theories you espouse.

Quote
I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer...

First, you habitually misstate your critics' positions.  Second, you don't get to foist your imaginary and ever-changing criteria onto the profession and pretend it obligates them to address you personally.  Responsible engineers from all over the world accept the industry-standard test regime of the porous plate sublimators as probative.  You are not the one special engineer who correctly knows differently.

Quote
You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything.

Nonsense.  You wallow in self-imposed, solipsist ignorance and deny everyone else's demonstrated expertise.  Sure, you want to play the solipsism game.  The problem is that your proposed solution isn't any more probative in the solipsist sense than what has already been done and deemed suitable by the profession.  You're just playing word games design to increase your self-esteem at the expense of others.

Quote
A faith-based space program is unacceptable.

Nothing about it is faith-based.  You simply deny the mountain of evidence laid at your feet and pretend that if you don't acknowledge it, others won't see it either.  Your critics and the rest of the profession can see you doing this, so they just laugh at you when you call them cowards.

Quote
Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

I'm demanding accountability first from you.  You are unwilling to provide it.  You simply demand we take your judgment as gospel.  That's a faith-based argument.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Mag40 on September 02, 2015, 04:32:17 PM
_____ then it would be so simple for them to fake the vacuum chamber test that you describe that it wouldn't be worth actually bothering with, because obviously they would just fake it and you would never know the difference.

This is where one fast rewinds to the inevitable meeting where they refuse to do this in favour of releasing a video where it doesn't work. The evil double bluff ploy :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 02, 2015, 06:44:23 PM
Neil understands the science full well, and the scientific method, and how to report scientifically. He is choosing not to in order to pursue what he sees as a righteous crusade.

Correct.  He has said his objection is not on physical science grounds.  He does not doubt the physics of phase-change cooling, or even the engineering of how to build one (which is rather non-trivial as it requires precise control over the sintering processes that create the porous plate).  The only thing he says he doubts is whether they were suitability tested and the tests suitably documented.  That moves the argument entirely out of science and technology, so he can safely sidestep the notion of whether it would work or not.  Of course he still slips in his various comments about all NASA manned space exploration being fake, and therefore obviating the need for working spacesuits.  But his focus is on something he can argue incessantly regardless of what's said to him, because it's policy and not science.  His evidence that NASA fakes manned space operations is not necessarily that the equipment doesn't work, but that NASA cannot document "proper" testing of equipment it says is required.

Still, that raises the question of what a "proper" test would uncover and why NASA is allegedly so fearful to conduct it.  It's not as if Baker's argument is particularly cogent or consistent.  But he's fastened on a little corner of the overall enterprise of space engineering and dug himself in to have a nice long discussion of the policy that applies to it.

Hrm. Does it? I admit to near-total ignorance on the subject, but it appears to me that an undertaking like the Apollo Project would have at least strong patterns of testing and procedure that could be referenced against. (I imagine they had a great deal more than that, in fact, reams of standards by which various equipment and operations would be tested).

Only if you consider the sublimator in isolation does it become a matter of opinion whether the testing was proper. Taken in context, it seems to me you would want to ask if it stands out as an element of Apollo equipment that was tested rather less than (or at least markedly different than) the standard for other gear.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 02, 2015, 06:47:37 PM
OoooK then. It would seem that our current protagonist has chosen the well trodden path of seagulling one post per day, not addressing the issues at hand, repeating the same baloney in that single post and ignoring all replies. In fact, his last entry consisted of an unevidenced rant about how he was hard done by via his former employers as if that had the slightest relevance to Apollo in any way, unfounded and scurrilous insults against the engineering community. Finally, in an effort to seem relevant to Apollo, he chucked in a one-liner about Apollo at the very end of his rant.

Frankly, I couldn't give a rats posterior about whatever dispute he might have with his former employ. It's not relevant to Apollo, and is off topic. However, I do object to the direct accusations levelled against the engineering community as a body. Yes, I am an accredited engineer. Yes, I signed up to a code of ethics. Yes, I uphold that code. Yes, you, Neil, may feel free to contact my boss about that because guess what? if you do you will be talking to me.  No, Neil, I am not a US citizen, nor live in the US, nor ever have done so, nor have any US "gubbmint" agency as a customer, nor have any desire to do so since those same "gubbmint" agencies are a pain to deal with from overseas.

Your claims are abject nonsense. Every single one. Consider that a professional assessment.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on September 02, 2015, 08:08:58 PM
Neil,

You never answered the questions or addressed the points I raised here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31310#msg31310) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31311#msg31311).  Nor did you answer  my question (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31432#msg31432) as to why you are going out of your way to remain ignorant on this subject.

It doesn't really matter, since your motivations are pretty plain, and you still haven't attempted to learn anything about the subject since then, and clearly aren't about to start.  But there are a couple of things worth pointing out.

I think I understand why most engineers lack integrity or courage...  And also, they might just be rotten people inside (I've met a few of those)...

It can be observed in this thread with most resorting to the desperate measures of name calling, insults and attempted defamation of character after retreating into a metaphysical black hole of self-delusion about “morality” of all things...

I am not interested in what you claim someone else said about morality.  I will, however, note that you chastise others for "name calling, insults, and attempted defamations of character" after saying they "lack integrity or courage", "might just be rotten people inside", and are "self-delu[ded]".   That is amusingly hypocritical.  But that's not your real problem here; most people are hypocritical now and then, even though you are making it a full-time hobby.

You are demonstrably ignorant of space operations, spaceflight hardware testing, and human space flight in general.  But that's not your real problem, either.  Lots of people don't know anything about spaceflight.

Your research skills are abysmally poor.  You posted lengthy descriptions about how you pestered people and companies (including "Hamilton Sunstrand [sic]"; you could at least try to get the name right), and searched and searched, and yet somehow you couldn't find reams of engineering documentation that other people were able to turn up in minutes.  But that's not your main problem, either.  Lots of people are lousy researchers.

Bizarrely, when people served up all this information you said didn't exist, you ignored it; then you denied it; then you sort-of admitted it by greasing up your goalposts and shooting them off into the sunset; and now you've gone back to denying it.  That is a problem; it shows you're not willing to admit you're wrong.  I don't understand how brittle your worldview must be, that because of your beliefs and opinions, you have to flat-out reject evidence that threatens even one single part of it.  I can't help you with that; I'm an engineer, not a psychologist.  But that's only your penultimate problem anyway.

One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...

I'm glad you see fit to quote from this Code.  And because I'm an engineer, and you keep proclaiming your superiority to the other engineers you claim to be lackeys and sellouts and whatnot, I will tell you what your real problem is in engineering terms.  From the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics):

II.3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
b.    Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter


Your real problem here, right here in this thread and captured for whoever cares to read it, is that you represent yourself as an engineer on a topic in which you are not competent. 

Are you a registered professional engineer?  Because if so, you are in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.  Will you self-report, or do we need to do it for you?

A corollary problem is that you keep trying to extrapolate your personal incompetence to others:

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable...

I will grant you that you don't know anything about spaceflight.  The rest is just silly posturing.  I have direct personal experience with the people and systems and organizations you try to impugn, and you have no idea what you are talking about.  I have worked with a fair number of the astronauts who have used the suits you say are impossible, and engineers who designed hardware some of them used to repair the Hubble telescope.  I've worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts.  I work with the people who keep healthy the large space station you comically assert is a giant balloon.   I work with engineers every day whose job is to get it right, and to say when things are wrong. 

You can plug your ears and shut your eyes and keep repeating "absurd!" and "faith!" all you want, but outside your head your heroic engineering fantasy reads as just another layman ranting about something he not only doesn't understand, but refuses to understand - yet, you presume to lecture others about accountability.  That's not even irksome; it's merely pathetic. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 02, 2015, 08:11:55 PM
Frankly, I couldn't give a rats posterior about whatever dispute he might have with his former employ. It's not relevant to Apollo, and is off topic.

Well, yes and no.  That is:  yes to the first, and let's think about the second.  It's been put to Baker several times that he is the lone engineer among a brigade of them who doubts the sublimator test regime.  Whether it's directly relevant, he has to answer that somehow.  And his answer is the same as every crackpot gives -- he is an unsung hero who has been repeatedly undermined by unscrupulous employers and colleagues.  He alone knows the right way to do things, and those who disagree are disingenuous and conniving.  Which to say, that's what the world looks like from within the crackpot's perspective.

Quote
However, I do object to the direct accusations levelled against the engineering community as a body.

Of course.  That's just pure paranoid nonsense.  As I said, Baker's only goal in these parts is to fluff his ego at the expense of, well, everyone else in the profession and probably everyone else around him.

Quote
Your claims are abject nonsense. Every single one. Consider that a professional assessment.

Agreed.  Albeit he's made almost no technical argument.  His argument is one of pure policy:  he disagrees with how testing is performed and documented, believes himself to be the only authority on the subject (or more accurately, that the "right" way is somehow self-evident), and won't be satisfied until everyone proves personally to him that they are not dastardly enemies of truth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 02, 2015, 09:18:46 PM
[SNIP]

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more. Stop trying to win so much and focus on the truth. You don’t KNOW anything that I don’t KNOW and I don’t KNOW anything. A faith-based space program is unacceptable. Repent for your engineering sins; demand NASA be accountable and stop it with the ridiculous morality deception.

Neil Baker

Could you please answer these questions...

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

3. Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 02, 2015, 10:38:23 PM
Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.
The return capsule diameter was 50 cm.  The cutaway drawing of the Luna 16/20 return capsule shows the soil container is straight.  Here's a good article with lots of references:
http://shvachko.net/teller/?p=1362

Thanks!  It certainly looks straight, although conceivably you are looking in the plane of a coil.

I don't think that link gives a diameter for the capsule though.  Several sources do state 25 cm.  It's been about a decade I saw the lunar 24 capsule, but I do recall it being smaller than 50 cm.  But it was a while ago!

But I have scaled some drawings of the lander and get 45 cm diameter for the capsule, suggesting 50 cm is indeed correct (or close to it).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 02, 2015, 11:56:32 PM
One of the Professional Obligations listed in the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers is: ...

I'm glad you see fit to quote from this Code.  And because I'm an engineer, and you keep proclaiming your superiority to the other engineers you claim to be lackeys and sellouts and whatnot, I will tell you what your real problem is in engineering terms.  From the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics):

II.3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
b.    Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter


Your real problem here, right here in this thread and captured for whoever cares to read it, is that you represent yourself as an engineer on a topic in which you are not competent. 

Are you a registered professional engineer?  Because if so, you are in direct violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.  Will you self-report, or do we need to do it for you?

A corollary problem is that you keep trying to extrapolate your personal incompetence to others:
I seriously doubt he will turn himself in, his disillusion prevents him from believing there is any wrong doing. 
His work record is full of short term assignments and I suspect his work/personal work ethics and behavior were the main reasons all those assignments were short.  Again however, he sees himself as a shiny knight to save the damsel(projects).

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 12:15:50 AM
I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner. Wow! No wonder you have so few protagonists. Seems kinda unfair to me. So many antagonists and so many questions but I'll give it a go starting with the most recent and working back. I don't have a lot of time to devote to this but hopefully I'll get it whittled down some.

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

Oh please. This question is ridiculous. No, personal validation is not the only way I verify facts. Like everyone else I have to get along in an imperfect world. I rely on the FDA to oversee drug companies. I rely on competitors to challenge competitors if something is amiss. I think Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories are great. I think the concept of Insurance is an ingenious invention that helps ensure truth in advertising. NASA is a government agency. It is funded by Citizen taxpayers and non Citizen taxpayers. As an agency of a government operating at the consent of the PEOPLE it owes Citizens accountability especially in those areas where doubt is intelligently expressed. It has no oversight except the Citizens. As a Citizen I expect that other nations might have provided oversight but after the fiasco of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the doubtful foreign lunar orbiters that preceded it all absurdly failing to carry cameras with sufficient resolution to verify Apollo remnants, I realize that no oversight from unreliable, possibly intimidated, almost definitely corrupt foreign regimes full of even more pusillanimous thought-slaves than found in the USA will be forthcoming.

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

I don't know of any reason the spacesuit sublimators wouldn't work. I've never made the claim that they wouldn't. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why NASA would fake Apollo. I've tried to wrap my mind around the reason why foreign nations, except brave Iran, collude with American deception. Again, it would require pure speculation on my part to answer why the Soviets would go along with the hoax. I often wonder if there's a power on Earth greater than nations. President Woodrow Wilson once alluded to it.

3. Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

I don't know and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information. I do know that when a moon rock was put on display in my town back when I was a kid in the early seventies, it seemed like practically the whole town came out to look at it. I remember then wondering why NASA had to send us such a small rock about one-half inch x one inch x a quarter-inch. Do they have the rocks or not and why didn't they wow us with some big ones? It's not like we didn't pay for them. Sure, sure, the geologists were studying them. But how about now? Let's see them now. The geologists must be done by now. And how would I or any other nongeologist specializing in moon rocks know the difference? Why would I trust NASA when they refuse to be accountable with any independent oversight? Why do you trust them? They are part of a government that has repeatedly lied to its Citizens and it's part of a government that probably recently murdered 3000 of its Citizens.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 12:25:17 AM
Are you a registered professional engineer?

No, I am not a registered professional engineer and I have not worked in any capacity as an engineer since January 2006. I was interviewed by Yale University in late 2006 and was anticipating an offer when I discovered that I had been blacklisted, defamed and sabotaged by a very powerful former employer for having blown the whistle regarding illegal activity and challenging its technicians, engineers and scientists to exhibit a spine regarding the criminal destruction of World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence. I regrettably but legally ranted on the Internet instead of pursuing legal representation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 12:38:48 AM

"You're not competent to do this one simple task, but you think you know enough to overturn the work of hundreds if not thousands of qualified people?"

Well, excuse me. It's just that I'm not in the habit of using HTML. I think I'm getting the hang of it. Please be patient. Also, please don't exaggerate the numbers. Compartmentalization of information would vastly reduce the number of people that have anything to do with high vacuum testing.

Hey, Neil--what would a video of a sublimator test show that would be different from not having a sublimator in there at all?
Hopefully, it would have shown the elusive sublimator. Usually there's a vacuum chamber sight glass that would allow it's viewing. According to the test procedure from the seventies, the astronaut is in the suit attached to the sublimator in a vacuum chamber via an umbilical. That would be interesting video. Also, it would be interesting if the sublimator could be positioned in the vacuum chamber in a way that allowed viewing of the pores and any ice surface extruding from them. Vacuum gauge readings would be important to show. A quick video scan of the equipment would be good, what type roughing pumps and what type high vacuum pumps.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 03, 2015, 12:39:46 AM
Right.  So short answer, "I only accept the opinions of others if they confirm with what I already want to believe," right?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 03, 2015, 12:41:49 AM
Well, excuse me. It's just that I'm not in the habit of using HTML. I think I'm getting the hang of it. Please be patient. Also, please don't exaggerate the numbers. Compartmentalization of information would vastly reduce the number of people that have anything to do with high vacuum testing.

Maybe with high vacuum testing, but as I've said before, you don't just have to explain one thing.  If you think the missions were hoaxed, you don't get to just handwave away one piece of data.  You have to explain the entire hoax, which involved thousands of people who knew that their bit worked.  If anything, that's an underestimate.

Hopefully, it would have shown the elusive sublimator. Usually there's a vacuum chamber sight glass that would allow it's viewing. According to the test procedure from the seventies, the astronaut is in the suit attached to the sublimator in a vacuum chamber via an umbilical. That would be interesting video. Also, it would be interesting if the sublimator could be positioned in the vacuum chamber in a way that allowed viewing of the pores and any ice surface extruding from them. Vacuum gauge readings would be important to show. A quick video scan of the equipment would be good, what type roughing pumps and what type high vacuum pumps.

What would you actually expect to see from the pores as ice sublimated?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 12:49:33 AM
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.

As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?


If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 01:03:33 AM
...I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

Let me know when you stop conflating training with testing.  Otherwise, none of this is a decision you get to make.  You're just not that important.  Or qualified.  Or informed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on September 03, 2015, 01:29:50 AM


If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.

Tried to work out how to fake it? Interesting thought exercise. The only way part of it can be faked (the difficulty  and probably the impossibility in that is another subject), this fake, is to do it in a vacuum chamber.

Now, just going to drive my immorally tested automobile and hope I do not crash and burn.

Edit. Just meant to pick up on that bit not the whole quote. I may have messed up the selection. Oops.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 03, 2015, 01:41:27 AM
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake.

Circular reasoning at its best, thank you.

I repeat: there is evidence of those suits working in a vacuum. If you can brush that off as fake why are we expected to beieve that you won't do the same thing with any video or film of a vacuum chamber test? Your integrity fails with your handwavng away of the entire evidentiary record. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrarily which bits are real and which are faked.

Quote
I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

So why not extend your argument to the spacecraft itself? Failure of that piece of hardware is more likely to be fatal than failure of a sublimator on a spacesuit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on September 03, 2015, 01:41:56 AM
Now, just going to drive my immorally tested automobile and hope I do not crash and burn.

You fool. You drive an automobile that was not crash tested with a person inside?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on September 03, 2015, 02:08:06 AM
I live dangerously, Y fronts on back to front and once took a ferry that had not been sunk to prove it floated.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 03, 2015, 02:40:39 AM
Neil Baker

You said earlier that...
Quote
A faith-based space program is unacceptable.

Now, when pressed for a few details about Apollo you say things like this:
Quote
It would be pure speculation on my part as to why NASA would fake Apollo.
Quote
It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it [video footage].
Quote
I don't know of any reason the spacesuit sublimators wouldn't work. I've never made the claim that they wouldn't.
Quote
...it would require pure speculation on my part to answer why the Soviets would go along with the hoax.
Quote
I don't know [how unmanned sample retriever missions would have worked] and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information.
All this evidence discarded because you’re unsatisfied with how spacesuit sublimators were tested on Earth.

With respect, the person showing the greatest level of faith-based attitude is you.

Quote
I often wonder if there's a power on Earth greater than nations.

To quote Albert Einstein, ‘human stupidity’?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 03, 2015, 02:41:01 AM
<potential explanation for mental breakdown snipped>

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
You've been shown images of the suit being tested in a vacuum chamber in 1968. In addition, you have the personal testimony of Russell Schweickart. Finally, you've been given the Apollo Experience report which detailed the design and development of the sublimator, including the 60-80 hours of vacuum testing to simulate lunar conditions.
Why then the insistence that "nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966"?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Obviousman on September 03, 2015, 02:56:42 AM
I was going to join in but I see that I would be wasting my time. Mr Baker has decided upon his position and nothing will move him from it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: beedarko on September 03, 2015, 03:53:29 AM
I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner.
.
.
I'll give it a go

Excellent. In that case I'd like to participate too.

#1: You've candidly admitted that the higher purpose in your assault on NASA's credibility is to later use any perceived evidence of misconduct as a means to buttress your arguments for a 9/11 conspiracy.  If your positions on 9/11 have merit, why would they require the support of a guilt by association claim?  Would they not stand on their own? 

#2: Given your criminal history, to what extremes would you go in order to defend ideologies you deem important?  You appear to have no reservations about destruction of private property, threats of physical violence and cyber stalking.  Would arson or murder be acts you might find justifiable under a given set of circumstances?

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/dec/12/former-ucsb-employee-neil-baker-sentenced-probatio/

Quote
Baker, 55, was arrested in August for felony vandalism and misdemeanor trespassing after he was caught damaging windows at the Engineering Science Building at UCSB. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Baker in August, specifying he was to remain at least 100 yards away from the campus.

Baker left his position as a senior development engineer at UCSB in 2004 and relocated to Washington. He was arrested in 2010 in Washington after he posted bomb threats and attacks against UCSB employees on Craigslist and Facebook, causing the university to go on high alert and warn people to immediately contact authorities if they saw Baker on campus.

(http://media.independent.com/img/croppedphotos/2010/02/19/021610_t479.jpg?ad14627618f647f3902aa65ed5ac8237c798b1ef)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 04:47:11 AM
I was over looking at the site rules and it indeed says that I'm supposed to answer every question posed to me in a timely manner. Wow! No wonder you have so few protagonists. Seems kinda unfair to me.

If only YouTube had the same rule ....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 05:06:09 AM
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.

As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?


If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if .... then it's probably a hoax


If they didn't fake the moonwalks, then obviously you would accept that the film, stills and live broadcasts, along with the data from the astronaut's medical monitoring, and from the lunar experiments, aren't fake? No?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 03, 2015, 06:05:10 AM
If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it.

Not that you will take any notice, but you might want to spend a little time watching this video. Its by a film maker who has no opinion on whether NASA went to the moon, i.e. he doesn't care whether they did or not. He can, however, categorically prove that the video could not have been faked with the technology available at the time.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ChrLz on September 03, 2015, 07:23:28 AM
A coupla quick comments to you, Neil, from a lurker who decided very early that you were not here in good faith...

1. That post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg32167#msg32167) about engineers and insults was the most hypocritical pile of excrement I've ever read.  You have the hide to call engineers a whole pile of names, and then lambast them for insulting *you*?  You honestly read that back to yourself before posting and didn't smell the rancid stench of your hypocrisy???

2. Will you EVER stop and actually engage in a step by step logical analysis?  I've never seen someone so strenuously avoid proper analysis, run away from addressing any technical questions and Gish Galloping off very conveniently to subjective areas like politics.  It's sad, and sadly obvious, rather than funny.

3. Why would you complain about answering lotsa questions, IF you had simply nominated your very best evidence of fakery right up front and then gone through it properly?  {whiny voice}The sublimator might not have worked?{/whiny}   Do you honestly not realise how unbelievably lame that is?

Why don't you grow some cojones and answer the obvious simple questions:
- is that seriously the best you have got?  ..if not, NOMINATE the best.
- if it is, why don't you want to go through all the information you have been given and SPECIFICALLY point out what is wrong?


May I rather rudely observe is that the only thing missing here is the sockpuppets..  Neil, you do realise that the complete lack of support you are getting is a rather large elephant in the room..?  No, I guess self-awareness is not one of your strengths.  No harm in that, I have a few weaknesses too, but I don't try to pretend I know stuff when I haven't a clue, as you have demonstrated here.  Could there be something in that for you, perhaps?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on September 03, 2015, 07:24:46 AM
All this stuff about how it's impossible to fake the video this, and there's no evidence for any kind of fake that, and Neil's record with former employers, and so on, obscures what's really happening here.

1. Neil has decides that large swaths of manned space flight are fake.
2. He asserts that the lack of documentation of the sublimator function in a vacuum proves this.
3. Except that there is quite a bit of it which can be found in the laziest manner possible: searching non-paywalled parts of the Internet.
4. Neil goes back and forth from denying the existence of it, to sort-of acknowledging it by saying the lack of plenty of video of astronauts using the EMUs in vacuum chambers is proof of a hoax.
5. He uses loaded language ("absurd", "faith-based", etc.) to support his claim that such copious video should of course be readily available over the Internet.
6. But he has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't know anything about the topic, so his claim amounts to nothing more than a layman's exercise in "If I ran the zoo". 

One could end the summary right there, but there are a few more amusing points:

7. He can't explain why any of the space technology or programs wouldn't work.
8. He can't provide any evidence for a fake (his uninformed opinion is not evidence).
9. He even admits his ignorance, but claims everyone else here is as ignorant, which is demonstrably false.
10. Despite projecting himself into a field he knows nothing about, and refusing all attempts to relieve his ignorance, Neil keeps lecturing everyone else about "accountability".

That this entire thread, in a nutshell.  All the rest is just window dressing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on September 03, 2015, 07:31:41 AM
We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"

But thanks to crank magnetism the average Woopeddler will then bring up her/his belief in mindcontrol by CIA/NSA/Mossad
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 07:59:28 AM

Not that you will take any notice, but you might want to spend a little time watching this video. Its by a film maker who has no opinion on whether NASA went to the moon, i.e. he doesn't care whether they did or not. He can, however, categorically prove that the video could not have been faked with the technology available at the time.


I think that Collins did a great job at debunking the video aspects of HB's.  And then there was the direct debunk of the Blunders video where the Blunder attempted to indicate that Collins didn't have correct information.
Fair notice I did not watch the Blunder's video just Collins rebuttal.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 08:10:19 AM

If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.
By this logic even your test could be faked even the witnesses you propose could lie to you.  It is a circular proposition that has no resolution, but then that is one of you behaviors.
You asked me whether I would want a test of the sublimator prior to utilizing it, here was my answer:
Quote
Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum.  The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber.  Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 09:16:32 AM
Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.

As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?


If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 09:47:13 AM
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

From a misreading of the statement that NASA does not test sublimators by using human subjects in spacesuits.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 09:54:36 AM
Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

From a misreading of the statement that NASA does not test sublimators by using human subjects in spacesuits.

and/or confusion over whether or not failure of suit or sublimator constitutes a life-threatening event....

Back to my earlier question to Neil - What's the worst that can happen if the sublimator fails?

(as opposed to)

What's the worst that can happen if the suit fails?

Neil - failure of the suit itself is not the same as failure of the sublimator
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 03, 2015, 10:16:53 AM
<potential explanation for mental breakdown snipped>

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.
You've been shown images of the suit being tested in a vacuum chamber in 1968. In addition, you have the personal testimony of Russell Schweickart. Finally, you've been given the Apollo Experience report which detailed the design and development of the sublimator, including the 60-80 hours of vacuum testing to simulate lunar conditions.
Why then the insistence that "nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966"?

There is also the thesis of Dr. Shero who conducted his tests in 1969.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 11:16:06 AM
This what I see this thread has degraded into,
http://awesomegifs.com/2012/07/12/beating-a-dead-horse/
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 11:31:18 AM
and/or confusion over whether or not failure of suit or sublimator constitutes a life-threatening event....

That too.  It isn't life-threatening.  Sublimator operation is loosely coupled to astronaut comfort and even more loosely coupled to astronaut safety.  Plus, they're highly reliable.  It's a very simple device in which very little can go wrong.  In the Apollo design there was a backup procedure in case the suit cooling failed.  Other aspects of spacesuit operation in a vacuum are, however, life-threatening.

Baker keeps misrepresenting exactly what I think is immoral.  By now I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation.  Prior to his arrival here, he seems to have acquired the notion that the regular tests NASA performs of sublimators are manned tests, and he wants to instrument one to verify they really are in a vacuum.  NASA doesn't test its sublimators by putting a human in a spacesuit and putting all that into a vacuum chamber.  Putting a human at risk -- not from sublimator failure but from all else that can go wrong in a vacuum chamber -- just to see whether a sublimator works is indeed immoral.  The operation of a sublimator can be fully tested with any heat load.  Testing it instead or additionally with a human as the heat load tells you no more about the sublimator than the previous test would.  In fact it tells you less because you can't as easily correlate heat input with sublimator performance when the heat load is a human with random fluctuations in heat emission.

Putting an astronaut in a suit in a vacuum to train the astronaut in his job is, of course, not at all immoral.  But then again the concerns are reversed.  You want the training session to be as safe as possible for the astronaut, which means substituting equipment where necessary that may be more effective in that environment than a PLSS.  The purpose in that case is to give an astronaut the feel of the suit in a space environment.  Cooling the suit may be more safely, cheaply, or effectively accomplished by other means for training purposes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 12:38:41 PM
No, I am not a registered professional engineer and I have not worked in any capacity as an engineer since January 2006. I was interviewed by Yale University in late 2006 and was anticipating an offer when I discovered that I had been blacklisted, defamed and sabotaged by a very powerful former employer for having blown the whistle regarding illegal activity and challenging its technicians, engineers and scientists to exhibit a spine regarding the criminal destruction of World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence. I regrettably but legally ranted on the Internet instead of pursuing legal representation.

...or, the shorter version. You were given a bad reference and Yale would not make you an offer of employment. This thread  shows that you are someone who thinks the whole world is against them. I'm sorry you feel that way, but trying to prove Apollo was hoax to be taken seriously about 9-11 is just wrong at so many levels. Apollo and 9-11 are to unconnected events. In any case, your thesis was based on your no literature pre-2007 claim, and since you have been shown wrong you have twisted and turned at every opportunity. The minute you changed horses was your undoing. Rather than admit you were wrong about the literature you moved the goalposts and laid down your own standards for testing as being ultimate proof of the PLSS sublimator working. Can you see the problem with your approach to this argument. As sts60 said, your real problem is that you cannot admit you were wrong and you should have done that once your pre-2007 claim was overturned.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 03, 2015, 12:39:52 PM
That too.  It isn't life-threatening.  Sublimator operation is loosely coupled to astronaut comfort and even more loosely coupled to astronaut safety.  Plus, they're highly reliable.  It's a very simple device in which very little can go wrong.  In the Apollo design there was a backup procedure in case the suit cooling failed.
Right, and it involved two simple steps:

1. Open the main valve on the Oxygen Purge System (OPS) mounted on the remote control unit on the chest.
2. Pull the "red apple" locking pin on the purge vent valve on the front of the suit and adjust it to high or low flow.

You now had 30 minutes (high flow) or 60 minutes (low flow) to get back into the safety of the LM. This would handle a complete failure of the PLSS (including the sublimator) on any mission.

Low flow was sufficient to expel exhaled CO2 and H2O, but high flow provided better cooling. To extend the lifetime of the OPS, Apollos 15-17 carried the the Buddy Life Support System. This was a hose that let the astronaut with the failed PLSS share cooling water from the other astronaut's PLSS, letting him use OPS low flow for more time to get to safety. But if only cooling were to fail on the first PLSS, he could keep using it for O2 supply and CO2 and H2O removal and they'd have even more time to get back inside.

The OPS was never needed on any actual mission, but the IMAX movie Magnificent Desolation accurately depicted its use in a fictional emergency.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 12:41:46 PM

#1: You've candidly admitted that the higher purpose in your assault on NASA's credibility is to later use any perceived evidence of misconduct as a means to buttress your arguments for a 9/11 conspiracy.  If your positions on 9/11 have merit, why would they require the support of a guilt by association claim?  Would they not stand on their own? 

Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters. As the alternative to the apparently unsuccessful technique of force feeding them the preponderance of evidence justifying an Independent 9-11 Investigation, I thought it might be better to ease them into a confrontation with their self-delusion by exposing something less difficult, like the possible Apollo moon landing hoax. But yes, to people like me and some others brave enough to admit when they don't know something and aren't willing to BELIEVE the government just because they say something is the way they say it is, I think the arguments that 9-11 was something much more sinister than 19 Arabs with boxcutters justifies an Independent 9-11 Investigation.

#2: Given your criminal history, to what extremes would you go in order to defend ideologies you deem important?  You appear to have no reservations about destruction of private property, threats of physical violence and cyber stalking.  Would arson or murder be acts you might find justifiable under a given set of circumstances?

My criminal history consists of one felony vandalism conviction for having broken ONE window valued at $600 during a political protest demanding an Independent 9-11 investigation. If it had been valued at $400, it would have been a misdemeanor. Also, back in 1996 I got a speeding ticket on Trinity Drive in front of the Los Alamos, New Mexico police station on Sunday morning around 6am. I was zoned out thinking about something while driving on a road with few cars when due to the police strobe lights in my rear mirror I suddenly realized I was doing 50 in a 35. $95.  Although I have contemplated violence, prior to breaking the window, I read Mark Kuransky's "NonViolence" that influenced me greatly. I recommend it. I'm disappointed at the reaction to my nonviolent protest but I'm still proud that I did it. I've been fully accountable for it and take full responsibility for it.
http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-History-Dangerous-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812974476/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441297098&sr=8-1&keywords=nonviolence&pebp=1441297104396&perid=0CNX5HSZ1YWKBS4W42B5

I've never threatened anyone with physical violence and I've never cyber stalked anyone. Although trumped up charges were pressed against me for alleged threats, those charges were dismissed due to no evidence. Anything you read regarding threats made by me are lies. 

Mark Kurlansky makes an excellent argument in his book that violent actions are almost always doomed to failure. Although murder and arson may seem justified, they are almost always a losing strategy. I don't advocate violence. I would like our New American Revolution to be a Glorious Revolution where nobody is physically injured except for those facing formal military firing squads after their trials for murder and treason.

Quote
Baker, 55, was arrested in August for felony vandalism and misdemeanor trespassing after he was caught damaging windows at the Engineering Science Building at UCSB. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Baker in August, specifying he was to remain at least 100 yards away from the campus.

Baker left his position as a senior development engineer at UCSB in 2004 and relocated to Washington. He was arrested in 2010 in Washington after he posted bomb threats and attacks against UCSB employees on Craigslist and Facebook, causing the university to go on high alert and warn people to immediately contact authorities if they saw Baker on campus.

Please note the error in the blurb above that I was not "caught damaging windows." I was arrested when the cops finally showed up about ten minutes after I directed a bystander to call them (I even gave them the number) after I broke ONE window and placed check marks on 86 others to indicate to the judge that I could have broken many more if vandalism had been my intent. I did 4 months in county jail, got 3 years probation and had to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for 6 months while I spent a mandatory one year at the New Directions mental institution for Veterans at the V.A. in Los Angeles.

Also, please note that I was arrested in 2010 because I had gotten close to inciting a strike demanding an Independent 9-11 investigation.  Desperate to have me arrested, a bogus public charge of "threats to bomb or injure property" were made against me. The discovery also contained hidden charges of "threats to incite a strike" and "threats to accuse my former employer of crimes," both surprisingly felonies in Washington State. But I didn't threaten anything.  I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.  I know it's strange, the threat to do something is a felony while the actual doing it is legal. I spent ten days in jail as a political prisoner and twelve days in a mental hospital as a political dissident. Three psychiatrists evaluated me and unanimously determined no mental illness, no personality disorders and no required meds before releasing me.
All charges were dismissed days before the trial because they knew they would lose and be exposed in court as unaccountable criminal thugs.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 03, 2015, 12:45:00 PM
Sorry, but 9/11 is off-topic in this thread. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Apollo program.

Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 12:48:28 PM
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country...

No, the major problem we're having in this discussion is your inability to stop stroking your ego and start making sense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
We discussed the PLSS and Ralph Rene's calculations in a previous thread following Jarrah's milk in the trolley rubbish. I'm fairly sure that Jay or ka9q made a comment that the astronauts reported the PLSS actually made them too cold at times,(or was that the LM cooling system)?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 12:51:23 PM
...the astronauts reported the PLSS actually made them too cold at times,(or was that the LM cooling system)?

It was the PLSS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
It was the PLSS.

Thought so. So anecdotal evidence that the PLSS transferred heat from the astronauts' bodies and rejected it to space, yet this testimony will inevitably be insufficient for Neil.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 01:00:59 PM
Sorry, but 9/11 is off-topic in this thread. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Apollo program.

Please stay on topic.
Indeed and if Neil wishes to start a thread in other conspiracy concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy he should do so.
From his lack of presenting facts, understanding material presented and lack off research, I suspect he would do no better in that attempt.
But please, Neil, stick to the topic and start a new thread if it pleases you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 01:03:32 PM
...the astronauts reported the PLSS actually made them too cold at times,(or was that the LM cooling system)?

It was the PLSS.
With the longer Lunar stays the flow was increased to cool the ever increasing Sun angle also.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 01:09:19 PM

Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

Earlier, someone presented a test description from the early seventies that the sublimators were tested in a vacuum chamber while an astronaut wearing a spacesuit ran on  a treadmill outside of the vacuum chamber.
I never said they didn't don their suits until orbit.
The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.
I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.

Is it like a Diver scheduled to perform a deep dive but all he's allowed to do prior is don his scuba tank, wearing mask, snorkel and fins while posing in front of the pool because it would be immoral for him to dive to the bottom of the deep end?

A test plan? A test procedure? A test description? A test video? A test photo? In addition to the absurdity of there not being any video or photos of spacesuit in vacuum tests for the past 50 years, it's just as absurd that nothing updated about the written test documentation seems to have been updated for the 21st century.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 01:11:27 PM
Indeed and if Neil wishes to start a thread in other conspiracy concerning the alleged 9-11 conspiracy he should do so.
From his lack of presenting facts, understanding material presented and lack off research, I suspect he would do no better in that attempt.

I personally think 9-11 should be treated with the same contempt as Holocaust revision, and banned from the forum. JFK and Apollo Hoax conspiracy are one thing, but 9-11 and revisionism show utter contempt for those that died. I'm not just referring to the 3000 people killed on 9-11, but those that were caught up in the two wars that followed (both service personnel and the innocent victims of Iraq and Afghanistan).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 01:15:29 PM
I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about

Really? That's YOUR country's 'major problem'? (Note - it's not THIS country, it's just A country, as far as the rest of us are concerned....)

Not the drought in California? The lack of free healthcare for your citizens? The rampant gun crime? etc etc
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 01:15:57 PM
...the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.

No one has made that claim.  Since I wrote a lengthy clarification just this morning, I have to conclude you're either ignoring your critics' posts or deliberately misrepresenting them.  Which is it?

Quote
In addition to the absurdity of there not being any video or photos of spacesuit in vacuum tests for the past 50 years, it's just as absurd that nothing updated about the written test documentation seems to have been updated for the 21st century.

Your opinion of what is absurd is irrelevant.  You are not an expert.  Your opinion of what is or isn't available has been determined conclusively to be a combination of delusional expectations and your laziness/incompetence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 01:19:34 PM

I personally think 9-11 should be treated with the same contempt as Holocaust revision, and banned from the forum. JFK and Apollo Hoax conspiracy are one thing, but 9-11 and revisionism show utter contempt for those that died. I'm not just referring to the 3000 people killed on 9-11, but those that were caught up in the two wars that followed (both service personnel and the innocent victims of Iraq and Afghanistan).
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt?   One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 01:21:45 PM

Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

Earlier, someone presented a test description from the early seventies that the sublimators were tested in a vacuum chamber while an astronaut wearing a spacesuit ran on  a treadmill outside of the vacuum chamber.
I never said they didn't don their suits until orbit.
The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.
I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.

Is it like a Diver scheduled to perform a deep dive but all he's allowed to do prior is don his scuba tank, wearing mask, snorkel and fins while posing in front of the pool because it would be immoral for him to dive to the bottom of the deep end?

A test plan? A test procedure? A test description? A test video? A test photo? In addition to the absurdity of there not being any video or photos of spacesuit in vacuum tests for the past 50 years, it's just as absurd that nothing updated about the written test documentation seems to have been updated for the 21st century.
Why does any suit test require a living human to be inside the suit? What would it add to the test?

What new data would photos or videos add? Why should such photos and videos be posted to the internet? To what end and purpose?

Since such photos and videos would show NOTHING AT ALL visible, why would you suddenly be convinced of Apollo?

Are car crash tests invalid since no live humans are used in them?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 03, 2015, 01:31:49 PM
Seriously, Neil, do you not get that showing one thing to be fake only ever shows that the one thing is fake?  It doesn't matter if it's the PLSS relative to the whole of Apollo or Apollo relative to 9/11.  In order to show the entire record to be fake, you have to go through every piece of evidence.  Let's for a moment posit that, okay, the PLSS was fake.  What does that prove?  I can think of a couple of possibilities without even trying.

1.  The astronauts were in fact cooled with technology that is for some reason classified.
2.  The astronauts weren't cooled.  (We know from anecdotal evidence that this isn't true, and I believe it medically can't be true, but never mind.)

So okay.  You want to move on and prove that all of Apollo was faked?  You must start proving that other aspects were faked.  Because the PLSS being fake doesn't do anything to wave away the literally tons of other evidence.

But sure, why not?  Let's say you are the first person ever with a coherent story that explains literally all of the evidence.  I can't even come up with an imaginary explanation that handles it, but whatever.  You somehow do.  You know what?  That still proves nothing about 9/11!  No, seriously.  You have to start the process over with every single piece of evidence there.  Every piece of evidence stands on its own.  The late Vincent Bugliosi used to say that evidence was not a chain.  It was a rope.  You didn't destroy it by destroying a single piece, because all the rest of it was still binding.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 03, 2015, 01:52:47 PM
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt?   One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.
Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 03, 2015, 02:01:32 PM

I thought it might be better to ease them into a confrontation with their self-delusion by exposing something less difficult, like the possible Apollo moon landing hoax.


Have you ever tried to figure out that it might of been impossible to fake the landings? I think for me, the best evidence that they happened is this fact. Apollo 12 landed close enough to Surveyor 3 that they were able to visit it and collect some of it's parts to assess how the harsh environment had affected it over the 2 years it had been there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/20jun_apollorelic/

Here's a pdf of the report detailing what they found:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf

Now of course you can claim that it's all staged to add more realism but it's a risky thing to work into a hoax don't you think? If a future rover or manned mission from another country went to visit the Surveyor 3 site and found nothing in it's vicinity and that it still had it's camera and scoop, the jig would be up. Nobody would ever recommend such a thing being worked into a hoax because the future ramifications are pretty obvious.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 02:12:45 PM

Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).
I agree with both you and Luke, and was trying to indicate that by that measure none of the conspiracies that would include death would/should not be started.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 03, 2015, 02:13:26 PM
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 03, 2015, 03:29:37 PM
At what point is the death to be treated with contempt?   One death, 10,000 or 12,000,000? The all have the similar if not quantitate results.
Contempt is deserved for any claim that exploits (or denies) human suffering with a clear disregard for the facts and for cynical political or ideological purposes. In this way, claiming the Holocaust was fake is essentially the same as claiming 9/11 was an inside job, which is essentially the same as claiming the Apollo 1 fire was intentional murder (see, there's an Apollo connection).

And even more outrageous are claims that the surviving victims and witnesses were in on it, e.g. the Boston Bombing.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 03, 2015, 03:34:55 PM
The gathered information indicates that astronauts never enter vacuum on Earth prior to entering the vacuum of orbit.

Now you are deliberately misrepresenting your own and others' arguments. There is plenty of evidence that astronauts entered vacuum chambers on Earth prior to going into space as part of their training. What there is not evidence of is testing of the PLSS sublimator with a fully suited astronaut in a vacuum chamber, and lengthy and numerous explanations for why this is not at all anomalous have been provided.

Quote
I claim it's ridiculous while the majority here contend that it would be immoral for an astronaut to do on Earth what they're scheduled to do in orbit.

The majority here contend no such thing. Consider this a direct question which the rules require you to answer:

Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist is indeed of questionable morality?

Do you contend that astronaut training should include putting the entire spacecraft into a vacuum chamber and having the crew operate it under vacuum conditions to make sure it won't fail in space? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 03:46:43 PM
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

Excellent example. No, I'm not suggesting you fly them into a thunderstorm. I am suggesting that you place them under the hood for many hours as pilot in command during cross country flights, the closest condition you can get to the risk without actually taking the risk of flying into a thunderstorm. Now if the pilot's military mission was to fly through a thunderstorm to reach their target and they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral because it was potentially dangerous, then I would say that was ridiculous.

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
...

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.
Off topic, please confine your comments to pours plate sublimators or related comments
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 03, 2015, 03:53:27 PM

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.

JFK jr. did not have an instrument rating, when he flew in conditions he was not adequately trained for. With no visible horizon, it is easy to become spatially disorientated, and "feel" the aircraft doing something it is not doing. Even trained, experienced commercial pilots can fall into that trap, and accidentially kill themselves and their passengers. That is one of the reasons why commercial aircraft have two pilots at the controls - if one loses the plot, the other can take over and fly the aircraft.

Which by the way have zero relevance to the Apollo project which we are discussing here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 03:54:03 PM
...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...

You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:03:40 PM
Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?

Neil, taking Jason's point, what is more important for the military (a) training with live ammunition every time they train (b) using blank ammunition so they train tactics and procedures?

There were many ways to train the astronauts and their vehicles without placing them in a vacuum chamber each time, just as there are many ways to train the military without risking their lives. While live ammunition is used by the military, blank ammunition and training simulators are often preferred as they are cost effective and do not risk people's live. There are many military deaths each year from training exercises, but then the numbers involved in the training run into the thousands. The over all percentage of deaths is quite small. In fact, Apollo had a higher percentage death rate if you consider the Apollo 1 fire. That occurred during a plugs out test. Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer. Your claims don't hold water against the reality of Apollo.

There is a thread here that lists all the problems that occurred during Gemini, Mercury and Apollo, and the idea that the US space program went without a glitch -all to support your doubts - is bogus.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:11:02 PM
You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?

... which brings me to a nice coincidence. Neil, find out what the Pegasus computer was used for. It is on display at the London Science Museum. Your idea that humans-in-the-loop are required for all testing is absurd. I'll give you a hint, Pegasus is related to Sus_pilot's airframe comment and the stress related with steel frames.

As others have explained, training and testing are different.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:13:41 PM

Do you understand that there is a difference between testing equipment and training people, and that testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk when better and safer alternative methods exist?

Yes, I understand the difference between testing equipment and training people.

You're not very coherent with the second part of your question but I think you were asking "Is testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk better when safer alternatives exist?  Yes, testing, if possible, should be performed in a way that doesn't risk people but some things like airplane testing require a gradual increase in the level of risk until full blown performance testing is reached. The risk is mitigated. The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on Earth prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high.


Do you contend that astronaut training should include putting the entire spacecraft into a vacuum chamber and having the crew operate it under vacuum conditions to make sure it won't fail in space? If not, why not?
The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber. But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are. I think operational training performed in swimming pools is the closest that they can reasonably achieve on Earth as I think its more a factor of simulated weightlessness at that stage. I suppose it would be possible at astronomical cost to build a huge vacuum chamber the size of the ISS but there would be no way to simulate weightlessness. An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously. I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 03, 2015, 04:17:58 PM
Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.

I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:20:00 PM
...they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral...

You're still conflating testing with training.  Sus_pilot mentioned the danger of airframe overstress.  Would you conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board?  Or would you use crash-test dummies or other simulacra?

I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board. I don't think it would be important to the test to have dummies on board. But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.

I do think it important that astronauts wearing  tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:26:38 PM
Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.

I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.

I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 04:27:02 PM
I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?

The part where he talks about overstressing the airframe.

Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

Pay attention to the argument.

Quote
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.

For the same reason it is not necessary to test sublimators with an astronaut in a space suit in a vacuum chamber.

Quote
I do think it important that astronauts wearing  tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.

Not for any valid reason you can articulate.  You just want there to need to be such a test so you can insinuate something about its absence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on September 03, 2015, 04:27:37 PM
Neil, have you found where all the films of the testing of all the components of the X-1 are? After all, this was a significant mission, and surely every piece of equipment used in it must have been not only tested (with humans if possible) but filmed, and the films preserved. They must be on the internet somewhere, if they exist. Could you tell us where this film can be found?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 04:28:28 PM
I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.

That wasn't directed at you, as is obvious from the attributions.  Pay attention.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

No, I didn't know that for the LLRV, but I've certainly heard the astronauts talk about how the training prepared them for the missions and how it had to be as close as to the forthcoming events, in particular the geology training they received.

Quote
How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.

Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 04:36:04 PM
The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on Earth prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high....

I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.

Going back to those earlier questions, and rephrasing slightly differently - do you regard sublimator failure as a life-threatening situation?

Have you read the post above about the use of the oxygen purge?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
Yes, I understand the difference between testing equipment and training people.
You clearly do not.
You're not very coherent with the second part of your question
That's precious, coming from you.
but I think you were asking "Is testing equipment in a way that puts people at risk better when safer alternatives exist?  Yes, testing, if possible, should be performed in a way that doesn't risk people but some things like airplane testing require a gradual increase in the level of risk until full blown performance testing is reached. The risk is mitigated.
So what?

The same thing would happen with spacesuits with sublimators. Various components would be tested individually and then in an integrated configuration to mitigate the risk when a human occupied the spacesuit during training under high vacuum on Earth
What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.

prior to the highest risk activity of performing in orbit at 17,000 mph, 249 miles high.
What difference, in your opinion does the velocity and altitude make? How would those numbers influence the operation of a sublimator in any way? What is the sublimator were at 25,000 mph and 250,000 miles high? Would that make the sublimator operate in any different manner?

Or is it that you simply want to shovel in "scary" numbers into your pointless argument?


The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber.
No *** Sherlock.

But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are.
Why? Why would you not check rather than assume?

I think operational training performed in swimming pools is the closest that they can reasonably achieve on Earth as I think its more a factor of simulated weightlessness at that stage.
That's procedural training. It has little to do with space suit integrity.

I suppose it would be possible at astronomical cost to build a huge vacuum chamber the size of the ISS but there would be no way to simulate weightlessness.
Once again, no **** Sherlock.

An astronaut wearing a spacesuit can't be in the pool and vacuum chamber simultaneously.
Once again, I grant you a third no **** Sherlock.

I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment
Which they do.

at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.
"at vacuum" does not add some special ingredient and a sublimator failure would not be critical. How many times must this be explained to you before it sinks in?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 04:38:23 PM
I didn't go to London. What are you talking about?

He was talking to someone else. Look at the quotes. There's no HTML to be mastered, just basic reading skills.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 04:40:29 PM
Neil Armstrong came close to death while using the LM trainer.

I'm not sure if it was Armstrong's incident or someone else's but NASA wanted to cancel the use of the LM trainer due to safety concerns. However, the astronauts insisted it be kept since they all felt it was the best method for learning that last stage of final descent to actual landing. I'm sure your aware of this but maybe Neil isn't.

How did your trip to London go? I hope someday I get a chance to view some Apollo hardware.

I didn't go to London. What are you talking about? Besides, it's off topic.
So is 911, JFK, JFK junior etc. but that did not stop you lobbing in those red herring off topic balls of crap. Not even a moderator warning stopped you.

Look to your own house.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:41:32 PM
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.

Good, we've got somewhere at last. Pegasus was used to calculate stresses in steel as a result of aeroplane accidents due to mechanical stress failures (Sus_pilot reminded me of Pegasus with his comment about mechanical stress).

It had further application in the design of building, bridges, ships, helicopters. The point being there are many ways to mitigate risks without putting the human into the loop at each step of the design process.

Quote
But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.

Yes, of course it is, but that does not mean that every subsystem of the plane needs to be tested by a human during the design. In any case, testing jet planes if a fairly risky business anyway. Not sure how many of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts were in that game, but Neil Armstrong was a test pilot. It's one of the reasons he made the pilot corp.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:44:57 PM
What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.

Neil, care to answer this question. Why not use a heated mannequin that produced the same heat output as a human. We can find the metabolic loads for humans quite easily, they are well documented?

{I asked a similar question a long time ago, and received no answer}
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:45:30 PM

Really? That's YOUR country's 'major problem'? (Note - it's not THIS country, it's just A country, as far as the rest of us are concerned....)

Not the drought in California? The lack of free healthcare for your citizens? The rampant gun crime? etc etc

Yes, in my opinion, the only political issue in the United States is an Independent 9-11 Investigation. Everything else is a trifle.
But why are you asking me off-topic questions?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 03, 2015, 04:45:38 PM

No, I didn't know that for the LLRV, but I've certainly heard the astronauts talk about how the training prepared them for the missions and how it had to be as close as to the forthcoming events, in particular the geology training they received.

I remember a video series about the Russian moon landing program and Alexei Leonov mentions that they only used helicopter auto-rotation for their moon landing training. He also mentions in one of the episodes about how their specialists verified the Apollo 11 successful landing.
Quote
Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

Yeah, I always think about how cool it would be if someday in the future, Snoopy could be found and brought back to Earth. I don't know if it would ever be technically possible or feasible but that would be something.

As for you Neil, how about explaining why, if the landings were faked, NASA would go to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 12 recovery of Surveyor 3 components when any future visit to the Surveyor 3 site would bust the hoax wide open?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 04:50:32 PM

But why are you asking me off-topic questions?

I'm not the mod, but I would say in fairness you have been asked to stay on topic by others. The same rules apply to all of us. I'm guilty of straying off topic a few times.

ETA: This is IMHO of course.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:53:32 PM

What exactly is it about the sublimators which requires a human guinea pig? Any heat source would do for testing purposes. A sublimator does not care whence the heat originates.
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

Neil, care to answer this question. Why not use a heated mannequin that produced the same heat output as a human. We can find the metabolic loads for humans quite easily, they are well documented?
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

{I asked a similar question a long time ago, and received no answer}
Oh dear.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 04:57:38 PM
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

"Suit or sublimator" failure conflates two concepts with radically different criticalities.  Just because space in general is dangerous doesn't mean your obsession over sublimators is justified.

Quote
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Again you're conflating training with testing.  What does the sublimator care if its head load has the capacity to feel fear?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 04:58:30 PM

As for you Neil, how about explaining why, if the landings were faked, NASA would go to all the trouble of faking the Apollo 12 recovery of Surveyor 3 components when any future visit to the Surveyor 3 site would bust the hoax wide open?

They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 05:01:03 PM
... except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Wow. The purpose of the testing is to scare the sh*t out of the astronaut? Really?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 05:02:59 PM
I don't' see anything about airframe overstress in her question. What are you talking about?
The bit where he talked about airframe stresses in his post that you declined to read.
But no, I would not conduct mechanical stress tests of an airframe with a pilot and passengers on board.
But you would with astronauts and space suits. Nice double standard you have going there.

I don't think it would be important to the test to have dummies on board.
Except forensic aircrash researchers do. Have a nice documentary about it...

That's only a 3 minute summary, but I'm certain your uber research skills can find the full version.
When you fail to do so just ask and I will spoonfeed you the link.

But eventually, that plane is going to have to be flown by a test pilot to its specified parameters, probably beyond.
Why yes. Some crazy test pilot had to climb into the very first Boeing 747 which had never left the ground before and fly it for the very first time without knowing if it would work at all and also while having no effective means of bailing out and surviving if things went wrong.

In fact, go a little further back to the 707 and you find that test pilot Tex Johnson inverted a frakkin 707 to impress potential customers.

Only 1 min 44 of your time.

Those test pilots. They sure had balls of steel and took huge risks with untested equipment.

Oh, By the way, Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins were all test pilots.

I do think it important that astronauts wearing  tested spacesuits with sublimators enter high vacuum on Earth prior to orbit for the last step of testing and training.
But you cannot say WHY you think that and you have been provided with ample reasons to NOT think that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 05:06:58 PM
... except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Wow. The purpose of the testing is to scare the sh*t out of the astronaut? Really?
Of course it is.

On Planet Sausage, perhaps.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 05:09:12 PM
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

If, probably, maybe, supposedly .....

You got no proof.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 05:13:41 PM

In fact, go a little further back to the 707 and you find that test pilot Tex Johnson inverted a frakkin 707 to impress potential customers.

Only 1 min 44 of your time.

Actually, he was flying a Boeing 367-80. Better known as the Dash 80, it was prototype for the 707. But what does this have to do with spacesuits, sublimators or Apollo. Why are you off-topic? Aren't you a moderator?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 05:14:47 PM
They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

If, probably, maybe, supposedly .....

You got no proof.

Neither do you.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Today.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 05:16:10 PM
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

You cannot attribute whence to me, it was in the post I quoted. Pay attention. In any case, I have no issue with it use in the context used. I believe it was the correct grammar, but others may correct me.

Quote
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

Define stress in this context please?

Quote
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Agreed, but the sublimator rejects heat energy to space. What's the fear of the astronaut got to do with the price of apples?

Quote
Oh dear

Oh dear me all you like, the fact remains. You did not answer my question. Now you have, and it would appear to confirm what we have learned so far
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 05:23:48 PM

Actually, he was flying a Boeing 367-80. Better known as the Dash 80, it was prototype for the 707.
Irrelevant quibble noted, but remains irrelevant.

But what does this have to do with spacesuits, sublimators or Apollo.
It illustrates that test pilots are willing to accept a level of risk as stated in the part of my post that you oh so conveniently snipped. That is known as being economical with the truth or lying by omission.
Why are you off-topic?
I'm not. In fact it is difficult to keep you on-topic with your incessant gish gallops and red herrings.

Aren't you a moderator?
And yet more evidence of your reading comprehension difficulties. I am not a moderator. You have already been informed that LO is the sole moderator here. Yet another reply you didn't read.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 05:24:10 PM
whence? Are you from UK? Whence and whilst, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

You cannot attribute whence to me, it was in the post I quoted. Pay attention. In any case, I have no issue with it use in the context used. I believe it was the correct grammar, but others may correct me.

Quote
Yes, except for the last step which mainly tests the astronauts reaction to the high stress of possible suit or sublimator failure.

Define stress in this context please?

Quote
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.

Agreed, but the sublimator rejects heat energy to space. What's the fear of the astronaut got to do with the price of apples?

Quote
Oh dear

Oh dear me all you like, the fact remains. You did not answer my question. Now you have, and it would appear to confirm what we have learned so far

I know this is off-topic but you might want to change your avatar because every time I read your comments I read them as if Butters were reading them. It's hilarious.

As for the definition of stress in the context in which it was used, I mean psychological stress of being in a potentially dangerous environment. I suspect pulse and rate of breathing would be monitored. Hyperventilation while in orbit and possibly passing out would probably be very bad in orbit. Best to test and train for it in a vacuum chamber on Earth first. Ain't no 9-11 in orbit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 05:28:42 PM
Neither do you.
Wrong. As demonstrated by all of the replies you didn't read containing all of the data you choose to ignore.

But we could PROVE it.
We already did. You are not a special snowflake that gets to demand special treatment.

On Earth.
Done.
Today.
Done for the last 50+ years.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?
Absolutely.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 05:30:40 PM
Neither do you.

Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?

There's oodles of proof.

I don't NEED to volunteer to wear a spacesuit, because I've seen them - as has the whole world - in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years.

I'm sure if I did volunteer, that NASA's and other's testing regimes would ensure it wouldn't let me down. However - are you talking about testing the suit integrity, or it's cooling/heating system?

Even if a sublimator failure leads to a hot astronaut, do you really regard that as life-threatening, or are you getting a couple of issues confused?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 05:30:59 PM
I know this is off-topic but you might want to change your avatar because every time I read your comments I read them as if Butters were reading them. It's hilarious.

Yes, and every time I read your comments, it reminds me of my avatar. Butters with his tin foil hat on.

Quote
As for the definition of stress in the context in which it was used, I mean psychological stress of being in a potentially dangerous environment.

The sublimator rejects heat to space. What has its function got to do with stress?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 05:39:39 PM
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?

Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.

What do you see as the problem?


Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 05:39:52 PM

Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.
Cool.  Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 05:43:43 PM
The mannequin doesn't have the capacity for fear.
What does fear have to do with testing any equipment?  You aren't very coherent this afternoon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 05:45:31 PM

They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
So now all of NASA is a hoax?  Care to provide some proof of this allegation?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 05:47:52 PM
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.

That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.

Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 05:50:12 PM

Neither do you.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Today.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?

Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 05:53:08 PM
I know this is off-topic
Yes. Yes it is indeed off topic. It is becoming you signature pattern. Keep it up and members will start reporting you to the mod.

but you might want to change your avatar because every time I read your comments I read them as if Butters were reading them. It's hilarious.
So? Every time I see yours I think "Oh, this crackpot".

As for the definition of stress in the context in which it was used, I mean psychological stress of being in a potentially dangerous environment.
That is what test pilots do for a living. What of it?

I suspect pulse and rate of breathing would be monitored.
Wait...WHAT? They were continuously monitored. IT was the Flight Surgeons frakkin job to monitor that data. How in seven hells do you not know this?

Hyperventilation while in orbit and possibly passing out would probably be very bad in orbit.
Why? Once you have established orbit, you can go for a nap if you like because Newton is in the driving seat. Or loose consciousness if you prefer, Newton is still in the driving seat. You seem to have some fantasy concept that they had to fly seat of the pants, teeth gritted with sweaty brow, grimly clasping a joystick whilst their life depended upon not a moments inattention. Twasn't so, m'laddie buck. On Apollo, they pretty much kept the same schedule with all three astronauts sleeping at the same time.

Best to test and train for it in a vacuum chamber on Earth first.
Apart from critical phases they spent the vast majority of their time in shirt sleeves and zero G. How a vacuum chamber on Earth might be useful is anyones guess.

Ain't no 9-11 in orbit.
Off topic red herring. You really like those.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 05:58:50 PM

Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 03, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.

That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.

Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.

It's obviously not high vacuum.
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Better luck next time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 06:02:54 PM
It is becoming you signature pattern. Keep it up and members will start reporting you to the mod.

Yes, little off topic remark, let the thread run and then change horse in attempt to crawl from previous hole that was dug. Gish gallop.

Quote
So? Every time I see yours I think "Oh, this crackpot".

That's what I was going to say, or words to that effect.

I suspect pulse and rate of breathing would be monitored.
Wait...WHAT? They were continuously monitored. IT was the Flight Surgeons frakkin job to monitor that data. How in seven hells do you not know this?

Ah, those parts in Apollo 13 have confused me for years. You mean to say they had a surgeon on the flight team. I just thought that was Hollywood.  ;)


On Apollo, they pretty much kept the same schedule with all three astronauts sleeping at the same time.

Gene Cernan spoke about this, and how they tried to keep their normal earth routines.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 06:09:47 PM

Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?

From the Moon. The post-recovery report that was posted earlier, which you seem to have ignored or not noticed, confirms this.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 03, 2015, 06:11:09 PM
Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.

That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.

Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.

It's obviously not high vacuum.
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Better luck next time.

You mean the attendants outside the chamber? Or those going in and out when preparing for the test, or escorting the subject out after it's completed?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 06:12:41 PM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 06:16:44 PM
It's obviously not high vacuum.
Airlocks. What are they for?

Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Still haven't figured out the concept of airlocks, I see. The clue is in the name.

Better luck next time.
Try reading the material provided next time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 03, 2015, 06:18:10 PM
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.

We already have.  You just refuse to consider it because you want to trump up a controversy.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 06:44:26 PM
Newton is still in the driving seat.

I like that line in Apollo 13. It really sums up orbital mechanics. So many CTs think it is like driving a car.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 03, 2015, 07:07:13 PM
Newton is still in the driving seat.

I like that line in Apollo 13. It really sums up orbital mechanics. So many CTs think it is like driving a car.
Indeed.

There are many hoax luddites who really believe that it was necessary to blast the engines at full throttle all the way to the moon, therefore it must be a hoax as it is not possible to carry so much fuel. I kid you not. Some people really think that it was necessary to burn the whole way to the moon and back
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 07:11:33 PM
There are many hoax luddites who really believe that it was necessary to blast the engines at full throttle all the way to the moon, therefore it must be a hoax as it is not possible to carry so much fuel. I kid you not. Some people really think that it was necessary to burn the whole way to the moon and back

...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 03, 2015, 07:20:42 PM

Amazing to see Charlie Brown close up. I've taken some pictures of the heat shield (what's left of it anyway). For those that are UK based, the Science Museum has a Cosmonaut Exhibition opening in a couple of weeks.

If some can PM me the code to display the images at the correct width, I'll save them as JPEG and load them to the Reality of Apollo section. Thanks in advance.
Cool.  Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?

The one I saw years ago was completely covered in Plexiglas, with an open hatch.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 07:26:42 PM

...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).
Did he retract that video or at least modify it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Cool.  Not having visited on, is the hatch covered by Plexiglas and the interior viewed through it?

Yes, but I couldn't make out much of the inside. Still, seeing something that had traveled through searing radiation hell without being test in a vacuum beforehand was quite incredible. I think it was fake though, as the shadows in the Science Museum were not parallel and I noticed a letter J on the floor.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 03, 2015, 07:29:59 PM
Did he retract that video or at least modify it?

Jarrah retract a video? Hang on, a flock of uni-corned pigs have flow past my window with pots of gold they found at the end of a rainbow. They're being chased by leprechauns flying on magic carpets.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 07:30:40 PM

Yes, but I couldn't make out much of the inside. Still, seeing something that had traveled through searing radiation hell without being test in a vacuum beforehand was quite incredible. I think it was fake though, as the shadows in the Science Museum were not parallel and I noticed a letter J on the floor.
Well those NASA boys never thought about the correct testing procedures for anything. ::)
I would have thought a letter C to keep in line with past scripts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 03, 2015, 07:31:11 PM

Jarrah retract a video? Hang on, a flock of uni-corned pigs have flow past my window with pots of gold they found at the end of a rainbow. They're being chased by leprechauns flying on magic carpets.
Gotcha
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 03, 2015, 08:06:07 PM
The way they allegedly sequentially constructed ISS would make it difficult to place the entire ISS into a vacuum chamber. But yes, the individual components should be vacuum tested prior to assembly. I would assume they are.

Why do you assume ISS parts were vacuum tested but not the sublimators?  Why do you accept one scenario (ISS parts) without any evidence, but are unwilling to accept the other scenario (sublimators) after much documentation detailing their testing has been presented?  Why so selective?

If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too.

Earlier you suggested that Surveyor may have been used to collect and return rock and soil samples from the moon.  Do you now reject your earlier hypothesis?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 03, 2015, 08:26:50 PM

Neither do you.
But we could PROVE it.
On Earth.
Today.
Would you volunteer to wear the spacesuit in a vacuum chamber?

Why yes I can prove that parts of Surveyor were returned after photography of the lander.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3)

This is the one thing, that one piece of evidence, the one absolute irrefutable piece that totally lays to rest any claim the Apollo landings were faked.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf

There is absolutely no intelligent method by which this can be refuted.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on September 03, 2015, 08:54:49 PM
I expect that the astronauts in tested spacesuits in vacuum chambers would mainly do range of motion tests, practice emergency procedures, practice ingress and egress procedures and gain the indispensable confidence in their equipment at vacuum to perform EVA without being overwhelmed by fear of equipment failure.
Can you articulate why this training would have to be done in a vacuum chamber? Can you think of any alternate methods that would provide the same experience with less hazard to the astronaut?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on September 03, 2015, 08:57:03 PM
Is it like a Diver scheduled to perform a deep dive but all he's allowed to do prior is don his scuba tank, wearing mask, snorkel and fins while posing in front of the pool because it would be immoral for him to dive to the bottom of the deep end?

Wrong. A swimming pool is safer than the deep ocean. A vacuum chamber introduces hazards that do not exist in space.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 03, 2015, 09:14:21 PM
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.

The 9/11 attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum. Any further discussion should be taken to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. Ignoring this request will result in you being placed under moderation, which means your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.

And by the way, if someone lies about one thing, it doesn't mean they have lied about everything. You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 03, 2015, 09:20:31 PM
I personally think 9-11 should be treated with the same contempt as Holocaust revision, and banned from the forum.

That is something I have been considering for a long time. I'm leaning in that direction, but haven't made a final decision yet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 03, 2015, 09:40:40 PM
it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).

I clearly should have given my name some more thought all those years ago... ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 03, 2015, 11:11:06 PM
...seeing something that had traveled through searing radiation hell without being test in a vacuum beforehand was quite incredible. I think it was fake though, as the shadows in the Science Museum were not parallel and I noticed a letter J on the floor.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/doglaugh.gif)




Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on September 03, 2015, 11:21:18 PM
it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).

I clearly should have given my name some more thought all those years ago... ;)

Both parsing alternatives are equally accurate in this case.
Title: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 04, 2015, 12:03:20 AM
Neil, my IFR flight students have to know how to handle an airplane if they fly into a thunderstorm inadvertently, particularly in knowing how not to over stress the airframe.  Are you suggesting that I should fly them into a storm to prove the techniques work?

Excellent example. No, I'm not suggesting you fly them into a thunderstorm. I am suggesting that you place them under the hood for many hours as pilot in command during cross country flights, the closest condition you can get to the risk without actually taking the risk of flying into a thunderstorm. Now if the pilot's military mission was to fly through a thunderstorm to reach their target and they didn't perform the necessary requisite hood training before the mission because it was construed as being immoral because it was potentially dangerous, then I would say that was ridiculous.

By the way, do you believe the story about JFK jr. stalling his plane? I had the meager hood training for a private pilots license and I'm confident I could have kept that plane on the straight and level using instruments in those conditions. I believe he was working on his Instrument rating and already had many hours of hood time.

Off topic, but I'll respond.  Many fully rated, experienced IFR pilots have come to grief flying VMC into IMC.  He was essentially flying into a black hole with no horizon, even though the conditions were legally VMC.  If I recall correctly, he didn't stall the aircraft - it was the classic graveyard spiral and it flew into the ocean.  So, no, he, his wife, and his sister-in-law weren't murdered by some cabal, if that's where you're going.

BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds.  The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds.  I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.

ETA and back on subject:  If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell.  But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.

Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue.  But take icing as an example.  I have flown  light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing".  I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum.  Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions.  Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress).  Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole.  Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:15:47 AM

You mean the attendants outside the chamber? Or those going in and out when preparing for the test, or escorting the subject out after it's completed?

No, I mean the two helmeted men wearing oxygen masks that stay in the chamber when the doors are closed and are seen removing their masks when the door is open. You can see the back of one of their helmets as the test is being conducted.

According to this chart, https://user.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cfd/pdfs/tables/7-2B.pdf, pressure at an altitude of 75,000 feet is 1.13 in.Hg.
According to this conversion chart, http://www.onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm, 1.13 in.Hg. = 28.7 torr
High vacuum is defined as that pressure between 1X10-3 Torr to 1X10-9 Torr
They weren't anywhere near high vacuum.
Better luck next time.
I seriously doubt that pressure could be maintained at high vacuum in any with a sublimator inside constantly filling the chamber with steam. It's too bad we don't have photos, video or specs in more than 50 years to help determine how they allegedly did it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 12:22:46 AM
I seriously doubt...

Of course you do.  You've sidestepped every single bit of evidence that contradicts your preconceived belief.

Quote
It's too bad we don't have photos, video or specs in more than 50 years to help determine how they allegedly did it.

It's too bad you're the only "engineer" who thinks so, and that that's demonstrably due to your ineptitude.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:28:52 AM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:33:50 AM
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.

The 9/11 attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum. Any further discussion should be taken to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. Ignoring this request will result in you being placed under moderation, which means your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.

And by the way, if someone lies about one thing, it doesn't mean they have lied about everything. You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.

I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts.  The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies. 

If the government lies, they're committing a crime.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:41:47 AM

Why do you assume ISS parts were vacuum tested but not the sublimators?  Why do you accept one scenario (ISS parts) without any evidence, but are unwilling to accept the other scenario (sublimators) after much documentation detailing their testing has been presented?  Why so selective?

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

Earlier you suggested that Surveyor may have been used to collect and return rock and soil samples from the moon.  Do you now reject your earlier hypothesis?
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 04, 2015, 12:42:29 AM
Neil Baker, direct question, if the air evacuation systems could remove the air down to LEO test conditions from a 55ft diameter by 90 ft tall in twelve hours, a time you have not disputed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31409;topicseen#msg31409), why could they not keep up with the water vapour from a couple kilograms of water over a few hours?
As for 9/11, as I, and others, have said before, we have a place for such claims. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) Make one there, unless you are too cowardly to put your evidence on open display in a proper forum of discussion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 04, 2015, 12:44:35 AM

Here's a video of a UK TV presenter/journalist going into a vacuum chamber.

That's great. I like the part with the water. What do you think to that Neil? Let's recall, one of your original claims was testing a sublimator would destroy the integrity of the vacuum, but yet we demonstrably observe in this video that the 'vacuum' was maintained despite the 'boiling' water. Such is this gish gallop, Neil has changed horses with his ideas of testing the PLSS in a vacuum.

Original horse: A sublimator test would put strain on the vacuum pumps.
New horse: The PLSS and sublimator should have been tested in a vacuum.

It's obviously not high vacuum.
Notice the attendants with eyes and skin exposed.
Better luck next time.

Im fortunate enough to know Col. Richard Graham.  He's told me about the pressure suit confidence demos, and the water really does boil at room temperature, and the room does stay at roughly 90k feet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:51:39 AM
Neil Baker, direct question, if the air evacuation systems could remove the air down to LEO test conditions from a 55ft diameter by 90 ft tall in twelve hours, a time you have not disputed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31409;topicseen#msg31409), why could they not keep up with the water vapour from a couple kilograms of water over a few hours?

You're assuming they used that vacuum chamber. This article shows a much smaller chamber and describes pumping down the chamber with her wearing the suit but without specifying to what pressure. The boiling water trick again.
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/02/counting-down-cady/

As for 9/11, as I, and others, have said before, we have a place for such claims. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) Make one there, unless you are too cowardly to put your evidence on open display in a proper forum of discussion.
I was responding to the moderator's comment about 9-11. Why don't you direct him to the proper board?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 12:54:17 AM
We focus on the anomaly...

There is no anomaly.

Quote
We can end the controversy.

There is no controversy.

Quote
I honestly can't figure you folks out.

You mean the rest of humanity?

You need to get it in your head that you are literally the only person who has a problem with porous plate sublimators and their test regime.  And no, it's not because everyone but you is a coward.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 12:55:53 AM
If the government lies, they're committing a crime.

You committed a crime.  Does that mean I'm justified in assuming you're also guilty of any other crime I might choose to pin on you, without actual proof?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 12:58:44 AM
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.

You don't get to simply ignore evidence that disputes your belief.  Maybe this, and not some postulated universal fear or cowardice, is why few if any people believe as you do.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 04, 2015, 01:00:06 AM
Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters.

The 9/11 attacks have absolutely nothing to do with Apollo and are therefore off topic in this section of the forum. Any further discussion should be taken to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. Ignoring this request will result in you being placed under moderation, which means your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum.

And by the way, if someone lies about one thing, it doesn't mean they have lied about everything. You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.

I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts.  The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies. 

Apollo really happened, just as advertised. There are mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves conclusively, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ANY doubt whatsoever that during the period 1969 to 1972, 12 Americans walked on the Moon. Anyone who thinks otherwise has rocks in their head where their brains ought to be.

As for 9/11, it was planned by a group of Arab extremists under the auspices of Al Qaeda, and executed by 19 of them. The US Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, nor did they have anything to do with the towers coming down. The only way that the US Government were at all complicit is in acting incompetently when there were warning signs. There were Arab students who were flight training in the USA, and who had reportedly said they were not interested in landing or taking off, only in flying. This was a colossal red flag. The fact that certain members of the FBI knew this and chose to do nothing about it was unforgivable.

The only thing that Apollo and 9/11 have in common that the Hoax Believers and Twoofers both have the same kinds of rocks in their heads where their brains are supposed to be. They are two groups of people, like you, where The Stupid is very strong, and who share a similarly distorted and completely whacko worldview
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 04, 2015, 01:00:49 AM
Neil Baker, direct question, if the air evacuation systems could remove the air down to LEO test conditions from a 55ft diameter by 90 ft tall in twelve hours, a time you have not disputed (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31409;topicseen#msg31409), why could they not keep up with the water vapour from a couple kilograms of water over a few hours?

You're assuming they used that vacuum chamber. This article shows a much smaller chamber and describes pumping down the chamber with her wearing the suit but without specifying to what pressure. The boiling water trick again.
http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/02/counting-down-cady/
Quote
And your basis they couldn't keep up in that one is . . . what, exactly? Even if, if mind, why not use the bigger one?
As for 9/11, as I, and others, have said before, we have a place for such claims. (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0) Make one there, unless you are too cowardly to put your evidence on open display in a proper forum of discussion.
I was responding to the moderator's comment about 9-11. Why don't you direct him to the proper board?
Because he was responding to your claims. You're the one who brought it up in the first place on, oh, the first post.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 01:09:52 AM

Im fortunate enough to know Col. Richard Graham.  He's told me about the pressure suit confidence demos, and the water really does boil at room temperature, and the room does stay at roughly 90k feet.

But pressure at an altitude of 90,000 feet is only .569 in.Hg. that converts to 14.4 Torr, nowhere near high vacuum. Yes, water will boil at room temperature if the pressure is low enough but it's deceptive to make people think high vacuum is necessary to make that happen.

But maybe we could get Colonel Graham's input into this discussion. Does he think an astronaut would want to be pumped down to high vacuum while wearing a space suit on Earth first prior to attempting it in orbit?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 01:17:19 AM

Apollo really happened, just as advertised. There are mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves conclusively, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ANY doubt whatsoever that during the period 1969 to 1972, 12 Americans walked on the Moon. Anyone who thinks otherwise has rocks in their head where their brains ought to be.

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.

As for 9/11, it was planned by a group of Arab extremists under the auspices of Al Qaeda, and executed by 19 of them. The US Government had nothing whatsoever to do with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, nor did they have anything to do with the towers coming down. The only way that the US Government were at all complicit is in acting incompetently when there were warning signs. There were Arab students who were flight training in the USA, and who had reportedly said they were not interested in landing or taking off, only in flying. This was a colossal red flag. The fact that certain members of the FBI knew this and chose to do nothing about it was unforgivable.

The only thing that Apollo and 9/11 have in common that the Hoax Believers and Twoofers both have the same kinds of rocks in their heads where their brains are supposed to be. They are two groups of people, like you, where The Stupid is very strong, and who share a similarly distorted and completely whacko worldview

What are you trying to do?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 04, 2015, 01:29:30 AM
So when is a vacuum good enough? I wonder if he understands that the sublimator will not work in atmosphere. Working in vacuum == working for that piece of technology. But I fail to see any way in which the test is invalidated if it isn't a "hard," "high," or whatever arbitrary standard of vacuum is named.

Of course, I also fail to see why the test is assumed by our Neil to either not have taken place, or have been done incorrectly, if it isn't on video. Adding anecdote to the careful explanation by others here, I'm currently working at a place that builds precision audio gear. Our gear has an extremely high standard of reliability, and part of achieving that is individual testing of every single unit (as well as all the significant sub-assemblies). There are shaker tables and cabinets for thermal cycling and of course audio test chambers with plentiful software everywhere around the facility.

But even today, when CCDs are about a dime to manufacture and every phone has a built-in camera, I have yet to see any of these tests including video footage as a regular event. For some reason, even with the combination of label reputation, legal responsibility, and the tracking back to notice when more failures are hitting the testing stage and where the problem is originating from (which can be a very expensive proposition when you are throwing completed pieces of high-end hardware into the recycling bins), I have yet to see a video being made. Anywhere.

Maybe, just maybe, engineers in the real world are less seduced by pretty pictures in YouTube convenient format, and communicate in other forms?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on September 04, 2015, 01:33:56 AM
Then again, there were the pre-SMEAT vacuum chambre tests, which were shot on tape.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 01:34:48 AM

BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds.  The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds.  I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.

I'm all ears or all eyes. Can you describe it?

ETA and back on subject:  If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell.  But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.

Did my logic actually say that? I thought we agreed not to fly into the thunderstorm.

Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue.  But take icing as an example.  I have flown  light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing".  I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum.  Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions.  Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress).  Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole.  Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.
So you actually wanted icing because you were trained to deal with it? If you had gotten icing and dealt with it, would you have more or less confidence the next time you got it?  If you could simulate icing under controlled conditions and train your students under those conditions, would you do so?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 04, 2015, 01:39:48 AM

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.


Oh, really?

The reality of the Apollo Program can't possibly be shown by multiple converging lines of extremely hard-to-fake evidence (intercepted radio, visual tracking, correctly described lunar geology and return of bulk samples, emplacement of retroreflector arrays, etc., etc.) but would be "proved" by some guy making a pressure suit a little more comfortable by boiling off some water -- and that only if it is done in a chamber of some arbitrary specification of vacuum, with some equally arbitrary documentation on video?

"Your honor, the prosecution does not chose to enter the murder weapon, twelve witnesses, signed confession or DNA into evidence at this time. Rather, we intend to build our case upon the expert testimony of a graphologist who will analyze what the accused wrote in his high school yearbook. Your honor, I request a recess of six months to let me find an expert graphologist -- and I'm going to have to ask the defense to come up with a suitable yearbook for him to analyze."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on September 04, 2015, 01:59:34 AM
No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly...

You haven't presented an anomaly.  What you have done, through a combination of remarkable ineptitude at research, ignorance of the topic, avoidance of evidence presented to you, and selective windowing, is manufacture a controversy in your own head.  You don't get to just assert that your view is somehow obvious and have reality conform to that; I am one of several people here who actually work or have significant experience in this field, and you do not know what you are talking about. 

I'm not impressed by your loaded language, your pretensions to engineering expertise outside of your competency, your off-topic digressions, or your auto-hagiographic stylings as The Lone Engineer Wih Courage.  Your "If I ran the zoo" opinions are irrelevant.  Most hilarious of all, though, is your fixation on a McGuffin you thought you could wave around triumphantly and carry the rhetorical day.  That was a bad miscalculation on your part; this isn't a YouTube comments section where you can fool people who don't know any more than you do.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 04, 2015, 02:30:27 AM
Still see no new topic in 'Other Conspiracy Theories' sub-forum, I see.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 04, 2015, 02:34:05 AM

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

It wasn't minimal. ISS modules and systems were built on systems with decades of testing in the Shuttle, Mir, Progress, Spacelab, Spacehab, Soyuz, and Salyut programs.  Not to mention several decades worth of unflown station tests in the US.  But your probably think they are all fake as well.

Quote
That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.

If you don't know anything about rocks, ask questions of people here who do.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 04, 2015, 02:47:34 AM
Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

Did you know that post Apollo 11 there have been three unmanned lunar rovers?  None went to the Apollo 11 site.   Why should they?  People want to visit somewhere new, not a place already visited. But you will no doubt say these were probably/possibly/likely to have been faked anyway.

You know what?  It is easier just to say you were wrong.  I did a couple of pages back.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 03:10:43 AM
I don't know anything about the rocks.

You don't don't know anything about the rocks? They're fairly important evidence that the astronauts were on the Moon, but then you'd rather tap dance around the real evidence to keep your fantastical argument alive.

You've still got to answer the question. What exactly has stress got to do with testing a device that rejects heat?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 03:15:51 AM
You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.

What do you mean lied about Santa Claus? What lie? Who brings the presents at night when I'm asleep? You'll be telling me that they lied about the Easter bunny and tooth fairy next.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 04, 2015, 03:57:09 AM
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen.

This is simply bull. You clearly don't understand what proof actually is. Even if the test you argue for is performed and you are shown conclusively that a PLSS sublimator works, even if you get into the suit and vacuum chamber yourself and make use of the suit for several hours, all that is PROOF of is that the spacesuit and sublimator work. It does not prove it has ever been used in space. It does not prove the ISS is real. It does not prove men went to the moon in the Apollo program nearly half a century ago.

And as for your comments about training astronauts because you have to include the fear of suit failure, what a load of crap. These men were test pilots who voluntarily got into new aircraft and flew them to the limits. People who were not sure when they got up in the air if they would come to Earth in a controlled landing or if they'd have to eject from a disintegrating airframe or a nosedive into the desert floor. Men who voluntarily got into a rocket containing millions of pounds of explosive rocket fuel and rode it into space. And you think they'd be paralysed by fear of their spacesuit failing if they didn't test it personally in a vacuum chamber first?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 04:14:46 AM
These men were test pilots who voluntarily got into new aircraft and flew them to the limits. People who were not sure when they got up in the air if they would come to Earth in a controlled landing or if they'd have to eject from a disintegrating airframe or a nosedive into the desert floor.

...and some had tasted war, flying combat missions on a regular basis.

Quote
Men who voluntarily got into a rocket containing millions of pounds of explosive rocket fuel and rode it into space. And you think they'd be paralysed by fear of their spacesuit failing if they didn't test it personally in a vacuum chamber first?

Which is another good point. There is a wealth of video evidence that space vehicles explode on the launch pad, or shortly after launch. It is also abundantly evident from video that the Apollo astronauts were propelled into space in a huge rocket. Yet a tiny widget appears to Neil as a smoking gun. Why? The astronauts would have feared it not working, or it had not been tested to accommodate their fear, or any other reason that Neil wishes to invent. What a peculiar notion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Obviousman on September 04, 2015, 04:16:09 AM
I presume Mr Baker is ignorant of the development series of the suits, from Mercury onwards? The difference between various types of suits (e.g. pressure and partial pressure)?

Probably, methinks, but I remain confident it will fail to change his opinion one iota. As I said earlier: no evidence, however compelling, will change his mind.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 04:22:27 AM
I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts.  The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies. 

If the government lies, they're committing a crime.

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 04:24:39 AM
Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

There's the handwaving again.

At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 04:25:58 AM
I presume Mr Baker is ignorant of the development series of the suits, from Mercury onwards? The difference between various types of suits (e.g. pressure and partial pressure)?

Or the problem that Alexi Leonov faced, and how this provided lessons learned. Gemini and Mercury were the forerunners for Apollo. Grissom, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are on record speaking about Gemini and Mercury and it's impact on Apollo's success, as much to say that without the earlier space programs Apollo might not have been successful. Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones. I've taken this line with CT line that 'NASA managed to go from nowhere to the Moon in 10 years makes it all look dubious.'
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 04:31:46 AM
I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

That can be easily disproved with your hallowed 'scientific method'. Observe it for yourself. Time it crossing the sky, and calculate its velocity for yourself. I showed you how to do this earlier here, and in the YouTube thread.

You'll come up with a figure faster than a cruising 747. Inflatable? Harumph.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 04:44:04 AM
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

You must have arms like Arnold Schwarzenegger what with all that hand-waving that you do....
Your belief is irrelevant. Why don't you try looking at it?

If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.
And you know that, how?  And please don't retreat into solipism...that's the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I don't know anything about the rocks.
Added to the list of stuff that you know nothing about. Yet, you are quite happy to handwave away the evidence from people that DO know about rocks. And sublimators. And testing. And evidence.

Have the cojones to admit that you are nothing more than an obsessive, angry delusionist with a history of using criminal activity to try and force your point across (been out cleaning your guns on your lawn lately?). You will not accept or even recognise any evidence that contradicts your world view.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 04:53:58 AM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

You can disprove it by finding something factual. Have you researched the authors, considered the techniques detailed in the 308 pages of that 'presentation', or considered the evidence it presents?

Have you actually found ANY anomaly between that report and any other account of the mission(s)? I certainly haven't found the time to review all 308 pages - have you?

Again, at what point does accumulation of evidence become proof?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on September 04, 2015, 07:14:48 AM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.
ONLY you think it is an anomaly.  ONLY you think there is a controversy.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on September 04, 2015, 07:19:18 AM

...and of course Jarrah with his theory that Apollo 13 didn't have enough fuel to return to Earth until it was pointed out to him that it didn't need to burn the same amount of fuel as the other Apollo missions, as it was on a FRT and not required to enter lunar orbit (I'm not referring to the Mod).

Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 07:29:53 AM
Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.

Are you offering to pay for it all? Writing the procedures, the wages, the Public Liability insurance, the cost of the chamber time and so on? Are are you really expecting that NASA wastes hard-to-find public money staging a pointless experiment just to satisfy one obsessive felon and his mental breakdown?
Have you worked out the costs? Surely that will be the first step in presenting a proposal- a fully costed proposition? Or are you just going to spend your days on YouTube and tiny Internet forums trying to tell everyone how clever you are?

Pony up and put your money where your mouth is.  Once you've got your proposition sorted then start lobbying NASA and your elected representatives. With your track record I'm sure that you will have no problem getting people to treat your seriously*. 
Failing that, then you're going to have to go back into the historical record and do the analysis on the information that's available (and not on something that you, and only you, deem to be necessary) and either prove that it's incorrect or accept it. However, given your previous history on dealing with things, and your lamentable research skills- skills that can be bettered by a total numpty (me!) with nothing more than 30 minutes work and Google- I am pretty sure that you won't do any of this. Instead, you'll choose to fill your declining years raging at total strangers on YouTube and wondering where it all went wrong for you.


*That was sarcasm, by the way...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:35:21 AM

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.
How do we PROVE or DISPROVE we went to the moon?
We focus on the anomaly that can be PROVEN on Earth today.
NASA allegedly has the spacesuits, sublimators and vacuum chamber. Volunteers are plentiful. Let's pump someone down wearing a suit and sublimator and PROVE that astronauts can perform EVAs and walk on the moon.
It's simple. We can end the controversy. I honestly can't figure you folks out.
We have proved the result, you are blindly brushing aside the obvious results.  We have listed facts, you have wave your hand around, "I don't understand, therefore it didn't happen".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:38:08 AM

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.
My bolding.
Clearly this thread has proved conclusively that you know very little if anything.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:42:52 AM

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.
No proof according to you with your blinders, the rest of us have the data that you purposely deny.  BTW denial is not a river in Egypt. 

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:48:18 AM

They might have known there was no such site. If the moon landings were a hoax, then the Surveyor 3 was probably a hoax too. They knew nobody would visit it in the future because they knew it didn't exist. Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.
Because NASA has formed a no-fly/no trespass area around Apollo 11 and Apollo 17, there may be no re-visits to those sites.  However the other sites aren't surrounded by this plan, so when they are visited again there will be {b]MORE[/b] evidence of the landings.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:51:34 AM


Or the problem that Alexi Leonov faced, and how this provided lessons learned. Gemini and Mercury were the forerunners for Apollo. Grissom, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin are on record speaking about Gemini and Mercury and it's impact on Apollo's success, as much to say that without the earlier space programs Apollo might not have been successful. Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones. I've taken this line with CT line that 'NASA managed to go from nowhere to the Moon in 10 years makes it all look dubious.'
Indeed as Gemini demonstrated that rendezvous and docking, integral in the Apollo missions, was possible.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Philthy on September 04, 2015, 08:00:56 AM
Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 08:08:44 AM
Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil
He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation.  I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 08:24:10 AM
Heiwa, the self-appointed space travel safety consultant, was equally ignorant of free return trajectory, and I'm not sure he ever figured it out despite multiple attempts to explain it to him.

Nope, he still hasn't figured it out. I doubt he ever will. If he did, no one would pay attention to him.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.0#.VemHA_-FO00

Phil
He won't ever agree that the proof has been submitted, there will always be a slight error in the presentation.  I doubt he has the money anyway, my speculation.

Again, I am struck by the similarities between Baker and Dorkmann.
Heiwa asks for a video as proof. Someone gives him a video then the goalpoasts are lurched to the left with Dorkmann trying to define international standards for a "dip" (must be the whole hand, must be greater than 10 seconds).
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg1715346#msg1715346

Hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on September 04, 2015, 09:25:21 AM
Apollo wasn't just switched like a tap, Mercury and Gemini were the stepping stones.

The latest crop of Moonhoaxers would rather see a secret connection between Apollo 11 and 9/11 than think if there might be
Apollo 1-10.  Mercury and Gemini are completely beyond their grasp...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 04, 2015, 09:34:38 AM
I asked:
Quote
Could you please explain what sort of unmanned spacecraft would be capable of collecting rocks up to 10+ kilograms (including rocks chipped off larger rocks), fragile clods of regolith breccia and 2+ metre long core samples and returning them to Earth, given the total mass of material returned from the Moon is around 380 kilograms? Could you please provide evidence for the development, construction, launch and operation of this/these spacecraft? Could you please explain the existence of photos which show these samples in situ which also show astronauts: as the photos must have been taken on the Moon, then the astronauts must have been there too, working sublimators or not.

Neil Baker replied:
Quote
I don't know and you already know I don't have any way to acquire that information.

On reflection I thought this answer to my question deserved a more detailed response than my earlier comment.

With regard to having no way to acquire information about hypothetical unmanned sample retriever missions (USRMs), either they existed or they didn't. If the Apollo missions happened as advertised, then obviously there were no American USRMs. But if, as you seem determined to believe, NASA faked Apollo, then the only possible explanation for the existence of Moon rocks on Earth is USRMs (although the issue of astronauts appearing in photos remains a problem for this theory). As has been pointed out, the mass of Apollo rocks totals more than 1000 times greater than what the USSR retrieved in three USRMs, and this mass includes individual rocks with a mass up to 11.7 kg, core samples up to 2 metres long and fragile clods of regolith breccia.

The spacecraft required to gather this mass of samples of this variety and to return them to Earth would be massive and complex. It suggests that an organisation of massive skill and resources would have been needed to design, build and operate such a spacecraft. The workforce employed on Project Apollo numbered in the hundreds of thousands; the workforce required to design, build and operate this hypothetical UMSR spacecraft would be of the same order. Yet not one person has come forward to say anything; not one leaked document; not one intercepted radio signal.

If Apollo was faked as you maintain, I propose you go looking for the people who designed, built and operated this hypothetical UMSR spacecraft, and come back to us when you have some solid evidence.

Quote
I do know that when a moon rock was put on display in my town back when I was a kid in the early seventies, it seemed like practically the whole town came out to look at it. I remember then wondering why NASA had to send us such a small rock about one-half inch x one inch x a quarter-inch.

Your home town got its own Moon rock? How cool is that. I assume the rock didn't stay there for long, and was soon on its way to other towns across the USA.

Now that rock might have looked pretty unimpressive to you at the time, and might be unimpressive to you now. My rough calculations suggest it would have weighed around 3 or 4 grams, out of the roughly 21.5 kilograms of material brought back by Apollo 11. But given the scientific value of the rocks, I think you were doing pretty well to see even that much: ask a planetary scientist and they'll tell you how much you can do with a 3 gram rock from a planet or moon they've never sampled. It's a lot.

Have a look at the number of principal investigators on Apollo 11, as listed in the Apollo 11 press kit: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_PressKit.pdf (pages 220 and following) - more than 140 (of whom by my count 37 were from outside the USA). Even if the entire haul of Apollo 11 rocks was evenly split up between only those principal investigators, each would get only 150 grams. But we know that some of the material was distributed to foreign countries and for various displays (such as the one which underwhelmed you), and much more was saved for future investigators. So each principal investigator didn't get much at all. Those investigators did a lot with what they got.

Quote
Do they have the rocks or not and why didn't they wow us with some big ones? It's not like we didn't pay for them.

Why? To the uneducated they're just rocks. Do you think NASA should have wasted space on its Apollo missions to bring back big honking rocks just to impress people? Don't you think a dozen smaller rocks from a dozen different sites would be more scientifically useful than one big rock from one location?

Quote
Sure, sure, the geologists were studying them. But how about now?

Scientists are still studying the Apollo rocks.

This is because there's a lot to learn - tests using devices which hadn't been invented bcak in the 1970s, tests using devices which are more sensitive than similar devices back in the 1970s.

Quote
Let's see them now.

Are you sure? Do you have no idea what scientists want to do with rocks? They've been cut into smaller pieces so that a range of tests can be conducted on a single rock.

Quote
The geologists must be done by now.

Seriously?

Have a look at http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/10003.pdf It's a summary of the scientific findings of one sample from Apollo 11: 41 scientific papers on that one rock, with the most recent being released in 2001. There were 31 other samples just from Apollo 11 alone. No, the geologists aren't done yet. Nor the physicists. Nor the geochemists. Nor the geophysicists.

Quote
And how would I or any other nongeologist specializing in moon rocks know the difference?

I'm not a lunar scientist. I can't tell the difference unless it's explained by an expert. So there are two solutions: either become a lunar scientist, or trust the lunar scientists who've studied these rocks. They say there are several tell-tale signs a rock is from the Moon and not the Earth: lack of volatile elements and chemicals, evidence of rocks having formed in a low gravity vacuum, evidence of alteration by solar wind and micrometeorites, and lack of evidence of alteration by air or water.

Quote
Why would I trust NASA when they refuse to be accountable with any independent oversight? Why do you trust them?

We can trust NASA because NASA isn't the only organisation which examines Moon rocks. Look again at that list of Apollo 11 principal investigators - scientists from West Germany, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium and Finland were on that list, along with plenty of American scientists from outside NASA.

Since then, any scientist from anywhere in the world can submit a request for an Apollo rock. Here's the link to the relevant page: http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/sampreq/requests.cfm Note that country of origin isn't an issue; all you have to do is submit a favourable research proposal.

Quote
They are part of a government that has repeatedly lied to its Citizens and it's part of a government that probably recently murdered 3000 of its Citizens.

Even if that were true (and I strongly disagree), you don't get to apply guilt by association. People in NASA are guilty of lying only if you can demonstrate that they lied. You don't get to accuse all NASA employees of being liars just because, in your opinion, people in some other government agency lied about something. Otherwise, by your standard, your heroes Taguba and Fallon are also liars by virtue of being government employees.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 04, 2015, 09:46:00 AM
Quote
You got no proof.

Neither do you.

Your insistence that there is no proof of anything is known in philosophy as solipsism. Basically, I cannot prove to you that I exist, or even that anything outside your own mind is real ("I think, therefore I am", or perhaps "you think, therefore you are"). Every teenager comes up with this idea (I certainly did) and it is indeed impossible to refute.

But it is also not a very useful way to live your life.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on September 04, 2015, 09:52:55 AM
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

I think no one has pointed it out yet, this requires the cooperation of (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_visitors ) and that's just the nations that had their own Astronauts on the ISS

 Russia    
 Japan    
 Canada    
 Italy    
 France    
 Germany    
 Belgium    
 Netherlands    
 Sweden    
 Brazil    
 Malaysia    
 South Africa    
 South Korea    
 Spain    
.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 09:55:09 AM
Quote
You got no proof.

Neither do you.

Your insistence that there is no proof of anything is known in philosophy as solipsism. ....

I missed Neil's response quoted here, so I'll repeat, for the third time, I think -

"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"

For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 10:32:38 AM
I missed Neil's response quoted here, so I'll repeat, for the third time, I think -

"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"

For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....
For him to accept any proof that Apollo missions were flown as described would remove his blanket of security that the US Government is by enlarge lying to the general population.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 10:37:34 AM
I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

I think no one has pointed it out yet, this requires the cooperation of (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_visitors ) and that's just the nations that had their own Astronauts on the ISS

 Russia    
 Japan    
 Canada    
 Italy    
 France    
 Germany    
 Belgium    
 Netherlands    
 Sweden    
 Brazil    
 Malaysia    
 South Africa    
 South Korea    
 Spain    
.

Denmark (as of today)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 04, 2015, 11:23:46 AM
I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable.

That can be easily disproved with your hallowed 'scientific method'. Observe it for yourself. Time it crossing the sky, and calculate its velocity for yourself. I showed you how to do this earlier here, and in the YouTube thread.

You'll come up with a figure faster than a cruising 747. Inflatable? Harumph.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that Neil thinks the ISS is an inflatable that's in space.  This would means that it orbits at the same speed as the real ISS.  It's just not a real functioning space station.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 11:26:06 AM
I think no one has pointed it out yet, this requires the cooperation of (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Space_Station_visitors ) and that's just the nations that had their own Astronauts on the ISS

 Russia    
 Japan    
 Canada    
 Italy    
 France    
 Germany    
 Belgium    
 Netherlands    
 Sweden    
 Brazil    
 Malaysia    
 South Africa    
 South Korea    
 Spain    
.

You could argue that Michael Foale counts as half for Britain  ::) I think you are correct, no one has pointed out that it would require the cooperation of several hundred astronauts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on September 04, 2015, 11:40:22 AM
You could argue that Michael Foale counts as half for Britain...
As does Mark Shuttleworth, both with dual nationality, and possibly UK-born but now US citizens Piers Sellars and Nicholas Patrick.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:13:22 PM

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
Who else but Americans matter?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 12:16:45 PM

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
Who else but Americans matter?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

I really hope you're kidding.

And you pretty avoid answering every question I pose to you, both here and in YouTube, so how is that different from you 'ignoring' me based on my nationality?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:18:30 PM
So when is a vacuum good enough?

Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 04, 2015, 12:20:08 PM

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
Who else but Americans matter?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

Seek help, dude.  Seriously, seek help.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 12:21:11 PM

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
Who else but Americans matter?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

Why? You ignore every single argument put to you anyway, regardless of the posters nationality.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 04, 2015, 12:23:19 PM
Oh, Neil.  All that effort I put into explaining why each piece of evidence stands on its own merits and can't be handwaved away, and now, you're handwaving away anyone who isn't an American.  Charming.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 04, 2015, 12:24:42 PM
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.

Why do you think a pressure that low is necessary to test a sublimator?  Pressure just needs to be below the triple point for sublimation to occur.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 12:25:57 PM
Who else but Americans matter?
Everyone else. Americans represent 5% of humanity, are an abject minority and have to rent seats on Russian spacecraft just to put men in orbit. This is not a slur on Americans, though. It is a slur on Luddites like yourself who do everything in their power to drag all of America down to your level of ignorance.

Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
Lovely. Everyone in the other 95% of the world is thought controlled by the CIA. You will shortly be presenting evidence for this, no?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 12:27:00 PM
You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

I'm from Oompa loompa. I was driven from my home by the Wangdoodles during the Great Loompa War. The CIA covertly armed the Wangdoodles with potato guns. I saw my family sprayed with potato bullets during a raid by Wangdoodle rebels. I sought asylum in Never Never Land and joined Peter Pan's gang. Does this citizenship preclude me from you stonewalling me? And there were you complaining about being ignored.

Now, I'm still unsure why the fearless sublimator needs testing to ensure it will cool an astronaut. Care to explain.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:27:53 PM

"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"

For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....

Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Proof can render worthless even the biggest mountain of evidence.
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs to, the worst, it's already been proven--plenty of video shows the suits operating in the environment they were designed for. Duh.

Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 12:28:05 PM
Looks like a meltdown is in the making.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 12:29:10 PM
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:30:02 PM

Who else but Americans matter?
I am an American but this comment is so arrogant, it goes beyond belief.
Quote

Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?
No have such a narrow focus on life in general.  The world does not revolve around the US.  Open up to the accomplishments of the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 12:32:42 PM
I'm no Galileo....

Finally, something we can both agree on. So, you've now invoked the Galileo complex. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 04, 2015, 12:33:09 PM
Galileo wasn't American, either...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 04, 2015, 12:33:14 PM
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.

Quote
proof

/pro͞of/

noun

noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

1.   evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Proof is evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:33:41 PM
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.

Why do you think a pressure that low is necessary to test a sublimator?  Pressure just needs to be below the triple point for sublimation to occur.

If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 12:34:18 PM
So when is a vacuum good enough?

Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.
Chamber B. You don't even know what that is, do you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 04, 2015, 12:35:16 PM
"Something bad happened"

You've already had it explained that sublimator failure is not catastrophic.  How exactly would there be a "cascaded failures" of "other systems" (which?) leading to death?!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:35:39 PM
Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:36:14 PM

Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Proof can render worthless even the biggest mountain of evidence.
According to only you apparently.
Quote

The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
As has been pointed out to you and you are clearly not understanding, there is NO ANOMALY .
Quote

Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs to, the worst, it's already been proven--plenty of video shows the suits operating in the environment they were designed for. Duh.

Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
NASA has demonstrated that space suits with sublimators work, you choose to ignore the facts.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 12:36:51 PM
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

Oh for the love of... go and look at a phase diagram for water to see how absurdly incorrect you are. This has to be the most ignorant example of pseudo-physics that I have every seen. You don't get to wave hands and make stuff up.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 04, 2015, 12:38:21 PM
The Galileo comparison fails for two reasons:

1: Galileo's observations were not questioned, only his conclusions.

2: Galileo was also known for refusing to let many of his detractors look through his telescope, dismissing them as ignorant fools who would not understand the significance of what they saw anyway.

The proof argument fails for reasons already stated: the vacuum chamber test proves only that the suit works, not that it was ever used in space. There is no logical argument that if it works on Earth it was ever used anywhere else.

And the comment about only Americans matter is pretty much beyond belief. The US is a relatively young nation. I wonder how far he'd have to trace his family tree to find his almost certainly European origins...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 04, 2015, 12:38:54 PM
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

Oh for the love of... go and look at a phase diagram for water to see how absurdly incorrect you are. This has to be the most ignorant example of pseudo-physics that I have every seen. You don't get to wave hands and make stuff up.

It actually made me wince...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on September 04, 2015, 12:39:11 PM
Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

I have no idea what that means. How do you achieve proof without evidence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 12:42:04 PM
Neil, what is the difference between a fairly good vacuum as can be created here on Earth and the vacuum of space?  What forces are noticeably different? And how much different?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 12:44:31 PM
If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
Sure. They did. and your point is ...what?

So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money.
Speculation devoid of evidence and thus dismissed because Chamber B 10-6 torr.

When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Fantasy. Sublimator failure would only cause discomfort.

Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.
Which they did. You simply ignore that fact. That makes you ignorant of the facts. Quelle surprise.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on September 04, 2015, 12:44:41 PM

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?
Who else but Americans matter?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on September 04, 2015, 12:44:44 PM
Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

Convincing evidence is proof.  Your proposed vacuum chamber test is not proof, it is just more evidence.  It just happens to be the evidence that would convince you that the sublimators work.  The rest of the engineering world is convinced by the evidence that already exists.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:44:49 PM
Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

Evidence builds a base for theories to be validated into proofs.  Get you head of your posterior.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 12:46:10 PM
Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.
Why would you say that since you have no evidence at all, let alone proof?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:46:15 PM

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?
Neil does not speak for me.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 12:50:04 PM

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?
Neil does not speak for me.
Sure. But he thinks he does.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:54:19 PM

Sure. But he thinks he does.
That belief makes America not appreciated in many minds of the rest of the world.  I have travelled on my job and many asinine activities of the US are looked at with humor by the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 12:55:16 PM
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.

I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 12:56:47 PM
Who else but Americans matter?

Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

And in the same breath he posts this:

I'm not an anti-Semite, Nazi, skin-head or racist. If they appeared I would expect you to ban them.
::) ::) ::) ::)

(http://capreform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/crystal_ball.jpg)

I'm seeing a ban or a flounce in your short-term future Mr Baker.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 12:59:06 PM
(http://capreform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/crystal_ball.jpg)

I'm seeing a ban or a flounce in your short-term future Mr Baker.....

Hasn't that already occurred several times in this thread?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 01:00:25 PM

I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense


The ever-growing list of things that you are ignorant of gets another addition.


I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.

Says the guy that has steadfastly refused acknowledge the evidence put under his nose.

Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.

Says the guy that retreats into solipism in an attempt to handwave away evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 04, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
While I realize the likely outcome of this...

Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 04, 2015, 01:06:30 PM
Neil, please stop using words and concepts you don't understand - especially around those of us who do.  It's most vexing.  ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 01:06:57 PM
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.

I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.

Which controversy is that? The one in your head?  The world as a whole has no controversy with the Apollo moon programme - or any space endeavour for that matter. You aren'tusing any kind of scientific method - just by waving your arms and saying "It could be faked" is in no way scientific. Also, looking away from the already performed tests and practical applications of the unit you have chosen as your sacrifical lamb, is in no way scientific. It is more superstition. And wishful thinking. And plain old stupidity. How can you even think somebody will take your seriously about your 911-claims when they read about this nonsense?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 01:08:47 PM
Neil, what is the difference between a fairly good vacuum as can be created here on Earth and the vacuum of space?  What forces are noticeably different? And how much different?

Neil - can you answer this?

No? I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 01:13:44 PM
I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.

Phase diagrams are not subjective metaphysics, they are quantitative physics. I asked you to look at one to demonstrate to yourself how ludicrous your position is regarding the vacuum regime and the effects of the lowering of pressure on sublimation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 01:16:00 PM
While I realize the likely outcome of this...

Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?

Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 04, 2015, 01:16:34 PM
Proof is evidence.

But is evidence proof?
Never.

Wrong.

Evidence is always proof. The more of it, the more certain it is.

I am firmly convinced that you have a serious mental illness. I am further convinced that your mental illness makes you a danger to others.

I am even further convinced that you are not an engineer, nor have you ever had any service in the military. Solely because of your own statements on this forum, I am absolutely and totally convinced that any documentation of your claim to have a degree or any education in engineering, or any presentation of a DD-214 would be forged. It is impossible for you to prove this to my satisfaction.

You are willfully, intentionally, and pathologically a liar. Your opinions are worthless when compared to documented and verified evidence.

You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 01:20:08 PM
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.

Solipsist.  You were convicted on an accumulation of evidence that was not tantamount to proof, but simply an accumulation beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.

And it has been belabored for nearly 70 pages that your proposal is unnecessary, unreasonable, capricious, immoral, burdensome, and non-probative under your own standards of proof.  Your only putative reason for suggesting Apollo was hoaxed is your uninformed, denialist obsession over a well-understood chunk of metal no larger than a carton of cigarettes.  Your stated reason for it is your ongoing crusade over an irrelevant conspiracy theory, in which you hope to vindicate your ego.  None of that creates any sort of legitimate controversy.

Quote
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.

Not an anomaly, but a condition that exists solely in your imagination.

Quote
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs...

You misrepresent the morality argument and sidestep the cost argument.  They do not go away simply because you don't feel like looking at them.  In fact the cost argument was your affirmative claim.  You say the costs associated with your proposed inspection would be so minimal as to fail as a reasonable objection to your proposal.  Yet when those actual costs are shown to you, you go stubbornly silent.  This is because you are willfully ignorant of what your test entails.

Nothing in your argument remotely satisfies the scientific method.  On the contrary, you have completely ignored contrary evidence produced according to the scientific method and accepted as such by the scientific community, with no justification beyond "I don't believe it."  You may allude to the capitalized "Scientific Method" all you want and beg the notion that your test is required by it.  But none of your argumentation here is even remotely compatible with scientific methodology.  Specifically, you do not get to claim that tests you do not personally witness are, by that factor, globally scientifically invalid.

Quote
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo...

Expressly not.  You've been invited to perform exactly the same observation regarding current space operations and you refuse.  You are the anti-Galileo.  If we are to apply your methods to Galileo, his critics would simply say the Jovian moons must all be balloons.

Quote
but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.

Repeating your proposal ad nauseam does not negate the prior 70 pages.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 01:22:18 PM
Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.

No, this is just pseudo-philosophy handwaving.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 04, 2015, 01:32:33 PM
To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.

I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.

The Scientific Method can be applied to your own observations of the ISS to determine whether or not it's an 'inflatable'. Then you will KNOW something about it.

I detailed the method earlier, but there's no sign of you being willing to adopt it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Neil Baker on September 04, 2015, 01:34:06 PM

You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.

I have been. Twice.
The first time for inciting a strike demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation and the second time for breaking a window demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation.
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
I don't think most could pass the test.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 01:37:16 PM
This thread follows the same pattern as most CT threads.  What at first sight is an innocent discussion becomes a gish gallop of contradicting statements, spirals into the bizarre, insults are passed. the ignored ones become sarcastic, extreme views are expressed, challenges are made to LO (at announcements thread) as though the OP is demanding a ban to escape.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 01:38:37 PM
I have been. Twice.
...
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.

This claim is inconsistent.

Quote
I don't think most could pass the test.

No, this is not another case of "Everyone is like me."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 01:41:36 PM
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"

Pass on the address, I'll point him/her in the direction of this thread and I'm sure he/she will upgrade the assessment in bold.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 01:47:31 PM

You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.

I have been. Twice.
The first time for inciting a strike demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation and the second time for breaking a window demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation.
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
I don't think most could pass the test.

We only  have your own opinion for your sanity. Your words seem to indicate a serious disturbance. Can you produce the documents which attest to your sanity?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 01:50:23 PM
I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense
Yet we seem to be discovering the multitudinous things you know nothing about. Like everything.

but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
But once you invoke the scientific method one has to be prepared to acknowledge that one might very well be flat out wrong.

You seem not to have understood this.

The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Yes. All the evidence says it happened and none says it did not. Where does that leave you?

Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.
Nope. You have been provided with the videos and photos and technical papers on the internet which you claim do not exist on the internet. You have demonstrated and admitted that you are utterly useless at finding anything on the internet and have even plaintively asked "How did you find that?" Whaen you have been taken to task.

Furthermore, you have ignored moderators directives which is why you are now on "watched" status. You somehow came up with the crackpot notion that I am a mod here out of fat air.

ETA: Now further uprated to "Moderated Status". That takes some serious effort here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 04, 2015, 01:53:10 PM
While I realize the likely outcome of this...

Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?

Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.

I'll for a moment ignore the utter uselessness of that answer and just follow with the next logical question: if you see a piece of information, how do you know if it is evidence or proof?

(I'll also ignore that this definition you just gave has nothing in common with everyone else's definition of 'evidence' and 'proof', since I did ask "in your world").
Title: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on September 04, 2015, 01:57:34 PM

BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds.  The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds.  I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.

I'm all ears or all eyes. Can you describe it?

Off topic, but since I'm heading you off at the pass in linking the ebil gubbiment killing JFK, Jr. and somehow linking that to non-existent conspiracies about Apollo being faked, 9/11 being a US Government Job, and the Holocaust not being real, I'll tell you. 

IMPORTANT SAFETY NOTE:  Do NOT do this by yourself and only do this under daytime visual conditions with a qualified instructor.   

All you need to do is set up the airplane in normal cruise.  Put the airplane in a coordinated two minute turn.  Now stare at your left or right foot, preferably with a view limiting device.  This simulates trying to fly the airplane with no visual cues, such as looking out the window on a dark, moonless night with no visible horizon.  Maintain the two minute turn using your vestibular and kinesthetic senses.  Most people will be in a descending, accelerating 50 degree bank within 270 degrees of turn.  You can start from straight and level, but it takes a little longer for events to unfold. 

That's how JFK, Jr. flew a PA32 into the ocean.
ETA and back on subject:  If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell.  But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.

Did my logic actually say that? I thought we agreed not to fly into the thunderstorm.

Why, yes, your logic says that.  The only way of knowing something works is to do it yourself (astronaut needs to go into a vacuum chamber in a full suit to prove it works).

Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue.  But take icing as an example.  I have flown  light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing".  I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum.  Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions.  Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress).  Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole.  Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.
So you actually wanted icing because you were trained to deal with it? If you had gotten icing and dealt with it, would you have more or less confidence the next time you got it?  If you could simulate icing under controlled conditions and train your students under those conditions, would you do so?

No, I didn't want icing (unlike the NASA test pilots in the Twin Otter).   I was saying that I was confident in the aircraft and its systems along with my skills to handle it.  BTW, I would never linger in icing conditions (and neither do 747's). 

I simulate icing very easily with my students.  I say, while they're in simulated IMC, "OK, I see [rime/clear/mixed] ice forming on the leading edge of the wing - what are you going to do about it?"  I want to see if the training kicks in, depending on what I "saw".  No need to risk my student, myself, or the aircraft by actually getting ice.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 02:01:57 PM

I have been. Twice.
Does this self admitted fact not give you pause for thought?

I have neither ever been committed, nor have I ever even been assessed.

This is a direct consequence of the fact that I am not bat plop bonkers.

My worst offence is a parking ticket.

Does this not make you pause and think? Obviously not.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 04, 2015, 02:11:59 PM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

Since you are supposedly an engineer, I believe you should be held to a higher standard then the typical hoax believer that usually has little understanding of engineering or science. You wanting to wave this report off as possibly fake is not good enough. Read through it and bring forth points that you can prove are inconsistent or outright faulty. Otherwise retract your claim as anybody with a proper moral standard would willingly do. 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 02:27:06 PM

Returned from where? And how do you know from where they were returned?
Well flight and telemetry data indicate the vehicle travelled to the Moon and landed, three times if you read the article, took images of the surrounding area and sample the soil strength leading to manned landings on the Moon.  Then Apollo 12 followed some three years later.  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/
As witnesses, I have no particular names but several including myself watched the Saturn V lift the craft into LEO.  The mission included a more precise landing than A11, which was accomplished near the Surveyor crater.  Images came be found at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html.  Pete and Alan used their sublimators on two EVA's, one to the Surveyor 3 site, at which photos were taken.  Upon lift off  Intrepid rendezvous with Yankee Clipper rock samples and Surveyor parts are transferred to the CSM.   The CSM returns to the earth where the samples end up at JSC. You may view all the flight paths of the mission, the images and the transcripts all at the linked site.

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

Since you are supposedly an engineer, I believe you should be held to a higher standard then the typical hoax believer that usually has little understanding of engineering or science. You wanting to wave this report off as possibly fake is not good enough. Read through it and bring forth points that you can prove are inconsistent or outright faulty. Otherwise retract your claim as anybody with a proper moral standard would willingly do. 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
One would think that was reasonable. Sadly that ship has sailed long since. Neil has been presented with copious rebuttals for at least a decade, yet he stubbornly clings to his nonsense like a child's security blanket.

I have not much more for him before it descends into outright mockery. He has had his chance to present his case, and more chances, and more chances after that. He has failed at every step. Cranks will insist upon being cranks.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 02:36:49 PM
I'm guessing people are aware, but he is under moderation now. A few of us have shown some mean spirits, me included, but I believe that comes with the heat of debate. May I suggest that we wait to see whether future posts make their way through moderation before adding to the thread, as continuing to post is a bit like beating on the small kid once he has been kicked to the floor.  I think this approach also paints us in a better light.

It also gives Neil a little chance to work out the reason for his moderation and for LO to explain why, as LO was using Tapatalk when he was moderated. Further, there is the small possibility that Neil might read through the thread while waiting for moderated posts to be published, and this gives him chance to present new material.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 02:39:19 PM

Since you are supposedly an engineer, I believe you should be held to a higher standard then the typical hoax believer that usually has little understanding of engineering or science. You wanting to wave this report off as possibly fake is not good enough. Read through it and bring forth points that you can prove are inconsistent or outright faulty. Otherwise retract your claim as anybody with a proper moral standard would willingly do. 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf

After reading the report I find on page 20:
Quote
Micrometeorite Impact Analyses
A major effort in the analysis of Surveyor 3
parts has been the search for hypervelocity impact
features-an effort roughly analogous to
the search for the needle in the haystack. A great
number of low-velocity features exist that were
caused by lunar particles striking the surfaces
due to Surveyor and Apollo landing events,
handling of the material, and natural phenomena.
The 1- to 4.5-pm size of the surface
features prohibited the effective use of optical
instruments. However, all participating investigators
concluded that no material or surface
features were found that definitely could be
stated to be meteoritic in origin. Consequently,
determinations of the flux rate of hypervelocity
particles at the Surveyor 3 site were based on the
absence of diagnostic features; as such, the flux
rates represent upper limits only. In each instance,
the determinations were in general agreement
with those obtained from Pioneers 8 and 9,
Cosmos 163, Pegasus satellites, and others.
Perhaps Jay may discuss the flux rate of hypervelocity micrometeorite the Lunar surface that was expected prior to the mission.  I also find it interesting that evidence of impacts from the descent stage about 145m from the landing site.  Maybe the lower elevation "allowed" the regolith to travel that far.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 02:40:02 PM
I'm guessing people are aware, but he is under moderation now. A few of us have shown some mean spirits, me included, but I believe that comes with the heat of debate. May I suggest that we wait to see whether future posts make their way through moderation before adding to the thread, as continuing to post is a bit like beating on the small kid once he has been kicked to the floor.  I think this approach also paints us in a better light.

It also gives Neil a little chance to work out the reason for his moderation and for LO to explain why, as LO was using Tapatalk when he was moderated. Further, there is the small possibility that Neil might read through the thread while waiting for moderated posts to be published, and this gives him chance to present new material.
Good thought.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on September 04, 2015, 02:54:25 PM
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
There is no controversy among people who actually understand the subject.  You manifestly don't, yet you prattle on about it despite injunctions against doing so by the very same code of ethics you quoted from for your own argument. 

Nor do you understand the scientific method.  Peer review and duplication of Apollo technologies and findings have been going on for half a century.  You are simply too clueless to understand it; worse, you actively avoid the explanations and evidences - which are just the tip of a very large iceberg indeed - which other people have served up to you, while you wave your arms about "accountability".   Hilarious.

Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.

My assessment of the steaming pile of handwaving ineptitude you advance as "scientific" and "honest" is based on nothing more than engineering knowledge you lack and basic logical analysis.  I'd say you failed the peer review, but you are not my peer.  You have no idea idea what you are talking about, but in the words of Hank Hill, just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep on talking.

Your utter, self-absorbed cluelessness is neatly summed up by the "scientific" experiment you insist would prove things one way or other, but in isolation would neither absolutely confirm or deny the entire Apollo record no matter which way it came out.  Jason, Jay, and probably others have already indicated this, but it bears repeating.  Can you figure out why?  Others can.  But then again, they know what they are talking about.  You don't, and you are clearly determined to remain that way.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 04, 2015, 03:02:24 PM
I'm guessing people are aware, but he is under moderation now. A few of us have shown some mean spirits, me included, but I believe that comes with the heat of debate. May I suggest that we wait to see whether future posts make their way through moderation before adding to the thread, as continuing to post is a bit like beating on the small kid once he has been kicked to the floor.  I think this approach also paints us in a better light.

It also gives Neil a little chance to work out the reason for his moderation and for LO to explain why, as LO was using Tapatalk when he was moderated. Further, there is the small possibility that Neil might read through the thread while waiting for moderated posts to be published, and this gives him chance to present new material.
I have little sympathy. Neil chose quite intentionally to paint himself into a corner of crankery. It was inevitable that he would end up on moderation, but it is a situation entirely of his own creation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 04, 2015, 03:11:27 PM
Two things.

One, correct me if I'm wrong (unless you're Neil, who might weigh in with his own interpretation but whose assessment I'm not really interested in at this point), but doesn't the scientific method work on the preponderance of evidence and basically reject the concept of "proof" entirely?  As in, a pivotal aspect of the scientific method is that you can always be wrong?  That it takes a single test to show that anyone might be wrong, because it's always possible?  So isn't asking for proof in and of itself a rejection of the scientific method?

Two, I had a long talk with my therapist the other day about why I haven't ever been committed and how it's detrimental to my actually getting help for my illness.  If I had been, however, that wouldn't make any statements of fact I made more or less true.  It is reasonable to find fault with someone's processes of reasoning, and I certainly wouldn't want to deny that it appears there are mental health issues involved here.  I would just like everyone to remember that those of us who are mentally ill suffer under considerable stigma already, and it's in no small part because people think our thinking is this particular kind of delusional.  However, it's only symptomatic of a very few specific illnesses and not all of us.  It is also not a bad thing in and of itself to need medication, and indeed at least one of the most dangerous conditions I can think of cannot be medicated, because no medication treats it.  The goal of medication is to prevent things like delusions, so saying someone is medicated is, perhaps ironically, a way of crediting the reasonability of their thinking.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: twik on September 04, 2015, 03:11:56 PM
While I realize the likely outcome of this...

Neil, would you please explain what, in your world, "proof" means? What is your definition of proof? How does it differ from evidence?

Proof is truth.
Evidence is belief.

This makes no sense, or displays a very poor knowledge of word meanings.

Something can be absolutely true, and yet not proved. (I had a cheese sandwich for supper last night. True, but what proof is there?)

Evidence has nothing to do with "belief". Evidence is the body of facts (individual pieces of "truth") that go towards proving something.

I think Neil's thesis is that if something is "true" (in his eyes), then it is, in his definition, "proved". No evidence is required, because he *knows* it to be true. Evidence, that annoying collection of facts that don't fit in his truth, does not appeal to him.

This is the very definition of "faith-based," but Neil will reject the idea, because it is not true to him, and therefore he will consider it proven wrong.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 03:15:29 PM

This makes no sense, or displays a very poor knowledge of word meanings.

Something can be absolutely true, and yet not proved. (I had a cheese sandwich for supper last night. True, but what proof is there?)

Evidence has nothing to do with "belief". Evidence is the body of facts (individual pieces of "truth") that go towards proving something.

I think Neil's thesis is that if something is "true" (in his eyes), then it is, in his definition, "proved". No evidence is required, because he *knows* it to be true. Evidence, that annoying collection of facts that don't fit in his truth, does not appeal to him.

This is the very definition of "faith-based," but Neil will reject the idea, because it is not true to him, and therefore he will consider it proven wrong.
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating?  If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 04, 2015, 03:23:28 PM
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating?  If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)
I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on September 04, 2015, 03:44:18 PM
Gillianren

Re your first point - yes, and I did say way upthread that proof are only for mathematicians (but was ignored).

Re your second point - I absolutely agree.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on September 04, 2015, 03:57:53 PM
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating?  If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)
I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!

There is a hole in that theory.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 04, 2015, 04:05:00 PM
Did you or was the cheese tested prior to eating?  If you don't have video proof, I don't believe this story. ::)
I'd like to confirm these statements, but NASA rejected my proposal to test grilled cheese in a vacuum chamber. They didn't even care whether it was cheddar or swiss. Conspiracy proved!

There is a hole in that theory.


Groan   :P :P ;D ;D


This thread follows the same pattern as most CT threads.  What at first sight is an innocent discussion becomes a gish gallop of contradicting statements, spirals into the bizarre, insults are passed. the ignored ones become sarcastic, extreme views are expressed, challenges are made to LO (at announcements thread) as though the OP is demanding a ban to escape.
Yep...the inevitable is either a ban, a flounce or an implosion. Baker is fishing for a ban- then eh can justify it in his head that Apollohoax couldn't contain his truth and he had to be banned.
Truly, the hoaxie's mind must be a strange place!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 04, 2015, 04:30:34 PM
Neil Baker. Direct Question. By your non-standard definitions of evidence and and proof, how would one convince anyone of any event they did not personally witness? A judge, jury, and prosecuting attorney would all have to be at the scene of the crime, as it happened in order, to convict by your seeming standards. Now, I get you don't exactly have the best relationship with the US criminal justice system, but I hope you can see the absurdity of that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 04, 2015, 04:31:52 PM
From "Project Apollo" on Facebook:


Quote
September 4, 1968....Three United States Air Force officers (Majors Alfred Davidson, Turnage Lindsey & Lloyd Reeder) assigned to the Flight Crew Suport Division at NASA's Johnson Space Center begin the final manned test of the Command Module in a vacuum chamber that would last 125 hours. They would simulate living conditions in the CM, depressurize/repressurize the crew compartment, simulate an EVA and more importantly test the new lightweight hatch redesigned after the Apollo 1 fire

Maybe they used the sublimator on the spacesuits during their EVAs?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on September 04, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
Neil, I dont want to alarm you, but there may be a boogey man or boogey men in your house!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on September 04, 2015, 04:54:30 PM

You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.

I have been. Twice.


Shocker, that. Chin up, third time's a charm...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: beedarko on September 04, 2015, 05:19:14 PM
I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.

To the satisfaction of all hoax believers, or you alone?

By your estimation, what percentage of HB's know what a sublimator is?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 04, 2015, 05:32:15 PM

You should be forcibly committed to a mental institution.

I have been. Twice.
The first time for inciting a strike demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation and the second time for breaking a window demanding an Independent, fully funded and fully empowered 9-11 Investigation.
I've been evaluated by four psychiatrists and two psychologists.
All reached the same diagnosis, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required medication.
One of the psychiatrist's reports stated that he thought I was a bit narcissistic but then added, "but these days, who isn't?"
I don't think most could pass the test.

Someone was being utterly and totally negligent in letting you out. Either time.

You should be committed permanently, because you are a danger to others.

I notice you completely and totally ignored the rest of what I wrote, to focus on that which your fragile psyche could handle. I'll post it again so you'll be sure to see it. And if that doesn't work, I'll keep posting it until you do.


I am firmly convinced that you have a serious mental illness. I am further convinced that your mental illness makes you a danger to others.

I am even further convinced that you are not an engineer, nor have you ever had any service in the military. Solely because of your own statements on this forum, I am absolutely and totally convinced that any documentation of your claim to have a degree or any education in engineering, or any presentation of a DD-214 would be forged. It is impossible for you to prove this to my satisfaction.

You are willfully, intentionally, and pathologically a liar. Your opinions are worthless when compared to documented and verified evidence.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Count Zero on September 04, 2015, 05:51:57 PM
It is also not a bad thing in and of itself to need medication...  The goal of medication is to prevent things like delusions, so saying someone is medicated is, perhaps ironically, a way of crediting the reasonability of their thinking.

This reminds me of every old movie/TV show/cartoon that depicted a person wearing thick glasses as having difficulty seeing.  If the prescription is right, they should see just fine.

(http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/John-Young-glasses-400.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 06:02:21 PM
I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.

To the satisfaction of all hoax believers, or you alone?

By your estimation, what percentage of HB's know what a sublimator is?
My guess would be not very many.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: VQ on September 04, 2015, 07:25:53 PM
Who else but Americans matter?

Troll.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: sts60 on September 04, 2015, 07:39:02 PM
This reminds me of every old movie/TV show/cartoon that depicted a person wearing thick glasses as having difficulty seeing.  If the prescription is right, they should see just fine.

(http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com/legacy_blog/John-Young-glasses-400.jpg)
Met him while working at Hangar S (where Mercury spacecraft and their crews had been prepared for flight).  Sat in that seat (well, its successor) while stacked at 39B. Used to work for one of his CAPCOMs on that flight.

OK, now I'm just being a jerk.  But it's one way to pass the time waiting for Mr. Baker to again speak ex cathedra about how spaceflight is supposed to work and tell everyone else they are taking everything on blind faith.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 04, 2015, 07:47:22 PM
OK, now I'm just being a jerk.

I could always tell you about going inside the Apollo 9 CM before it was moved to San Diego.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:47:31 PM
Rather like vultures circling overhead for the final moment!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 04, 2015, 07:54:08 PM
OK, now I'm just being a jerk.

I could always tell you about going inside the Apollo 9 CM before it was moved to San Diego.

I did post a question for you
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=945.msg32519;quote=32519
If you want to take it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 04, 2015, 08:01:19 PM
Sat in that seat (well, its successor) while stacked at 39B. Used to work for one of his CAPCOMs on that flight.

I could always tell you about going inside the Apollo 9 CM before it was moved to San Diego.

Yeah, erm... OK... I'll fold.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 04, 2015, 08:14:37 PM
Let's all stop with the accusations of mental illness etc., please. I'm not so much concerned with hurting Neil's feelings, since I doubt he has any, but for the sake of others let's just keep that kind of discussion to a minimum. Thanks.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 04, 2015, 08:33:59 PM
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them.

Would you like us to tattoo our national/religious emblems on our arms to make it easier for you? Do you know who else requested that?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on September 04, 2015, 09:38:40 PM
Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them.

Would you like us to tattoo our national/religious emblems on our arms to make it easier for you? Do you know who else requested that?

Except in his case it he didn't request it, it was compulsory.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 04, 2015, 10:46:53 PM
Fortunately Neil is not in a position to impose his wishes on others.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on September 04, 2015, 10:50:32 PM
Fortunately Neil is not in a position to impose his wishes on others.

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk

Amen to that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 05, 2015, 12:31:11 AM
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.

Ahh, excellent!! The Galileo Gambit!

I wondered how long it would be before you dragged up that old chestnut.

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.
 -- Robert Park

... let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.

Actually, you do have a valid point. The space program is to a very large part faith based.

Astronauts place a lot of faith in the skills and knowledge of the engineers who conceive, design, build and test all the complex systems and components of the spacecraft in which they fly. In fact, they trust these people with their very lives. Just like any other endeavour in which people are involved, everyone has faith and trust in those around them that they will do their jobs properly. In all my 20 years in the Air Force, I trusted my fellow engineers and technicians to do the things they needed to do.

My extensive military experience is one of the reasons why I am very suspicious regarding your claims to be ex-military and a qualified engineer. A person with your obvious attitude problems would not fit into a team environment. i.e., you don't strike me as a "team player". Being in the military requires teamwork and co-operation,  its an essential part of everyday military life. Loners like you don't fit the requirements; you would be rapidly weeded out in basic training
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 05, 2015, 01:30:38 AM
So when is a vacuum good enough?

Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.

Complete missing-the-point non answer.

You've asked for tests/demonstrations that the sublimator works. What degree of vacuum is sufficient for that? Do you believe that a sublimator (which only works in vacuum in the first place) cares about how hard the vacuum is? You do realize that an astronaut at twenty miles up would be just as dead if their pressure suit failed, right?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 05, 2015, 01:37:16 AM
Pressure at Low Earth Orbit is high vacuum at about 1x10-6 Torr.

Why do you think a pressure that low is necessary to test a sublimator?  Pressure just needs to be below the triple point for sublimation to occur.

If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

So, magic.

Why aren't you demanding the radios be tested on the Moon first? We understand perfectly well how radios work on Earth, and by the time of Apollo 11 they'd been tested in space, but SOMETHING unpredictable might happen on the Moon. And since your SOMETHING unpredictable with the sublimator results in death of the astronaut (something that would not occur with any ordinary failure of the device) then you obviously aren't ruling out the pressure suit catching fire or the radio electrocuting the astronaut or the spacecraft suddenly going faster than light and passing through a wormhole to a savage planet inhabited only by intelligent dinosaurs. Until you've tested the radio in the exact conditions of flight.

And why stop there? The zipper could do ANYTHING. Even the ballpoint pen might do something completely unexpected, unpredicted, and swiftly deadly.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 05, 2015, 06:52:31 AM
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

I expect it will be operated in space, so maybe I'll arrange a test of the system in space. Maybe I'll arrange a test that involves one of the crew putting on the PLSS, opening the hatch and standing outside the spacecraft in orbit, tethered, while his buddy inside the spacecraft has his suit connected up to the spacecraft cooling system. That way, if the PLSS fails and the guy outside is gets into difficulty, the guy inside can pull him back in, close the hatch and repressurise, saving his buddy's life.

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Anyone know of any mission where this might have been done, perhaps one that has already been mentioned in this very thread?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 05, 2015, 07:31:05 AM

I expect it will be operated in space, so maybe I'll arrange a test of the system in space. Maybe I'll arrange a test that involves one of the crew putting on the PLSS, opening the hatch and standing outside the spacecraft in orbit, tethered, while his buddy inside the spacecraft has his suit connected up to the spacecraft cooling system. That way, if the PLSS fails and the guy outside is gets into difficulty, the guy inside can pull him back in, close the hatch and repressurise, saving his buddy's life.

Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Anyone know of any mission where this might have been done, perhaps one that has already been mentioned in this very thread?
Many times to point of nausea.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 05, 2015, 09:01:33 AM
Look at it this way: at least Mr Baker has gone a step above Turbonium's insistence on testing the LM by landing on the Earth. At least the sublimator test would be a test in the sort of environment in which it would be operated...

(I know, I know...)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Count Zero on September 05, 2015, 12:41:18 PM
He's better than Turbonium?  Wow, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.  [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 05, 2015, 12:49:47 PM
Look at it this way: at least Mr Baker has gone a step above Turbonium's insistence on testing the LM by landing on the Earth. At least the sublimator test would be a test in the sort of environment in which it would be operated...

(I know, I know...)
He's better than Turbonium?  Wow, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.  [/sarcasm]

I wished I had been around during the go-go days of the hoax. >:(
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 05, 2015, 01:32:22 PM
Forcibly committed twice you say? Ah, well...third time lucky!
:-)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 05, 2015, 02:00:21 PM
Forcibly committed twice you say? Ah, well...third time lucky!
:-)
Oy, LO already said to knock off the mental health cracks. Plenty of us here either have issues, so, please, out of respect for the rest of us, if not Neil Baker, lay off, please.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 06, 2015, 03:03:05 AM
I wonder if Mr Baker is aware that the LM (and some other spacecraft) also use sublimators for cooling.  Of course, he probably thinks they are inflatable dummies as well, with no real documentation.  And some are from other countries, which also don't count apparently.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 06, 2015, 09:28:31 AM
I wonder if Mr Baker is aware that the LM (and some other spacecraft) also use sublimators for cooling. 
Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 06, 2015, 09:36:08 AM

Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.
But were they tested in a vacuum chamber and videoed?


I KNOW   I KNOW :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 06, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
I wonder if Mr Baker is aware that the LM (and some other spacecraft) also use sublimators for cooling. 
Like the CSM. Radiators were primary, but water boilers were backup. Not sure why they weren't called "sublimators" but the overall phase change (liquid->gas) was the same.

Sublimation implies that the phase chance is ice > gas.  Remember the PLSS originally had a boiler and then changed to a sublimator.

I wonder what factors drive the choice between a radiator and a boiler/sublimator.  Off the top of my head boiling/sublimation being perhaps more efficient and lighter in the short term, but not so in the longer term.  The Shuttle seems to have used a third variant of the process, a flash evaporator.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 08, 2015, 11:43:49 AM
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I realize that I'm a little late on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).

EDIT: Added a missing "late" to the above comment.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 08, 2015, 12:49:09 PM
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I realize that I'm a little on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).

That would require effort on his part.

Effort which he knows will certainly bring the house of cards he has so laboriously built to support his fantasy, crashing down around his feet.

He also knows (however subconsciously) that he couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance that would ensue, and therefore likely never even saw the connection, lest it upset the applecart. He also knows that he can't actively go and look at any of the evidence that has been copiously presented, or the same results will ensue.  Something like being forced to accept proof of something he held to be false is likely what sets him off in the first place.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 08, 2015, 01:01:40 PM
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I realize that I'm a little on commenting on this, but I'm still boggling at the sheer irony of Neil making this comment on a thread in which he was literally told to just look through a telescope (at the ISS).
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 08, 2015, 01:54:25 PM
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.

You mean they aren't? ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 08, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
Sublimation implies that the phase chance is ice > gas.  Remember the PLSS originally had a boiler and then changed to a sublimator.
Yes, but that ice first has to freeze from the liquid phase. That releases heat of its own that must be rejected by some of the vapor leaving the sublimator. I suspect the overall effect is the same as simply boiling the liquid directly, i.e., heat of boiling = heat of sublimation - heat of fusion.
Quote
I wonder what factors drive the choice between a radiator and a boiler/sublimator.  Off the top of my head boiling/sublimation being perhaps more efficient and lighter in the short term, but not so in the longer term.  The Shuttle seems to have used a third variant of the process, a flash evaporator.
It's probably practicality. The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.

Flash evaporation is how conventional air conditioning evaporators work. Because the coolant doesn't freeze, the flow probably has to be actively regulated to match the heat rejection rate. But it probably achieves greater cooling per unit size and mass than a sublimator, and that's probably why it was used on the shuttle where the heat rejection rates are pretty high.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 08, 2015, 03:26:56 PM
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.

You mean they aren't? ::)
Sorry, I have said to much. Forget everything. Some well built gentlemen will be calling to your door. Do as they say and all will be well. Maybe.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 08, 2015, 03:59:48 PM
The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.

And to clarify, a practical sublimator is composed of many such elements.  Each element goes through its own individual feed-freeze-sublimate cycle, and will not perform its heat-rejection duties as effectively during the feed-sublimation step.  However, the elements are not in synch and therefore perform this cycle independently each at its own natural interval.  The overall cooling effect of the sublimator assembly is the cumulative effect of each of these elements, some of which are regenerating at any given instant.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 08, 2015, 08:44:48 PM
The porous-plate sublimator has a nifty self-regulating feature. When the ice forms, it blocks the supply of feed water. As it sublimates, it reopens those pores and allows fresh feedwater to flow and freeze.

And to clarify, a practical sublimator is composed of many such elements.  Each element goes through its own individual feed-freeze-sublimate cycle, and will not perform its heat-rejection duties as effectively during the feed-sublimation step.  However, the elements are not in synch and therefore perform this cycle independently each at its own natural interval.  The overall cooling effect of the sublimator assembly is the cumulative effect of each of these elements, some of which are regenerating at any given instant.
Are you referring to spacecraft systems? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 08, 2015, 11:20:32 PM
Fair point. I missed that one. By his argument, we might as easily claim that Jupiter and the Galilean moons are inflatables.

You mean they aren't? ::)
Sorry, I have said to much. Forget everything. Some well built gentlemen will be calling to your door. Do as they say and all will be well. Maybe.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Probably a flashing light thingy...

Mr Baker seems to have given us up as beyond hope....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 09, 2015, 01:21:49 AM
Mr Baker seems to have given us up as beyond hope....

More likely, since he is under moderation, he feels he's being censored (remember AWE130?) and he's worked out that LO won't allow his usual fare through to the board.

Since he came here, Baker has done little more than fire allegations and post falsehoods while he has studiously avoided answering questions put to him, or merely handwaved them away He may be able to get away with that kind of rubbish at GLP or ATS or Infowars and other related hangouts for the nut-jobs of this world, but that isn't going to pass muster here.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 09, 2015, 07:04:43 AM
Here's a nice picture of the ISS "balloon" across the Sun.
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/international-space-station-transits-the-sun
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 10, 2015, 07:54:29 AM
Here's a nice picture of the ISS "balloon" across the Sun.
http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/international-space-station-transits-the-sun

Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2015, 08:03:57 AM

Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....
A slap at Neil's absurd claim, of course.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on September 10, 2015, 08:47:15 AM
Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....

While I'm all for treating the idea of the ISS being inflatable with all the scorn it deserves, I think we should ensure the arguments are sound. An object in front of the Sun doesn't have to actually be dark to appear dark against the background of the solar disc, it just has to be emitting less light than the unshielded nuclear fusion reactor behind it. Sunspots look black, but if isolated would still be almost as bright as the Sun. It's a function of the amount of light being filtered to allow the image to be taken.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 10, 2015, 09:41:54 AM
Yes, quite effective, the way this 'lighted inflatable' goes dark when it transits the sun....

While I'm all for treating the idea of the ISS being inflatable with all the scorn it deserves, I think we should ensure the arguments are sound.

Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.

Comparison photos here, for a start -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3227691/International-Space-station-photobombs-SUN-Stunning-image-tracks-laboratory-s-journey-hurtles-17-000mph.html
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Cat Not Included on September 10, 2015, 11:36:59 AM
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.

And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2015, 11:39:49 AM
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.

And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
Just like NASA did in 1960.  The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 10, 2015, 12:24:29 PM
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.
Nope. You did not imagine it. That is indeed his claim. His only wiggle room is how big and how high the ethereal dirigible might be.

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.
I am minded of Moon Man's plaintive cry for an answer as to at what altitude above the moon's surface did the vacuum start and how did it extend all the way to Earth, and how far did this supposed vacuum extend. Those were actual questions asked.

There is a point at which one must ask "Is it possible to be this dense?" OR "Is this willful density?". Moon Man qualified as a complete loon who was beyond any education. Neil seems to be tending in that direction. Since Neil returned just yesterday, he may have some posts in the queue awaiting moderator judgment, I don't know.

And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.
I suppose you could do it were you willing to exercise some imagination. Still, it will require a pool of designers, test articles, test facilities, Engineers of various flavours, mission controllers, telemetry through various nation states, maintenance because no matter what you do it will leak some and require replenishment so multiply that by every ISS resupply mission, then you need the engineering and production to produce the gear to repressurise the blimp, not to mention the the various sub blimp modules which must be added over time, the hours of footage which must be faked, and on and on...

At this point, without even trying, there are many thousands of required co-conspirators, yet none revealed all.

And this leads right back to the inconsistent HB claim. The EBIL GUBBMINT is simultaneously so supremely powerful that it can silence any whistle blower by blandishment or assassination as required but at the very same time puts the evidence of their conspiracy on the intertubes for any moron to find.

Riddle me that.



Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on September 10, 2015, 12:52:32 PM

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.


He came to this conclusion because he thinks that since the info on the sublimation system used for the Apollo PLSS was not to be found despite him looking everywhere, then they would not work the way they are supposed to. Therefore, since the suits used during the Shuttle era have the same type of cooling system, any eva performed in LEO must be fake. That includes the building of the ISS. I guess he figures the un-inflated module could be manipulated by the remote arm into position and then inflated. Also according to him, the Hubble repair missions were faked as well including the fact that Hubble had a flawed mirror to begin with.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on September 10, 2015, 01:51:49 PM
Just like NASA did in 1960.  The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

That's not right. I was just one of probably tens of thousands worldwide who watched Sputnik I with the naked eye.  For me, 8:06pm on 9 October 1957 NZST. Although its more likely we saw the rocket that put the tiny satellite up.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2015, 01:54:18 PM
Just like NASA did in 1960.  The first man made orbiting satellite that could be viewed with the eyes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echo

That's not right. I was just one of probably tens of thousands worldwide who watched Sputnik I.  For me, 8:06pm on 9 October 1957 NZST. Although its more likely we saw the rocket that put the tiny satellite up.
I think you are correct about the rocket, not the satellite, it was too small to see with magnification.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 10, 2015, 03:27:09 PM
I am minded of Moon Man's plaintive cry for an answer as to at what altitude above the moon's surface did the vacuum start and how did it extend all the way to Earth, and how far did this supposed vacuum extend. Those were actual questions asked.

Moon Man remains one of the two or three people I've encountered here and at BAUT over the years who is still quoted by some of my friends.  Along with Michael Mozina and his Solid Solar Surface garbage.  And, yes, it's the "alleged vacuum" quote that they reference from Moon Man.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 10, 2015, 03:32:34 PM
For most intents and purposes the ISS is a balloon.  An inhabited balloon made of aluminum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2015, 03:34:01 PM
For most intents and purposes the ISS is a balloon.  An inhabited balloon made of aluminum.
Great allegory, Jay. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 10, 2015, 06:24:01 PM
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 10, 2015, 08:20:14 PM
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.

And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.

Bigelow?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 10, 2015, 08:24:38 PM
And this leads right back to the inconsistent HB claim. The EBIL GUBBMINT is simultaneously so supremely powerful that it can silence any whistle blower by blandishment or assassination as required but at the very same time puts the evidence of their conspiracy on the intertubes for any moron to find.

Riddle me that.


My kid brother is a Bigfoot/Alien conspiracist. He really believes all that stuff. His hero is Georgio Tsoukalis. I am convinced that he also doesn't think Apollo happened as the historical record portrays, but knows to keep his tongue around me.

I finally shut him up years ago with this:

All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?

Hasn't said a word about it since.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 10, 2015, 08:25:05 PM
Fair enough. In that vein, can I suggest considering the transit across the sun in tandem with a separate transit across the moon, and point out that the size of the ISS, when you consider that the Moon almost covers the Sun exactly in a solar eclipse, is remarkably consistent between the two - indicating that its height is consistent between the two series, and reinforcing the viewpoint that it's in a broadly fixed-height orbit above us.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I had the impression that Neil thought the ISS was an inflatable object, but was fully the size of the ISS and in the same orbit. Just, ya know, inflatable. So it should behave in most ways like the ISS.

Of course, it is utterly baffling to me why he thinks we could put a giant inflatable device in orbit but not could possibly put an actual space station there.

And while I don't know exactly what, I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few engineering problems that could be solved or assisted if we COULD built giant inflatable devices capable of going in a stable orbit with less effort than it takes to launch a solid object.

Bigelow?
He asserted, of course without evidence, they were involved somehow, claiming they were involved in black ops of some nebulous, nefarious nature.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 10, 2015, 08:51:51 PM

My kid brother is a Bigfoot/Alien conspiracist. He really believes all that stuff. His hero is Georgio Tsoukalis. I am convinced that he also doesn't think Apollo happened as the historical record portrays, but knows to keep his tongue around me.

I finally shut him up years ago with this:

All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?

Hasn't said a word about it since.
I'd recognize that do from a mile away
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=giorgio+tsoukalos
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 10, 2015, 10:05:44 PM
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)



I didn't even have to look that up to get a laugh!!!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 10, 2015, 11:46:57 PM
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)



I didn't even have to look that up to get a laugh!!!
Yay shared reference getting! (Seriously, there needs to be a word for that.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 11, 2015, 12:40:07 AM
Oh well, at least he isn't claiming David Niven's autobiography is an example of Hollywood whistleblowing. ::)
(Quite a fun read by the way. Well worth picking up.)



I didn't even have to look that up to get a laugh!!!

Me neither!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 11, 2015, 04:54:46 AM
All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?

Nail
Head.

Heck...Clinton couldn't keep his, erm, cigar antics quiet and there was only two people present at the time!  As Michael Collins stated- most Americans couldn't keep a secret for a weekend, never mind for 40 years!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 11, 2015, 07:08:49 AM
All of the lunar landings occurred during the Nixon Administration. If Nixon couldn't keep a burglary done by three guys a secret, how in the hell do you think he could keep secret a lunar landing fake when the program had over 400,000 people working on it?

Nail
Head.

Heck...Clinton couldn't keep his, erm, cigar antics quiet and there was only two people present at the time!  As Michael Collins stated- most Americans couldn't keep a secret for a weekend, never mind for 40 years!
The whole secret is one of the fabrics that hold the HB's argument together.  Same goes for alien landings/scientific accomplishments that the government holds at Area 51.  Of course the secret government work at Area 51  helps promote this secret.  Now if the government can keep secrets at Area 51 then the HB's cling to hope.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 11, 2015, 08:29:00 AM
The whole secret is one of the fabrics that hold the HB's argument together.  Same goes for alien landings/scientific accomplishments that the government holds at Area 51.  Of course the secret government work at Area 51  helps promote this secret.  Now if the government can keep secrets at Area 51 then the HB's cling to hope.


But could they?

For years, people who observed the goings on at Area 51/Groom Lake reported seeing black triangular shaped "UFO's" coming and going at night.

(http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Lockheed-SR-71-Blackbird-116.preview.jpg)

(http://xmedia.nguoiduatin.vn/thumb_x500x/100/2013/06/08/F-117A.jpg)

(http://toranji.ir/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2.00B-2_Spirit.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 11, 2015, 08:36:56 AM

But could they?

For years, people who observed the goings on at Area 51/Groom Lake reported seeing black triangular shaped "UFO's" coming and going at night.

(http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Lockheed-SR-71-Blackbird-116.preview.jpg)

(http://xmedia.nguoiduatin.vn/thumb_x500x/100/2013/06/08/F-117A.jpg)

(http://toranji.ir/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2.00B-2_Spirit.jpg)
There were sightings/photos of these objects and one would assume that something was being tested, but the exact information at least wasn't readily available to the general public.  Perhaps the KBG or the Stasi knew about them, but they weren't going to spill the beans to the population.  Rather like when the British broke the Enigma code, they has to keep that secret as well.
Overall I do think it was/is an impossibility to keep a NASA fraud from being uncovered by some investigative reporter at sometime in the last 45+ years.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 11, 2015, 08:51:03 AM
Thing is, if you are interested in aircraft and/or the military, the chances are you would assume that things coming out of a top secret military installation are military aircraft.

If you are pre-disposed to believing in UFOs and are fully engaged with the mythology of Area 51, you are going to be inclined to interpret things differently.

Our erstwhile OP has adopted a mindset that is convinced of government shenanigans. Ergo anything remotely government is suspect. It's the "Governments lie, therefore everything governments say is a lie" angle.

The fact that even the smallest Government half-truth is swiftly exposed as such is irrelevant to the HB mindset. All it needs is a dedicated enough bedroom keyboard warrior...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 11, 2015, 08:58:47 AM
Thing is, if you are interested in aircraft and/or the military, the chances are you would assume that things coming out of a top secret military installation are military aircraft.

If you are pre-disposed to believing in UFOs and are fully engaged with the mythology of Area 51, you are going to be inclined to interpret things differently.

Our erstwhile OP has adopted a mindset that is convinced of government shenanigans. Ergo anything remotely government is suspect. It's the "Governments lie, therefore everything governments say is a lie" angle.

The fact that even the smallest Government half-truth is swiftly exposed as such is irrelevant to the HB mindset. All it needs is a dedicated enough bedroom keyboard warrior...

Not only that, but the two independent witnesses he names in the very first post as being acceptable are (former?) soldiers, and thus (former?) government employees, and thus suspect by his very own standards.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 11, 2015, 09:54:04 AM

Not only that, but the two independent witnesses he names in the very first post as being acceptable are (former?) soldiers, and thus (former?) government employees, and thus suspect by his very own standards.
One of the aspects of both were their disagreement with the Bush administration concerning current policy, but as many have posted even if the test were done and if his witnesses were present, the test would not have been enough.  The purpose was to present that government has lied therefore other activities of the government are drawn into question.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 11, 2015, 12:19:07 PM
I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months.  They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 11, 2015, 01:49:19 PM
I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months.  They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.

Exactly, I've cited those two events too.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 11, 2015, 02:13:31 PM
I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months.  They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.

Exactly, I've cited those two events too.
Conspiracy theorist: Those were just coverups, man, for the Man's real deal, man.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Luke Pemberton on September 11, 2015, 02:15:58 PM
I looked up once how long Watergate and Iran-Contra had been kept secret, and neither one lasted more than I think eighteen months.  They were on a lot smaller scale than Apollo, too.

Exactly, I've cited those two events too.
Conspiracy theorist: Those were just coverups, man, for the Man's real deal, man.

Yeah, they kept the bomb secret too. It was compartmentalised, Apollo was too man.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 11, 2015, 02:21:59 PM

Yeah, they kept the bomb secret too. It was compartmentalised, Apollo was too man.

Except the KGB knew about it passing that information to Stalin.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 11, 2015, 05:33:25 PM
There were sightings/photos of these objects and one would assume that something was being tested, but the exact information at least wasn't readily available to the general public.  Perhaps the KBG or the Stasi knew about them, but they weren't going to spill the beans to the population.  Rather like when the British broke the Enigma code, they has to keep that secret as well.
Overall I do think it was/is an impossibility to keep a NASA fraud from being uncovered by some investigative reporter at sometime in the last 45+ years.

Keeping a secret (such as a black project) when the whole project is tucked away in a remote location and defended with layer upon layer of security and no-fly zones, is one thing, but keeping a secret when the whole project is in the public domain, and where parts of it are spread not just around the whole of the USA, but over the entire world is another thing entirely

Also, while the US Government were able to successfully keep the detail of what was actually going on in Area 51 secret, word still got out, and there was enough rumour around for aviation experts to get a general idea what was happening. Unlike the general public, they were able to make the general connection between what people were reporting, and aircraft such as this...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/XB-35.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Avro%20Vulcan.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/YB-49.jpg)

Some might wonder why I included the Avro Vulcan in there since it was British and obviously not developed at Area 51. Well, it had quite a secret of its own. While the Vulcan was known to have a low radar profile, this was largely put down to a secret "radar absorbing paint". Yes, they did use a special paint, but by far the greatest contribution to the Vulcan's low radar visibility was its shape, a fact that was not well understood when was first designed and flown back in the 1950's
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Obviousman on September 11, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
The leading edge of the Vulcan got altered early on in its career; I had believed this was an aerodynamic decision but perhaps it affected its RCS?

Edited to add image below.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Comparison_of_Vulcan_Planforms.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on September 12, 2015, 10:57:56 PM
The leading edge of the Vulcan got altered early on in its career; I had believed this was an aerodynamic decision but perhaps it affected its RCS?


As I recall, a number of features contributed to the (relatively) low RCS of the Vulcan.  Buried engines, small fuselage (just nose and tail),blended fuselage and wing surfaces (few right angles), comparatively small fin....

The wing planoform changes were mostly to improve the low speed handling properties, as I recall.

The extremely strong structure also meant that the Vulcan could be flown at very low altitude without fatigue problems, unlike the Victor, with it's long, swept back wings. I couldn't find video of operational flights at low level, but here is one flying very low last year....
Because Vulcans are cool, one more

Sorry, back to Apollo
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 13, 2015, 12:52:32 PM
One of the aspects of both were their disagreement with the Bush administration concerning current policy...

That's obviously why he chose them.  And of course I highly doubt he actually knows them or has even had any contact with them.  But that makes them non-independent for the other reason.  "Independent" means they have to be acceptable to both sides of the issue.  He choses witnesses he thinks will be favorable to his side because they're also activists.  As my lawyer associates keep reminding me, "You get a jury of your peers, not a jury of your friends."

Quote
...but as many have posted even if the test were done and if his witnesses were present, the test would not have been enough.  The purpose was to present that government has lied therefore other activities of the government are drawn into question.

Yes, as we've belabored.  There can be more than one thing wrong with an argument.  Proving that one government agency lied 50 years ago about one thing doesn't prove a different government agency lied ten years ago about a separate thing.  It's just a distraction:  "I can't get any traction for my 9/11 claims or my other crackpottery, so I'm going to shift focus to something I think is easier to argue."  That's because it's ego reinforcement.  It always grasps at low-hanging fruit.

Simultaneously, staging a test for witnesses, in the manner of previously conducted tests, is not the least probative when all other evidence is set aside for reasons that would doom the requested test as well.  Again, it's distraction.  There always has to be one more "reasonable" step that hasn't been taken, so that the proponent can continue to assert the question remains ambiguous.

And by the way, I doubt we'll see any more of Baker.  While he can certainly continue to post on-topic statements, the moderation effectively prevents him from talking about what he really wants to talk about.  And it's not as if he was secretive about his true disinterest in the forum topic.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 13, 2015, 01:09:28 PM
His latest contribution.
I think Christopher Hitchens said it about as well as anyone. Please take the time to listen.



In essence I agree that he won't be back except for perhaps spurious  posts like the one linked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: slaver0110 on September 13, 2015, 08:25:28 PM
I've been lurking this thread for a while now, and while I understand the justification for making it clear why Baker has it very wrong (on far too many levels), I can honestly say that this has been another one of those "no point...he's just going to shift the goalposts again...and again...and again...etc" situations.

The way I see it, if Baker got his wish (you know, in that alternate-universe where stupid rules the roost?) and he managed to get his perfect vacuum chamber, with the instrumentation he wants, observed by his preferred "observers", and they test the sublimator under his perfect conditions, I think we're all aware of the final outcome...

His "observers" (if actually honest) would look at him and say, "Yup, no question: the Sublimator works as advertised." At which point he'd simply claim that the infamous NASA DEATH SQUADS had obviously gotten to his observers to keep them from confirming his idea.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 13, 2015, 09:09:33 PM
I've been lurking this thread for a while now, and while I understand the justification for making it clear why Baker has it very wrong (on far too many levels), I can honestly say that this has been another one of those "no point...he's just going to shift the goalposts again...and again...and again...etc" situations.

The way I see it, if Baker got his wish (you know, in that alternate-universe where stupid rules the roost?) and he managed to get his perfect vacuum chamber, with the instrumentation he wants, observed by his preferred "observers", and they test the sublimator under his perfect conditions, I think we're all aware of the final outcome...

His "observers" (if actually honest) would look at him and say, "Yup, no question: the Sublimator works as advertised." At which point he'd simply claim that the infamous NASA DEATH SQUADS had obviously gotten to his observers to keep them from confirming his idea.
Don't be a stranger. Baker may have baked his own noodle, but that's on him.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 13, 2015, 09:33:03 PM

His "observers" (if actually honest) would look at him and say, "Yup, no question: the Sublimator works as advertised." At which point he'd simply claim that the infamous NASA DEATH SQUADS had obviously gotten to his observers to keep them from confirming his idea.
Conjures up guys toting Thompson sub machine guns, silencing those who blab.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 13, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 14, 2015, 02:10:49 AM
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on September 14, 2015, 02:47:31 AM
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.

I'm pretty sure "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette made a similar claim on his page of claims, though he may have got it from Rene.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on September 14, 2015, 03:26:22 AM
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.

I'm pretty sure "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette made a similar claim on his page of claims, though he may have got it from Rene.


Did either of them say why they expected to see puffs of steam?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 14, 2015, 04:10:44 AM
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.
I still can't figure out what he thinks he'd see.  It's got to be something visible, because otherwise, what's the point of video?
I would have to go look it up to confirm, but I think it was Ralph Rene who first claimed that there should be visible puffs of steam coming from the PLSS periodically.

I'm pretty sure "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette made a similar claim on his page of claims, though he may have got it from Rene.


Did either of them say why they expected to see puffs of steam?
P102 of Rene's book

"NASA claims that rotation kept the command ship cool. Maybe the astronauts should
have pirouetted like ballerinas as they went their merry way. But then would this have
seemed less than masculine? In the end the only thing that could have preserved their lives
for all those hours in that Sun was air-conditioning, which they didn't have. If they had really
had suit air-conditioners that worked, every time the suit was vented into the high vacuum of
space the rocket-effect should have been spectacular. A rapidly expanding fog of ice crystals
would have reflected the brilliant unfiltered sun light; spraying millions of tiny diamond-like
crystals about and producing a brilliant, dazzling and unforgettable display.
We can be sure our astronauts never released water in this manner, since, not one of the
thousands of pictures taken on the Moon, or during the space walks, has ever shown such a
display. NASA would hardly pass up a spectacular photo opportunity like that!"

Although the antipodean who shall not be named is still selling it on Rene's site, the PDF is freely available.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Ralph%20Rene%20-%20NASA_mooned_america.pdf
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 14, 2015, 03:26:31 PM
P102 of Rene's book

"NASA claims that rotation kept the command ship cool. Maybe the astronauts should
have pirouetted like ballerinas as they went their merry way. But then would this have
seemed less than masculine? In the end the only thing that could have preserved their lives
for all those hours in that Sun was air-conditioning, which they didn't have. If they had really
had suit air-conditioners that worked, every time the suit was vented into the high vacuum of
space the rocket-effect should have been spectacular. A rapidly expanding fog of ice crystals
would have reflected the brilliant unfiltered sun light; spraying millions of tiny diamond-like
crystals about and producing a brilliant, dazzling and unforgettable display.
We can be sure our astronauts never released water in this manner, since, not one of the
thousands of pictures taken on the Moon, or during the space walks, has ever shown such a
display. NASA would hardly pass up a spectacular photo opportunity like that!"

Although the antipodean who shall not be named is still selling it on Rene's site, the PDF is freely available.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Ralph%20Rene%20-%20NASA_mooned_america.pdf
It is clear that Rene did not understand the physics of the sublimators either.  But then I'm not surprised as everything I have read/seen concerning the "self" taught engineer is wrong.  Perhaps he should have invested a few thousand dollars to get some real education.

Oh wait he had disgust for the "gas bag" scientists didn't he?  M impression is he was a bitter old man that wanted recognition for his self worth very much.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on September 14, 2015, 06:46:53 PM
Say, I wonder if that's where Dan O'Bannon got the idea from (or who ever thought of having those Moebius-designed space suits on "Alien" visibly vent every now and then).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Count Zero on September 15, 2015, 12:28:39 AM
Well, remember that the planet had an atmosphere, and the type of sublimators we're talking about do not work in an atmosphere.  I wonder if they would work on Mars?

I recall the incident on Apollo 12 when Al Bean accidentally let the LM door close, and the out-gassing from his suit pressurized the LM just enough  that the sublimator stopped working.  When he realized what had happened, he opened the door (incidentally causing a visible burst of vapor (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/a12.eva1prelim.html#1153008)) and it started working again.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 15, 2015, 09:40:13 AM
John Mollo, and he did the venting effect "because he could."  That sort of thing drives a lot of fictional design.  You do what looks cool and then invent a reason for it later.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 15, 2015, 04:43:50 PM
But wait, aren't there photos of the crews on the lunar surface with halos of gas around their heads? I seem to recall one of the later missions, seeing a photo of a perfect sphere of light blue glow around one of the astronaut's heads. I can't remember whether it was John Young or Jack Schmitt who was in the photo.

I've gone through the ALSJ a couple of times, and I can't find the photo, but I know I've seen it.

Man, it's no fun getting old. It's terrible that your memory is the second thing to go.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 15, 2015, 05:09:17 PM
I know the photo you mean, and while it was once speculated that the halo effect was due to sublimation outgassing, it was eventually shown that lens contamination was a more likely explanation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 15, 2015, 06:17:20 PM
I don't know if this is the image you are referring, from A12. 
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
Quote
Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ajv on September 15, 2015, 07:08:09 PM
Two images on Apollo 12 magazine 46 are good examples of the blue smudge:
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on September 15, 2015, 07:27:51 PM
I don't know if this is the image you are referring, from A12. 
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
Quote
Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.

Looks more like the lens was hit by direct sunlight.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 15, 2015, 07:42:08 PM
I don't know if this is the image you are referring, from A12. 
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
Quote
Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand.

Looks more like the lens was hit by direct sunlight.
I was thinking lens flare myself, but it fit the general description.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 15, 2015, 08:02:44 PM
No, it wasn't 12. It was 15, 16, or 17, I'm sure of it.

I was going to make the photo into a wall-sized print, but I couldn't ever find it again.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2015, 07:05:58 AM
On topic post alert:

The top post on the Project Apollo facebook page has a picture with the following caption:

Quote
Dr Joe Kerwin and Vance Brand talk while they and Joe Engle spend 177 hours locked inside a Command Module that's placed in a vacuum chamber to qualify the newly redesigned Block II Cm rated to carry astronauts and go into space.

I'll try and post the photo later, but I am firewalled by work!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on September 18, 2015, 07:19:31 AM
On topic post alert:

The top post on the Project Apollo facebook page has a picture with the following caption:

Quote
Dr Joe Kerwin and Vance Brand talk while they and Joe Engle spend 177 hours locked inside a Command Module that's placed in a vacuum chamber to qualify the newly redesigned Block II Cm rated to carry astronauts and go into space.

I'll try and post the photo later, but I am firewalled by work!

Here you go:

(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11986609_736525526457429_8633931572934807109_n.jpg?oh=24a20b4f071f27e3e41be4cefcb0f37d&oe=56AAC841)

Baker would just claim:
"I didn't see the test, so it didn't happen"
"Yeah, but they are not wearing a spacesuit"
"La La La, I'm not listening"
(delete as applicable)

Speaking of Baker, has he finally stealth-flounced? He hasn't logged in since September 13th.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 18, 2015, 07:35:03 AM
Here you go:

Cheers :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 18, 2015, 09:15:15 AM
Here you go:

(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11986609_736525526457429_8633931572934807109_n.jpg?oh=24a20b4f071f27e3e41be4cefcb0f37d&oe=56AAC841)

Baker would just claim:
"I didn't see the test, so it didn't happen"
"Yeah, but they are not wearing a spacesuit"
"La La La, I'm not listening"
(delete as applicable)

Speaking of Baker, has he finally stealth-flounced? He hasn't logged in since September 13th.
FTFY, All of the above are in play.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on September 19, 2015, 06:12:04 PM
Thought you folks might appreciate a little diversion;

The solar system to scale, with the Earth represented by a marble ...

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on September 19, 2015, 06:20:40 PM
Thought you folks might appreciate a little diversion;

The solar system to scale, with the Earth represented by a marble ...


I saw that yesterday, very very cool.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 19, 2015, 07:36:06 PM
Thought you folks might appreciate a little diversion;

The solar system to scale, with the Earth represented by a marble ...


Cool but all fake, you know that the planets and the sun all orbit the flat Earth.   ::)

EDIT: Added the sun.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on September 19, 2015, 07:43:23 PM
If it gets cheap enough, we should sent all elected politicians into space, let them see the world not as a place of boundaries and nations but as a world, a whole, a gem of exquisite beauty and fragile smallness.
Then, only then, will they be allowed to take office.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 19, 2015, 09:08:55 PM
Then, only then, will they be allowed to take office.

And they have to pass a high school civics exam.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 19, 2015, 11:04:26 PM
Then, only then, will they be allowed to take office.

And they have to pass a high school civics exam.
Surely you jest. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on September 20, 2015, 02:34:34 AM
And they have to pass a high school civics exam.
And science. Including biology.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Kiwi on September 20, 2015, 08:01:42 AM
So we can get it, some of us who are non-Americans need to be told what a high school civics exam is...  :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 20, 2015, 08:09:59 AM
So we can get it, some of us who are non-Americans need to be told what a high school civics exam is...
Rather like understanding how people should act with/around government(s).  What are the responsibilities/privileges of being a citizen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 20, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
Also, remedial maths. And ethics.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 20, 2015, 11:33:39 AM
Also, remedial maths. And ethics
[dissolution] You want them to be knowable, public servants and have ethics?  Like that is going to happen.[/dissolution]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 20, 2015, 12:19:22 PM
More specifically, high school is the last four years of secondary education in the US.  (Usually.  Sometimes, it's the last three.)  When I was in high school, we were required to take a one-semester class called government in order to graduate.  It's been over twenty years since I took it, so I can't tell you exactly what I learned from that class versus all the stuff that I learned other places, but it's a lot of information about the structure of the US government and so forth.  Things like the so-called "balance of power," where each of our three main branches of government has abilities and restrictions assigned by the Constitution, and the case of Marbury v. Madison, which over two hundred years ago established the concept of "judicial review," which means that the Supreme Court has the authority to throw out laws as being unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 20, 2015, 12:46:30 PM
More specifically, high school is the last four years of secondary education in the US.  (Usually.  Sometimes, it's the last three.)  When I was in high school, we were required to take a one-semester class called government in order to graduate.  It's been over twenty years since I took it, so I can't tell you exactly what I learned from that class versus all the stuff that I learned other places, but it's a lot of information about the structure of the US government and so forth.  Things like the so-called "balance of power," where each of our three main branches of government has abilities and restrictions assigned by the Constitution, and the case of Marbury v. Madison, which over two hundred years ago established the concept of "judicial review," which means that the Supreme Court has the authority to throw out laws as being unconstitutional.
I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.

I know you are a relatively new mother and everything is pink and happy, but be warned, the time passes quickly and suddenly you will find yourself confronted with a poorly dressed teen saying "Your old, what the hell do you know about anything?" followed by "Don't answer me, you are judging me" all of which makes you pause and realise "Wait. My parents were right, I really was a dick as a teen".

Que sera sera.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 20, 2015, 04:03:36 PM
More specifically, high school is the last four years of secondary education in the US.  (Usually.  Sometimes, it's the last three.)  When I was in high school, we were required to take a one-semester class called government in order to graduate.  It's been over twenty years since I took it, so I can't tell you exactly what I learned from that class versus all the stuff that I learned other places, but it's a lot of information about the structure of the US government and so forth.  Things like the so-called "balance of power," where each of our three main branches of government has abilities and restrictions assigned by the Constitution, and the case of Marbury v. Madison, which over two hundred years ago established the concept of "judicial review," which means that the Supreme Court has the authority to throw out laws as being unconstitutional.
I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.

I know you are a relatively new mother and everything is pink and happy, but be warned, the time passes quickly and suddenly you will find yourself confronted with a poorly dressed teen saying "Your old, what the hell do you know about anything?" followed by "Don't answer me, you are judging me" all of which makes you pause and realise "Wait. My parents were right, I really was a dick as a teen".

Que sera sera.
See yours and raise twenty,  I didn't bring up the government role in civics, since that my/not be different than other countries.  Yes, our three branches pass laws(Congress) and funding, execute those laws(Executive), and rule on the legality versus what the Constitution (Judical) says/does not say.  The Judicial can over time change its collective mind on what the Constitution means.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on September 20, 2015, 05:20:50 PM
I can beat you on time, since it's thirty years ago, but both here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated. Now that I have my own kids, it turns out that it has been renamed, as if that makes a difference, yet retains the same bovine content as it did when I was a kid. Sure, such humdrum things have an importance. Not to a teenager.

They did to me when I was a teenager, and my older sister was so involved in the political process that she was a campaign volunteer for Dukakis when she was fourteen.  As I said, though, you couldn't graduate if you didn't take the class.  And pass.  Now, what was involved in passing varied from teacher to teacher.  I took it in summer school and had a pretty decent one, though he was weirdly reminiscent of Yoda.  The one who taught at my actual high school was lousy.  I had him for economics, which I didn't take in summer school, and can't even remember what we were graded on in his class.

Quote
I know you are a relatively new mother and everything is pink and happy, but be warned, the time passes quickly and suddenly you will find yourself confronted with a poorly dressed teen saying "Your old, what the hell do you know about anything?" followed by "Don't answer me, you are judging me" all of which makes you pause and realise "Wait. My parents were right, I really was a dick as a teen".

Well, first off, I've been a mother for almost eighteen years.  I gave her up for adoption, but it's an open adoption and I still have contact with her.  Second, trust me, not everything is "pink and happy."  I have a very bright and very headstrong two-year-old who does what he wants and basically ignores what I have to say unless it meets what he wants.  Third, I never once said that to anyone when I was a teenager.  The closest I ever got was scoffing (behind his back) at a priest whose advice about dealing with high school was to remind me that Jesus had been my age once.  Which, you know, is not helpful advice.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Abaddon on September 20, 2015, 07:41:50 PM
Ah. In this neck of the woods, the priests hold you down and scoff behind your back.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on September 20, 2015, 09:05:35 PM
You obviously have never been in the South... Down here the "preachers" are just as likely to pick up a shotgun as they are to smack you in the head with a bible...

Both occurrences have been in the local news within the last year.

Just one of the many, many reasons I became an athiest years ago...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on September 21, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
...here and in the UK that used to be called "Civics" and it was a fancy pants name for a doss class. It counted for nothing and had no exams or scores associated.

It was different where I grew up.  Civics was a serious class and was required for graduation.  Luckily it was taught by one of the popular teachers.  He has since retired, of course, but he still keeps in touch with me and many of his former students.  (I've reached the age where everything at my former school is now named after the faculty of my era -- the auditorium is named for my principal [read: headmaster] and they just named the football [read: American football] stadium for my coach.)  Of course I went on to take some political science classes at University of Michigan, so I may be blending where I learned what.

The bottom line is that so very few state and local legislators seem to understand such basic concepts as the separation of powers ordained by America's founders.  And I hear this also from some of the legislators of my state, who are sometimes guests in my home.  (I'm good friends with their campaign managers.)  What they call the activity of government I call politics.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on September 21, 2015, 01:12:55 PM

...The bottom line is that so very few state and local legislators seem to understand such basic concepts as the separation of powers ordained by America's founders.  And I hear this also from some of the legislators of my state, who are sometimes guests in my home.  (I'm good friends with their campaign managers.)  What they call the activity of government I call politics.
A good example is passing laws that they(Congressmen) are exempt.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on October 22, 2015, 05:18:38 AM
I would like to take this opportunity to share something with other forum members

A freind of mine, Clive, is an amateur astronomer. a physics and cosmology buff, and all-around very smart man. He mentors school kids in science classes. Clive told me about this student, a 14 year old girl, who made an unusual entry in this year's Cawthron Institute Science Fair.

I have decided to post it here, since we have in this thread a claim from an HB that the ISS is a balloon being flown in the atmosphere. Following is a reprint (with the student and her mum's permission) of her presentation, which was called - SPEEDY SATELLITES.

Quote
Question

How many times does the International Space Station orbit the earth in one day?

Hypothesis

I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be traveling extremely fast when I saw it.

Method

To time the passes of the space station I needed to set up a datum line that could be used to watch when it passed.
To do this I have found a simple method using a bike wheel on a pole and a stop watch.

Step 1 - I removed the front wheel from a bike and remove the tyre.

Step 2 - I constructed a frame to attach the wheel to that can be adjusted to different vertical and horizontal angles, and attached the wheel to it.

Step 3 - I attached the frame to the top of a solid vertical pole that had a clear view to the sky.

Step 4 - I aligned the axle so that it points to the celestial South Pole. The rim of the wheel will now be closely aligned with the earth’s celestial equator. The space station will pass over this line. The celestial South Pole can be found by extending the vertical line of the Southern Cross and intersecting it with a line perpendicular from the midpoint between the Pointers. This is the position of which all of the stars appear to revolve around in the night sky.

Step 5 - By looking through the plane created by the bike wheel you are able to observe when the space station passes this plane, this can be used to accurately time when the space station passes the same projected plane in the sky.

Step 6 - With my mobile phone logged in to the international atomic clock, I recorded the time that the space station passed through the plane created by the bike wheel. I recorded this time in my log book.

Step 7 - I repeated steps 5 and 6 several times over a number of nights.

Step 8 - I can now use the times to calculate the number of passes between each reading, the average orbit period and calculate the number of orbits in a day.

Fair Testing

1 - I used the International Atomic Clock each time to make sure the timing was accurate.
2 - I made sure that the wheel was protected from bumps and stayed stationary to ensure the timing was accurate.
3 - We aligned the wheel accurately with the Celestial South Pole to be sure that the space station would pass it each time.
4 - I checked the alignment of the wheel with the Celestial South Pole before each pass of the Space Station was timed.
5 - I used two spotters to ensure we identified the space station in the sky with plenty of time to prepare for it passing the wheel.
6 - I used two spotters to accurately identify when the space station crossed the plane of the wheel.
7 - I did multiple time tests over a long period of time so that we could average out the results and reduce errors.

Conclusion

I was really surprised at how close the recorded times were to each other, even with using a basic method to time the space station passes. My testing showed that the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought.

Discussion

I was surprised that the method I used to time the space station passes provided such accurate and consistent results. Measuring the results over a longer period of time gives a longer sample period which helps to reduce differences and the size of errors between individual results. Being able to time at least one set of consecutive passes was critical to the experiment working.

I was also surprised at how fast the space station is travelling. It needs to travel this fast so that as it is falling to earth it is also travelling past earth and never actually gets closer to the earth’s surface.

The method I used can be used to time any satellite that orbits the earth more than once a day – there are thousands of them out there!

Further Learning

I have found out that you can calculate the orbit radius of a satellite from a formula based on Johannes Kepler’s 3rd law which he published in 1619. Using an online calculator the orbit radius for the space station works out at 6777km from the earth's centre. The earth has an average radius of 6371km which means that the space station is 406km high.

You can also work out the speed of the space station using the orbit period and orbit radius. The speed calculates at 7.67 km per second.

All satellites are in orbit around earth’s centre but not all rotate around the earth surface. These satellites appear to be stationary in relation to earth and they need to be a lot further away (thousands of kilometres) so that they are not affected as much by earth’s gravity. The satellite that SKY TV comes from is like this.

Bibliography
Kepler’s Third law (on line orbit calculator):
http://www.1728.org/kepler3a.htm
Heavens above (satellite prediction tables):
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Atomic Clock Time (timing space station passes)
http://www.timeanddate.com/time/internatio
nal-atomic-time.html


This young girl puts all HBs, including Neil Baker, to shame. She has asked a questiion, and set about using real observation, real research and real experimentation (ie. real science) to answer it. Along the way, with just a rudimentary, but well designed contraption and naked eye observation, she has;

1. Measured the orbital period of the ISS as 1:32:32. The actual orbital period was 1:32:41; only 9 seconds error in 5561 seconds, or 0.16%. Her calculation of the orbital speed at 7.67 km/s is very close to the published figure of 7.66 km/s.

2. Calculated the ISS orbital altitude as 406 km. It was actually 399 by 408 km around the time of her observations which corresponds to 403.5 kms... about 0.5%.

(http://cawthronsciencefair.org.nz/uploads/sites/cawthron/files/gallery/secondary_2015/Secondary_Fair_2015_19.jpg)
Here is the student along side per presentation. You can see a photo of her equatorially mounted bike wheel at the bottom. (Photo courtesy of the Cawthron Institute, Nelson, NZ - http://www.cawthron.org.nz/

Her entry won two prizes...

The Albert Jones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_F._A._L._Jones) Memorial Award
Sponsor: Nelson Science Society / Earth and Sky Ltd.
Prize: A fully funded trip to Mount John Observatory
Criteria: The best oral communication of a project during the interview process

The Royal Aeronautical Society Award
Sponsor: Royal Aeronautical Society, Blenheim Branch
Prize: $100
Criteria: The best investigation relating to 'flow', including hydro and aero dynamics, vessel building and design.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on October 22, 2015, 06:07:42 AM
Real science from a 14 y.o. puts our HB friends to shame and the methodology she has used would dispel a few of the theories of Flat Earth believers too.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on October 22, 2015, 06:10:11 AM
<snip>

^Best post ever^

This young girl will probably go on to a very successful career somewhere. More power to her.
Indirectly, this also goes someway to explaining why the best and brightest work work in places like Google, NASA and so-on, whereas the hoaxie world appears filled with people will serious personality problems (Heiwa, Neil Baker, The Blunder) or the plain "thick as two short planks" (Tindarwhatisface, Dak Dak, Allan Weisbecker).

There's a bloke that comes to my house once a month to wash the windows. He is a conspiracy theory nutjob-he once proudly told me that Security ejected him from Kennedy Space Centre as he was being disruptive. I guess this explains why he goes up and down ladders for a living, whilst NASA/Space X and others go up and down into space....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on October 22, 2015, 06:52:28 AM
<snip>

^Best post ever^

This young girl will probably go on to a very successful career somewhere. More power to her.
Indirectly, this also goes someway to explaining why the best and brightest work work in places like Google, NASA and so-on, whereas the hoaxie world appears filled with people will serious personality problems (Heiwa, Neil Baker, The Blunder) or the plain "thick as two short planks" (Tindarwhatisface, Dak Dak, Allan Weisbecker).

There's a bloke that comes to my house once a month to wash the windows. He is a conspiracy theory nutjob-he once proudly told me that Security ejected him from Kennedy Space Centre as he was being disruptive. I guess this explains why he goes up and down ladders for a living, whilst NASA/Space X and others go up and down into space....

Agreed.

A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on October 22, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.

I second that proposal
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on October 22, 2015, 12:14:19 PM
A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.

I second that proposal
Third.  ;D We need more critical thinkers like her on this rock.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on October 22, 2015, 12:17:08 PM
A clever experiment to come up with, and superbly executed.

Perhaps you could pass on our congratulations.

I second that proposal
I'll third that proposal.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on October 22, 2015, 05:37:10 PM
I will pass on your congratulations to her.

I would like to point out that she did something that HBs and CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers).

Quote
"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."
Quote
"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."

When the results didn't match her opinion, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into HB/CT thinking!

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on October 22, 2015, 06:24:53 PM
I will pass on your congratulations to her.

I would like to point out that she did something that HBs and CTs in general are utterly incapable of (apart from the obvious; clear critical thinking and using scientific methods to get answers).

Quote
"I think that the space station will go around the earth 7 or 8 times a day because it seemed to be travelling extremely fast when I saw it."
Quote
"the International Space Station makes one orbit of the earth every 92 minutes and 32 seconds. This equates to orbiting the earth 15.56 times a day which is many more times than I expected. It must be travelling extremely fast – a lot faster than I thought."

When the results didn't match her opinion, she changed her opinion!! This does not even enter into HB/CT thinking!
No they mak up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on October 23, 2015, 07:29:22 AM
they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly

There are a few stock responses on YouTube when debunking a HB/CT; the most common are;

1. The HB/CT ignores the debunking, and hops to a different topic
2. The HB/CT accuses the debunker of being a 'shill' or 'on the NASA/Government payroll'
3. The HB/CT resorts to childish insult, foul language, and/or abuse.

Closely followed by;

4. Divert the conversation by dragging in 11/9 (WTC attacks), JFK, Sandy Hook, or any other conspiracy theory.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on October 23, 2015, 08:19:55 AM
they (Hoax Believers and/or Conspiracy Theorists) make up more observations to "prove" their case, or move the goalposts They can NEVER be wrong.  Presenting debunking, you may get "you are naïve", or that cannot be because the debunker doesn't see it correctly

There are a few stock responses on YouTube when debunking a HB/CT; the most common are;

1. The HB/CT ignores the debunking, and hops to a different topic
2. The HB/CT accuses the debunker of being a 'shill' or 'on the NASA/Government payroll'
3. The HB/CT resorts to childish insult, foul language, and/or abuse.

Closely followed by;

4. Divert the conversation by dragging in 11/9 (WTC attacks), JFK, Sandy Hook, or any other conspiracy theory.....
Those also I'll be critical of the foul language, shouldn't be necessary to talk like an adolescent.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 01, 2015, 09:59:56 AM
So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.

A Tarkus-like 'flounce', maybe?

For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at the tail end about Gubments having 'alien technology', which I thought was a bit out of place.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy/episodes/episode-9-433

There was footage of Sibrel following astronauts around with a bible, and oh, how I laughed when one of them gave Sibrel a kick up the a*se to get him on his way, and when Aldrin delivered the famous punch......

Both Sibrel and Allen were very, very careful to lace everything they said with "if this..." and "could have done that ..." with very few, if any, definites in the conversation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on November 01, 2015, 12:01:58 PM


For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at....

Yes, I saw that. It seemed to be fairly even-handed, though obviously they couldn't go into too much detail about why the hoax believers were wrong. Unfortunately, the HB's claims sound superficially plausible to people who can't be bothered to look into them, while the truth requires a bit more explanation.

I was on tenterhooks waiting to see what Sibrel's 'cast-iron', 'rock-solid' piece of evidence for the hoax was. What a surprise when it turned out to be the 'ultra top secret, previously never before seen' footage of the inside of the Apollo 11 capsule with the Earth outside the window. Odd that Sibrel never mentioned his belief that it was a transparency (or whatever it was he'd previously said). Instead, he claimed that a voice saying 'Talk' just before Armstrong began speaking to Houston was actually an off-camera CIA handler or some such nonsense. You'd think, if that was the case, that the astronauts would have been wearing earpieces so that such extraneous chatter wouldn't have been picked up, or that it would have been done with hand signals or something. But then, logic and rationality aren't Sibrel's strongest points.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 01, 2015, 12:09:53 PM
So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.

A Tarkus-like 'flounce', maybe?

For the benefit of those outwith the UK, there was a prime-time 'moon hoax/conspiracy' documentary on the TV the other night. An hour long, they interviewed Bart Sibrel, Marcus Allen, and oddly, a couple of folks at the tail end about Gubments having 'alien technology', which I thought was a bit out of place.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/conspiracy/episodes/episode-9-433

There was footage of Sibrel following astronauts around with a bible, and oh, how I laughed when one of them gave Sibrel a kick up the a*se to get him on his way, and when Aldrin delivered the famous punch......

Both Sibrel and Allen were very, very careful to lace everything they said with "if this..." and "could have done that ..." with very few, if any, definites in the conversation.
Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on November 01, 2015, 01:03:55 PM

Was there any non HB that refuted their claims or just the group showing their anomalies?

These two chaps ; http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/jerrydegroot.html

                           http://www.chris-riley.net/#a-short-biography

Professor De Groot rather amusingly said that he had a tabloid magazine in his possession that claimed that Elvis shot Kennedy, and that this was more plausible than the possibility that Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on November 02, 2015, 09:09:38 AM
So, we're into November, one week since the last post here, and Mr Baker is conspicuous by his absence.


I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on November 02, 2015, 11:19:43 AM
I've seen him on a couple of other forums spouting the same drivel he used here.

space.com is one of them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 02, 2015, 12:25:15 PM
I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...

Ah, of course - I'd forgotten he was under moderation! Doh.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on November 02, 2015, 12:52:02 PM
I guess he was not willing or able to write anything that would pass his moderated status...

We've seen a number of people equate moderation with banishment.  And it's not surprising that some would cry "censorship!" and stomp away in dismay at the least amount of control imposed upon them.  Baker strikes me as an example of the latter.  But on the other hand he made it clear that Apollo was not his primary target.  He said he wanted to prove Apollo was a hoax as a means of improving the credibility of other allegations of government malfeasance, namely 9/11.  Since he's clearly incompetent when it comes to space engineering, he's likely shopping around for low-hanging fruit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on November 02, 2015, 05:41:53 PM
There's none so blind as those that will not see.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 15, 2015, 07:40:06 PM
Just had an exchange with someone in the Mars Society FB page, he too brought up space suit cooling.  Which I thought odd, maybe it's the new waving flag of CTs. 

He also raised the usual Van Allen Belt issues, nobody having been above 300 (but insinuated that the ISS is an optical defect and that all EVA video is faked).  Claimed to have been educated as an engineer (but refused to say if he had graduated), went on about the illuminati, refused to give a specific example of what would make him change his mind (other than something verifiable).

Soon resorted to insults and flounced.

You have to wonder what makes someone like that join the Mars Society group, given it is all about the past, present and future exploration of Mars!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 15, 2015, 08:04:03 PM
Just had an exchange with someone in the Mars Society FB page, he too brought up space suit cooling.  Which I thought odd, maybe it's the new waving flag of CTs. 

He also raised the usual Van Allen Belt issues, nobody having been above 300 (but insinuated that the ISS is an optical defect and that all EVA video is faked).  Claimed to have been educated as an engineer (but refused to say if he had graduated), went on about the illuminati, refused to give a specific example of what would make him change his mind (other than something verifiable).

Soon resorted to insults and flounced.

You have to wonder what makes someone like that join the Mars Society group, given it is all about the past, present and future exploration of Mars!
Maybe just a troll?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Count Zero on November 15, 2015, 08:44:56 PM
Actually, I've been curious about spacesuit cooling on Mars.  The porous plate sublimators on on current & past EVA suits rely on vacuum to operate.  Is Mars' atmosphere thin enough to allow them to work, or will we have to find a different way to keep the would-be "Martians" cool while they work?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 15, 2015, 08:50:43 PM
Just had an exchange with someone in the Mars Society FB page, he too brought up space suit cooling.  Which I thought odd, maybe it's the new waving flag of CTs. 

He also raised the usual Van Allen Belt issues, nobody having been above 300 (but insinuated that the ISS is an optical defect and that all EVA video is faked).  Claimed to have been educated as an engineer (but refused to say if he had graduated), went on about the illuminati, refused to give a specific example of what would make him change his mind (other than something verifiable).

Soon resorted to insults and flounced.

You have to wonder what makes someone like that join the Mars Society group, given it is all about the past, present and future exploration of Mars!
Maybe just a troll?

He's been there for a while, so a slow starting one if so.  But his own page shows he's into all sorts of wierd stuff.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 15, 2015, 08:53:45 PM
Actually, I've been curious about spacesuit cooling on Mars.  The porous plate sublimators on on current & past EVA suits rely on vacuum to operate.  Is Mars' atmosphere thin enough to allow them to work, or will we have to find a different way to keep the would-be "Martians" cool while they work?

The pressure over large areas of Mars are below the triple point, so some kind of flash evaporator or sublimator would work.  The large areas of Mars are also above the triple point, so liquid water is possible, although over a very narrow temperature range.  So they probably would work.

Convection does take place under Mars conditions, despite the thin atmosphere, so would be a factor.  Also the insolation is much lower, so cool requirements will not be as stringent as on the Moon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on November 17, 2015, 02:32:45 AM
The pressure over large areas of Mars are below the triple point, so some kind of flash evaporator or sublimator would work.
Even if it works, it would consume a lot of very precious water.
Quote
Also the insolation is much lower, so cool requirements will not be as stringent as on the Moon.
Yes, but a pressure suit has to protect you from both temperature extremes. The usual approach is to insulate you as much as possible, then use active cooling to get rid of the waste heat from astronaut metabolism and PLSS operation. It would be quite a challenge to design a suit that could eliminate waste heat passively while still protecting you from the rather wide temperature swings on Mars.

Also, the fact that Mars has a (thin) atmosphere may interfere with the thermal blankets used as suit insulation. A typical example consists of alternating layers of aluminized Mylar and a Dacron netting. They work in a vacuum much as a Thermos bottle does, with radiation barriers of reflective metals alternating with vacuum gaps to stop convection.

One of the more interesting suit cooling systems I've seen proposed is based on hydride compounds. They usually produce heat when absorbing hydrogen and absorb heat when losing hydrogen, but different alloys do so at different temperatures. The idea is to use one hydride to absorb suit heat at a suitable temperature (e.g., 10C) while absorbing the liberated hydrogen in another material that does so at ambient temperature. You can control the cooling level by regulating the hydrogen flow between them. After the EVA, you heat the second hydride container and cool the first, driving the hydrogen back the other way and regenerating the cooling unit.

I don't know if this has been taken beyond the early prototype stage.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on November 17, 2015, 07:00:08 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 17, 2015, 07:51:17 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
Counter pressure?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on November 17, 2015, 08:27:13 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
Counter pressure?
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 17, 2015, 09:49:40 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.

In every way they are superior.  Cooling would be by the wearer's sweat, you would probably have opening panels in an outer garment for the wearer to control this.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 17, 2015, 09:54:10 PM
The pressure over large areas of Mars are below the triple point, so some kind of flash evaporator or sublimator would work.
Even if it works, it would consume a lot of very precious water.

Unlikely to be significantly more than current suits.  Also, unlike LEO and the Moon, local potential water resources are diverse and abundant on Mars.

Quote
Quote
Also the insolation is much lower, so cool requirements will not be as stringent as on the Moon.
Yes, but a pressure suit has to protect you from both temperature extremes. The usual approach is to insulate you as much as possible, then use active cooling to get rid of the waste heat from astronaut metabolism and PLSS operation. It would be quite a challenge to design a suit that could eliminate waste heat passively while still protecting you from the rather wide temperature swings on Mars.

The temperature swings are not as extreme on Mars as on the Moon.

Quote
Also, the fact that Mars has a (thin) atmosphere may interfere with the thermal blankets used as suit insulation. A typical example consists of alternating layers of aluminized Mylar and a Dacron netting. They work in a vacuum much as a Thermos bottle does, with radiation barriers of reflective metals alternating with vacuum gaps to stop convection.

Amazing, people will have to come up with different types of insulation.  Who would have thought it?  Just as well this is something we have decades of experience with already on Mars, and it is something readily tested on Earth.

Quote
One of the more interesting suit cooling systems I've seen proposed is based on hydride compounds. They usually produce heat when absorbing hydrogen and absorb heat when losing hydrogen, but different alloys do so at different temperatures. The idea is to use one hydride to absorb suit heat at a suitable temperature (e.g., 10C) while absorbing the liberated hydrogen in another material that does so at ambient temperature. You can control the cooling level by regulating the hydrogen flow between them. After the EVA, you heat the second hydride container and cool the first, driving the hydrogen back the other way and regenerating the cooling unit.

Might be feasible, depends on it's mass ultimately.  At 38% gravity mass is critical.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 19, 2015, 01:17:24 PM
Neil has poked his head above the parapet at YouTube again; apparently, what happened over here was

"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."

Make of that what you will.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 19, 2015, 01:40:41 PM
Neil has poked his head above the parapet at YouTube again; apparently, what happened over here was

"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."

Make of that what you will.....
Censorship/moderation is in the eye of the beholder.  Put a message that he was moderated for far different reasons than he listed
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on November 19, 2015, 02:58:44 PM
Neil has poked his head above the parapet at YouTube again; apparently, what happened over here was

"I got censored.
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."

Make of that what you will.....
Censorship/moderation is in the eye of the beholder.  Put a message that he was moderated for far different reasons than he listed

I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...

I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.

I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.

That ought to tick him off...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on November 19, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
"I got censored.

He got moderated after repeated warnings.

Quote
Apollo Hoax and the cowards lurking there don't dare discuss the subject on a level playing field.

A level playing field requires everyone to stick to the subject.  Baker doesn't have a very good track record at estimating the levelness of playing fields.

Quote
First they threatened to ban me if I didn't respond to each and every one of their lame long winded posts.

He was thoroughly refuted but was not competent enough to delve into the required depth.

Quote
Then, when I responded they threatened me with expulsion if I dared discuss the motivations for seeking NASA truth.

He tried to change the subject to 9/11, which was what he admitted his ulterior motive was.

Quote
Then, they baited me by discussing off topic subjects and when I responded to their off topic subject I got censored, not them."

People amused themselves in Baker's absence.  When he returned, the discussion (which he started) should have returned to his points, but he took advantage of the opportunity for distraction.  "I was baited" is a poor excuse for anything.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 19, 2015, 04:10:07 PM
Aside from the mistrust of the government, which is obviously one of his main contentions, It seemed a poor tactic to start a discussion of Apollo, IMO.  Not much was lost with his departure.  Then followed by tarkus/tinkorwhatshisname. with much of the same behavioral MO.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on November 19, 2015, 05:51:43 PM
Baker's egotistical and dishonest  denialism  was/is just pathetic. And now he's getting pissy because we asked him to put up or shut up? Oy vey! ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on November 20, 2015, 12:10:25 AM
Indeed, Baker's particular criminal history and attendant paranoia fairly ensured his outcome here would not be favorable.  There's no need or use to try to salvage the situation here.  Neil Baker is a demonstrably disturbed individual, and his rants here are the product of that disturbance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 20, 2015, 05:27:38 AM

I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...

I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.

I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.



Sort the comments by Newest First, and it's within the last couple of days or so. Same ID as I have here. Thread started by oliver hernandez

You'll need a google account to post.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 20, 2015, 07:42:16 AM

I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...

I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.

I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.



Sort the comments by Newest First, and it's within the last couple of days or so. Same ID as I have here. Thread started by oliver hernandez

You'll need a google account to post.
You did an adequate job, but probably lost on most of them.  I enjoyed the lawyers take on the video.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 20, 2015, 07:43:22 AM
Indeed, Baker's particular criminal history and attendant paranoia fairly ensured his outcome here would not be favorable.  There's no need or use to try to salvage the situation here.  Neil Baker is a demonstrably disturbed individual, and his rants here are the product of that disturbance.
In addition to his inability to differentiate facts from fiction.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 20, 2015, 05:22:57 PM

I'd be happy to do that if someone would tell me where to find that post...

I can't stand people who ignore the evidence.

I will go back through this entire thread, and list every single question to which he failed to respond, and list every single instance where he completely ignored the evidence presented him, followed by his off-topic rantings.



Sort the comments by Newest First, and it's within the last couple of days or so. Same ID as I have here. Thread started by oliver hernandez

You'll need a google account to post.

I'm hard to shock, but the clown who thinks that clouds go behind the sun and moon!
 :o
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 20, 2015, 05:51:54 PM
I'm hard to shock, but the clown who thinks that clouds go behind the sun and moon!
 :o

Oh, there's loads of them over at YouTube.... plus the ones who think the Earth is flat, that there's no such thing as satellites, that GPS works as a land-based 'cell tower' system, that the Moon's a hologram, etc etc
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 20, 2015, 09:18:30 PM
I'm hard to shock, but the clown who thinks that clouds go behind the sun and moon!
 :o

Oh, there's loads of them over at YouTube.... plus the ones who think the Earth is flat, that there's no such thing as satellites, that GPS works as a land-based 'cell tower' system, that the Moon's a hologram, etc etc

I know, but still, clouds behind the sun and moon, witness with his own eyes?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on November 20, 2015, 10:21:22 PM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 20, 2015, 10:45:23 PM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on November 21, 2015, 12:14:42 AM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 21, 2015, 03:56:06 AM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.

Very well put.

As for other replies, it is simply staggering not just how much plain and utter stupid is out there, but how much raging angry stupid there is out there, spewing ignorant nonsense in any receptacle they can find.

The source of that rage and anger is as baffling as the level of stupid given that most of them went through the same level of education as I did and probably have similar backgrounds. Apparently, everyone else is to blame for their failings in life, for some reason particularly NASA, and their stunning lack of achievement is nothing at all with their avoiding making any effort in their existence or making use of the opportunities given to them on a plate.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 21, 2015, 09:17:19 AM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.
From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigoursly
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 21, 2015, 12:40:41 PM
From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigoursly

...and when asked 'Which Government' it transpires they're referring to the USA, or the stock answer comes back that they're 'all in it together', but there's never any proof of what 'it' is. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 21, 2015, 12:58:36 PM
From many of my conversations on YT many have a belief that science/government (NASA) lies and defend it vigoursly

...and when asked 'Which Government' it transpires they're referring to the USA, or the stock answer comes back that they're 'all in it together', but there's never any proof of what 'it' is.
Yes not much in the way of proof, but that doesn't stop them from posting their idiotic viewpoints.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on November 21, 2015, 11:01:05 PM
To be fair, it's hard to tell a genuine claim from those who are simply trolling for kicks and giggles.
You have more faith than I do,I think they believe what they are posting.
It's sad, no, when the option that says people are lying for fun is the one that displays more faith in humanity.

Very well put.

As for other replies, it is simply staggering not just how much plain and utter stupid is out there, but how much raging angry stupid there is out there, spewing ignorant nonsense in any receptacle they can find.

The source of that rage and anger is as baffling as the level of stupid given that most of them went through the same level of education as I did and probably have similar backgrounds. Apparently, everyone else is to blame for their failings in life, for some reason particularly NASA, and their stunning lack of achievement is nothing at all with their avoiding making any effort in their existence or making use of the opportunities given to them on a plate.

For some I think the best way to justify their own lack of meaningful achievement is to try and show that other's achievement is not genuine.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 21, 2015, 11:04:29 PM

For some I think the best way to justify their own lack of meaningful achievement is to try and show thatother's achievement is not genuine.
That is certainly a human trait.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on November 25, 2015, 11:54:44 AM
Meanwhile, over at YouTube, Baker has descended into arguing that there 'should have been a blast crater' under the LM, and 'why wasn't there any 'dust' on the footpads' .....

Sheesh.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: darren r on November 25, 2015, 02:38:14 PM
Meanwhile, over at YouTube, Baker has descended into arguing that there 'should have been a blast crater' under the LM, and 'why wasn't there any 'dust' on the footpads' .....

Sheesh.

It's Groundhog Day!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on November 25, 2015, 02:46:49 PM
Meanwhile, over at YouTube, Baker has descended into arguing that there 'should have been a blast crater' under the LM, and 'why wasn't there any 'dust' on the footpads' .....

Sheesh.

It's Groundhog Day!
It is a full moon also.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Captain Swoop on December 20, 2015, 03:52:25 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
Counter pressure?
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).

Isn't that how Apollo suits worked anyway?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on December 20, 2015, 04:09:55 PM
Given the higher gravity of Mars compared to the moon, a heavier suit is much more of a burden. Mechanical counter-pressure suits might win out.
Counter pressure?
Instead of using a layer of air, using the pressure of a tight fitting garment. Also known as a space activity suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit).

Isn't that how Apollo suits worked anyway?

Eh, no. Basic difference is molecular versus, err, grosser scale. Think difference between a plastic bag and a net. Idea is, skin (or rather, circulatory system) is gas-tight enough, it just doesn't have the elastic strength to keep from being deformed from internal pressures. And you need those internal pressures to make cellular respiration, transpiration in the lungs, et al function properly.

A7L and modern equivalents applies counter-pressure from the outside (by being pressurized). Skin-tight isn't necessary; you can after all pressurize a spacecraft cabin. There is a similarity, though; the pressure bladder of the suit is flexible and would balloon if not constrained. So in a way the Apollo suit is, itself, wearing a space activity suit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on January 31, 2016, 10:14:10 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2016, 10:26:58 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 10:28:28 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.
Could this be a sock??
What you believe is irrelevant what you can prove is relevant.  You know that Alan Bean and the rest of the Apollo astronauts only skimmed the lowest density of the VARB, not through the highest levels, besides you are talking to a 80+ year old.  I hope you remember as much as he when you are that old.  The batteries were very sufficient to power all the aspects of the landing they were designed for.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 31, 2016, 10:30:09 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 10:35:14 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for his "evidence".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on January 31, 2016, 10:59:59 AM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on January 31, 2016, 11:04:21 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.  My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.  I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today.  LOL. 
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 11:08:22 AM

If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
You misunderstood Mr. Smith's video.  THE VARB have always been a concern for NS not the impediment you suggest.
Try looking tat this simple web site and calculate what the radiation doses were for Apollo.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Space_Math_III.pdf
Mr. Smith is describing that with newer electronics that are more susceptible to radiation damage than those used in Apollo missions, Orion radiation shielding must be better than Apollo for extended missions lasting months if not years versus the roughly two week mission of Apollo.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Gazpar on January 31, 2016, 11:21:09 AM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 11:27:06 AM

According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.  My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.  I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today.  LOL. 
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
You display very poor to nonexistent amount of research on the matter, the batteries you describe were for the LM not the PLSS.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016295.pdf

Documentation of the PLSS shows it weighed 84 lbs. on earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System

EDIT: To correct spelling errors
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on January 31, 2016, 11:40:41 AM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 11:46:45 AM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 31, 2016, 12:00:48 PM
According to NASA

What's "NASA"?



Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
If you don't know the specs of the batteries, then how can you claim that they weren't sufficient? You claim that they batteries weren't capable, then please show how you came to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

That's because he didn't.

Quote
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.

LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure.  What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?

The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type.  These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries.  Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.

Quote
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Sublimators are fictitious?  Sublimators are NASA-only technology?  And you claim to be an engineer?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2016, 12:11:40 PM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
I didn't say they were insignificant.  Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.  I said it was an insignificant part of the trip because they used a trajectory that took them around the belts. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on January 31, 2016, 12:15:06 PM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Do feel free to provide absolutely any evidence whatsoever to support anything you've just posted.
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.  My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.  I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today.  LOL. 
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
Your car battery is a lead acid battery used because it can support a lot of discharge/recharge cycles but NOT because it is particularly efficient.  Apollo used IIRC silver zinc batteries which, though expensive, have a better power efficiency than lithium batteries.
You were asked to provide evidence.  You provided conjecture and proof you hadn't bothered to research.  Try again.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on January 31, 2016, 01:09:34 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on January 31, 2016, 01:19:10 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
It sounds about correct, for the HB's to take a comment out of context and present it to bolster their point.  I shall look for it also, if it hasn't been pulled.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on January 31, 2016, 03:58:34 PM
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.  My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.

Why would an engineer compare two entirely dissimilar battery technologies simply by mass and dimensions?  Do you understand that there are different ways to store electrical energy as chemical energy?

Quote
I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today.  LOL.

The lead-acid battery was invented in the 1850s.  My car still uses a lead-acid battery.  Why?  Is it because no better technology exists?  My cell phone uses a lithium battery (I think).  Why not a lead-acid battery?

It is easy to discover that the lunar module used silver-zinc battery technology, and it's not as if NASA had any sort of monopoly (or control of any kind) over its history and development.  In your rush to declare NASA and Apollo frauds, you don't seem to have researched it much, or about science in general.

Quote
i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?

What makes you think a sublimator requires power to operate?  What makes you think a sublimator would put heat into a system?  Do you even know what one is or how it works?

You keep speaking about "extreme temperatures," but you can't seem to tell us what actually exhibited those temperatures and why.  You don't seem to understand the role of insulation in a thermal design.

You speak in vague terms about "1960s technology," but you don't seem to know any of the technology that actually existed in the 1960s or how it worked.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on January 31, 2016, 05:23:19 PM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Alan Bean was interviewed and when asked what cooled the module and space suits he said battery packs.  Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

Sorry, but batteries are extremely inefficient and I'm pretty sure there were no solar chargers.  Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

The beauty of the cooling system on the spacesuits was, that the power needed was mainly the heat it had to dissipate. Only a small water pump, smaller than what you put in your aquarium, needed electricity.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2016, 05:33:54 PM
I remember looking up the power density at one of those battery comparison charts after seeing on something from NASA what the battery chemistry was on the rover. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to do the same for the PLSS.

What would make a more intriguing problem is figuring out if there is sufficient battery life there. Tradosaurus seems to be assuming an electrically powered refrigeration cycle -- a Carnot heat engine, do I have the term right? Of course the sublimator isn't a closed-cycle unit; the work is derived from the reservoir of working fluid, and the limiting factor is the amount of water carried in the first place.

But...locally cooling just the back of your neck is probably not the most effective, so there is need to push cold water through the loops of the thermal undergarment to get it to where it is most wanted. And it might be fun to work out a rough approximation of what kind of power that might take.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 31, 2016, 06:45:14 PM
The biggest concern I have about the cooling of the space suits is the battery technology to operate it. 

Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures. 

I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Please tell us WHAT varied in temp from minus to plus 200 F, and how you measured the temp range.....
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on January 31, 2016, 07:25:33 PM
I remember looking up the power density at one of those battery comparison charts after seeing on something from NASA what the battery chemistry was on the rover. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to do the same for the PLSS.

What would make a more intriguing problem is figuring out if there is sufficient battery life there. Tradosaurus seems to be assuming an electrically powered refrigeration cycle -- a Carnot heat engine, do I have the term right? Of course the sublimator isn't a closed-cycle unit; the work is derived from the reservoir of working fluid, and the limiting factor is the amount of water carried in the first place.

But...locally cooling just the back of your neck is probably not the most effective, so there is need to push cold water through the loops of the thermal undergarment to get it to where it is most wanted. And it might be fun to work out a rough approximation of what kind of power that might take.

The easiest way to do that would be to look up the pumps and use their powr consumption data as basis.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: dwight on January 31, 2016, 08:02:34 PM
NASA. Now that is clever. Right when I thought I had seen all the great one liners, I am reduced to tears and fits of laughter by this stunning display of comic wit.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on January 31, 2016, 10:24:46 PM
Honestly, I've started to believe that any and all insults of that kind should result in having your posts edited by LO.  It's childish and petty, and it's certainly not persuasive.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on January 31, 2016, 10:46:25 PM
I remember looking up the power density at one of those battery comparison charts after seeing on something from NASA what the battery chemistry was on the rover. I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to do the same for the PLSS.

What would make a more intriguing problem is figuring out if there is sufficient battery life there. Tradosaurus seems to be assuming an electrically powered refrigeration cycle -- a Carnot heat engine, do I have the term right? Of course the sublimator isn't a closed-cycle unit; the work is derived from the reservoir of working fluid, and the limiting factor is the amount of water carried in the first place.

But...locally cooling just the back of your neck is probably not the most effective, so there is need to push cold water through the loops of the thermal undergarment to get it to where it is most wanted. And it might be fun to work out a rough approximation of what kind of power that might take.

The easiest way to do that would be to look up the pumps and use their powr consumption data as basis.

Meh. I'd rather get a less precise answer that came from closer to first principles. That is, instead of "accepting NASA lies" or however the hoaxie de jour puts it, to make some assumptions about the thermal garment and how much pump it would actually take. Too complicated for me to want to model at any detail, though, and I'm not sure a Fermi estimation is close enough!

Only approximation I can make off-hand is those little decorative fountains you can pick up now that recharge over USB and have a battery about the size of my pinkie. My gut estimate, basically, is that the radio completely swamps the power requirements of the pump.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ishkabibble on January 31, 2016, 10:55:50 PM
NASA. Now that is clever. Right when I thought I had seen all the great one liners, I am reduced to tears and fits of laughter by this stunning display of comic wit.
Honestly, I've started to believe that any and all insults of that kind should result in having your posts edited by LO.  It's childish and petty, and it's certainly not persuasive.

If I see another "astro-not" or "NASA" or anything remotely similar, I am going to ask for that precise requirement.

What we're all dealing with here, is some pimply-faced late-teens or early-twenties geek-nerd wannabe who really isn't doing all that well in his math or science classes, who desperately wants to be cool, without having the ability to be either smart or cool, and who can't be bothered to show that he desperately wants that.

I see it every day in the angst-ridden freshmen who are the entitled children of some rich politically-connected family, who didn't have either the grades or the SAT scores to get into a big-name college, so instead had to go to the local small school because that's the only one that would admit them. They're all too cool to be bothered, but are working very hard to demonstrate how cool they really are.

If the behavior keeps up, I'm going to ask for moderation.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 01, 2016, 01:50:12 AM
It ought to be possible for the forum software to auto-edit such stupidity :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 01, 2016, 04:03:30 AM
LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure.  What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?
Especially since the LM batteries were mounted on cold plates through which coolant was circulated that passed through a sublimator working on exactly the same principle as the one in the PLSS.
Quote
The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type.  These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries.  Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.
And they're still exotic. Perhaps the name is a clue as to why.

They do remain the battery type of choice in space launch vehicles. Capacity is roughly comparable to modern li-ion batteries, which were not produced until the 1990s. Ag-Zn does have a very poor cycle life as a rechargeable battery, but that wasn't a problem in Apollo. Most of its batteries never had to be recharged, and of those that did (CM entry batteries) only a few cycles were needed.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 01, 2016, 04:20:22 AM
According to NASA, the batteries during in the Apollo moon vacation (no qty given on their sight) were 3" x 2 3/4" x 6.78" and weighed 135 lbs.
An object 3" x 2.75" x 6.78" and weighing 135 lbm has a density of 66.8 g/cc. Water is 1 g/cc and uranium is 19.1 g/cc. Perhaps you should take more care when transcribing figures.
Quote
My car battery is much bigger and weighs less than 30 lbs.  I guess 1960's technology was way more advanced than today.  LOL.
Perhaps you should investigate the various battery chemistries and why each might be preferred for a given application. Hint: look up the prices of the raw materials involved.
Quote
Again, i ask the nasa fanbase what powered the sublimator to heat and cool the suits and module in extreme temperatures using 1960's technology?
Asked and answered, but I do congratulate you on correctly spelling the acronym of the US space agency. The sublimator required no electrical power, but it did require a feedwater supply and a source of pressure. The coolant circulating pumps did require electrical power, about 30 watts total for each PLSS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on February 01, 2016, 08:49:32 PM
NASA. Now that is clever. Right when I thought I had seen all the great one liners, I am reduced to tears and fits of laughter by this stunning display of comic wit.

I'm disappointed. I was holding out a slim hope that he was combining "NASA" and "Nazca," and was going to somehow tie up his flat Earth nonsense with some good Ancient Aliens nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 02, 2016, 08:33:20 AM
Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

That's because he didn't.

Quote
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.

LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure.  What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?

The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type.  These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries.  Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.

Quote
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Sublimators are fictitious?  Sublimators are NASA-only technology?  And you claim to be an engineer?
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page.  I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)

Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission.  Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts?  Or did NASA lose that also?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 02, 2016, 08:39:51 AM
Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

That's because he didn't.

Quote
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.

LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure.  What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?

The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type.  These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries.  Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.

Quote
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Sublimators are fictitious?  Sublimators are NASA-only technology?  And you claim to be an engineer?
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page.  I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)

Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission.  Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts?  Or did NASA lose that also?

Jay's comment was concerning Alan's SpaceLab mission that did not go through the VARB, the video comment has been taken out of context.  Get your facts straight.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 02, 2016, 08:44:21 AM
Of course he also wasn't aware he went through the Van Allen radiation belts. lol

That's because he didn't.

Quote
Also battery technology would have been extremely heavy and bulky and most definitely could not have lasted long in +/- 200F temperatures.

LM and EMU batteries were contained inside structure.  What makes you think there would be any thermal fluctuations there?

The LM had approximately 1600 A h of batteries, of the then-exotic silver-zinc type.  These were the forerunners of today's quite ubiquitous high energy density batteries.  Exotic then, yes, but certainly not unheard of in the literature.

Quote
I think the sublimator is a neat parlor trick by NASA but you can't get there from here on the power to run this fictitious piece of cooling equipment.

Sublimators are fictitious?  Sublimators are NASA-only technology?  And you claim to be an engineer?
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page.  I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts (http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts)

Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission.  Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts?  Or did NASA lose that also?

Jay's comment was concerning Alan's SpaceLab mission that did not go through the VARB, the video comment has been taken out of context.  Get your facts straight.
and while the Apollo missions did go through the belts, they went on a trajectory through the thinner out edges.
What they are concerned with for Mars is not the belts but the cumulative effect from months of interplanetary travel. 
This has all been mentioned before, Tradosaurus.  Perhaps you should read the replies you get.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2016, 09:57:20 AM
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page.  I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.

And while you're frantically Googling the popular literature that simplifies the issue, many of the rest of us are quite capable of plotting the actual orbit.  I even spoke to Dr. Van Allen about it, before he passed away.

The Apollo missions adopted an inclination that largely skirted the trapped radiation belts.  By manipulating altitude and inclination, several departure trajectories are possible that largely miss the Van Allen belts.  Let me know when you've worked out those orbital mechanics.

But to respond to your actual question -- no, Bean did not go through the Van Allen belts on his Skylab mission, which was where the quote was lifted from.  You need to stop relying on third-party sources, especially those sympathetic to the hoax claims who doctor and misrepresent the facts.  They know you won't check up on them.

Quote
Also NASA is still trying figure out the radiation belts for the future and fictitious Mars mission.  Why not just use the data from the 1960's technology that the Apollo missions use to navigate the belts?  Or did NASA lose that also?

Before I discuss present and future operations, I'll just let you mull over the obvious contradiction in your claim that is utterly unapparent to you.

What about all that data?  Guess what -- the AP and AE models from before and during Apollo are the de facto standard for those us who work commercially in the field.  You don't seem to realize it, but NASA isn't the be-all and end-all of space.  All my work in space has been done for commercial companies who are working for profit.  Two of the objects I mentioned earlier traversed the Van Allen belts, and others I've worked on tangentially operate continuously in them.  These are projects with billion-dollar budgets, made for private customers.  We guaranteed our work, and everyone involved took out enormous insurance policies that would pay out for early failure.

Now imagine of all those trapped radiation models were wrong.  Imagine what would happen if our products failed prematurely because of it.  We'd lose credibility in the industry, and the insurance companies would most assuredly investigate the causes of the failures, up to and including the validity of the information on which the designs were built. There are vast financial incentives for making sure NASA did its job.

You talk a big game about "following the money," but in fact you have no clue where the money comes from and goes to in this industry.  You maintain your teenage spy novel view of the world, in almost total ignorance of what actually happens.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 02, 2016, 10:34:20 AM
Would the Earth's magnetic field, and, therefore, the Van Allen belts even have the right shape in tradosaurus's little flat world? The Earth's magnetic pole twin to the one in the Arctic wouldn't even be in Antarctica but off the map completely!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 02, 2016, 11:31:37 AM
You nasa fan boys need to get on the same page.  I've read many articles that state that the Apollo missions went through the Van Allen belts.

And while you're frantically Googling the popular literature that simplifies the issue, many of the rest of us are quite capable of plotting the actual orbit.  I even spoke to Dr. Van Allen about it, before he passed away.
...
It would have been great to visit with such great personalities! :)               
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on February 02, 2016, 12:48:22 PM
Two of the objects I mentioned earlier traversed the Van Allen belts, and others I've worked on tangentially operate continuously in them.  These are projects with billion-dollar budgets, made for private customers.  We guaranteed our work, and everyone involved took out enormous insurance policies that would pay out for early failure.

One thing I keep meaning to ask that I've been curious about since watching one of the James Burke episodes were he mentioned the 99.99992% reliability standard every component was built to for the Apollo missions. What kind of standard is set for commercial satellites and NASA unmanned missions? There must be some kind of sliding scale depending on how expensive the mission or satellite is but were would it start at? 95% for a relatively cheap satellite for example? I imagine that reliability figure must make a difference with the insurance premiums as well.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2016, 01:15:50 PM
One thing I keep meaning to ask that I've been curious about since watching one of the James Burke episodes were he mentioned the 99.99992% reliability standard every component was built to for the Apollo missions. What kind of standard is set for commercial satellites and NASA unmanned missions? There must be some kind of sliding scale depending on how expensive the mission or satellite is but were would it start at? 95% for a relatively cheap satellite for example? I imagine that reliability figure must make a difference with the insurance premiums as well.

That's a hornet's nest of a question because system reliability and component reliability are different things.  You build components to a certain number of "nines" of reliability because the way they combine into a system invokes statistical computations to determine the statistical reliability of assemblies, subsystems, and entire systems for the span of a given mission.  I mentioned I worked (in the early phase) on the Antares rocket, which was originally in a class of rockets generally considered to have only 1-2 "nines" overall.  A 1 in 20 failure rate is acceptable for some applications, especially when a goal is to reduce cost per launch.  But in order to get even that amount, several of the components have to be built to 3-4 "nines" (i.e., probability of success during a mission > 0.9995).

Here's a simple example.  Let's say your car has four tires and each tire is built to two nines, or probability of "mission" success for each tire is 0.99.  But all four tires have to work, so you multiply them together to get the overall reliability for the tire "subsystem" -- algebraically, psys = pcnc where c denotes a component.  You end up with 0.96.  By needing four of the components in order for the system to work, you lose almost half a "nine" in the tires' contribution to overall trip success.

Conversely you can design things so that component reliability works in your favor.  If you really need a rocket engine to fire, you can have two parallel (i.e., redundant) fuel paths, each with its own inlet valve.  The idea is that only one of them has to operate in order for the engine to fire.  If you want 4 nines for that engine then the combinatorial math works the other direction.  It means you can tolerate a p <= 0.0001 probability of failure, which means that's the probability of both inlet valves failing.  That involves the nth root, n = 2, and thus acceptable component failure is p <= 0.01.  You only need two nines of reliability on the valves by arranging them redundantly.

Doing this for an entire design, using appropriately sophisticated statistical methods, complexity analysis, and criticality analysis, you come up with reliability budgets at different scopes of examination in the design.  And unfortunately for component-level designers, this often means that critical components need to be built to unbelievably high reliability factors.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on February 02, 2016, 01:30:03 PM
One thing I keep meaning to ask that I've been curious about since watching one of the James Burke episodes were he mentioned the 99.99992% reliability standard every component was built to for the Apollo missions. What kind of standard is set for commercial satellites and NASA unmanned missions? There must be some kind of sliding scale depending on how expensive the mission or satellite is but were would it start at? 95% for a relatively cheap satellite for example? I imagine that reliability figure must make a difference with the insurance premiums as well.

That's a hornet's nest of a question because system reliability and component reliability are different things.  You build components to a certain number of "nines" of reliability because the way they combine into a system invokes statistical computations to determine the statistical reliability of assemblies, subsystems, and entire systems for the span of a given mission.  I mentioned I worked (in the early phase) on the Antares rocket, which was originally in a class of rockets generally considered to have only 1-2 "nines" overall.  A 1 in 20 failure rate is acceptable for some applications, especially when a goal is to reduce cost per launch.  But in order to get even that amount, several of the components have to be built to 3-4 "nines" (i.e., probability of success during a mission > 0.9995).

Here's a simple example.  Let's say your car has four tires and each tire is built to two nines, or probability of "mission" success for each tire is 0.99.  But all four tires have to work, so you multiply them together to get the overall reliability for the tire "subsystem" -- algebraically, psys = pcnc where c denotes a component.  You end up with 0.96.  By needing four of the components in order for the system to work, you lose almost half a "nine" in the tires' contribution to overall trip success.

Conversely you can design things so that component reliability works in your favor.  If you really need a rocket engine to fire, you can have two parallel (i.e., redundant) fuel paths, each with its own inlet valve.  The idea is that only one of them has to operate in order for the engine to fire.  If you want 4 nines for that engine then the combinatorial math works the other direction.  It means you can tolerate a p <= 0.0001 probability of failure, which means that's the probability of both inlet valves failing.  That involves the nth root, n = 2, and thus acceptable component failure is p <= 0.01.  You only need two nines of reliability on the valves by arranging them redundantly.

Doing this for an entire design, using appropriately sophisticated statistical methods, complexity analysis, and criticality analysis, you come up with reliability budgets at different scopes of examination in the design.  And unfortunately for component-level designers, this often means that critical components need to be built to unbelievably high reliability factors.

Thanks Jay. I figured it would be a fairly complex topic and your explanation helps quite a bit. Considering the Apollo missions were relatively short compared to what they plan for Orion, I have a hard time imagining how much more thorough they have to be with components and systems that will be much more complicated. It's still a bit mind boggling to see how they managed to accomplish what they did after Kennedy's announcement for reaching the moon when they hadn't even launched a manned mission yet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 02, 2016, 01:54:46 PM
Well, a lot was in the planning or even development stages when he gave the speech , with  the first test firing of the mighty F-1 occurring in March 1959, about 3 and 1/2 years before then.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 04, 2016, 09:23:01 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the nasa fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from nasa.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on February 04, 2016, 09:34:20 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.

It's all old debunked nonsense. Bean was talking about his Skylab tour. The 1959 study was later refined and is now the basis for all space activity radiation consideration.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 04, 2016, 09:37:08 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 04, 2016, 09:39:20 PM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.

https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
 (https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the nasa engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication? 

This guy certainly received his B.S in engineering but the B.S. doesn't mean bachelor of science. 

If you want to see a better space actor  and egomaniac watch the conference with Adam Steltzner talking about the rover that landed on Mars.  When asked about the image file type use to capture the image from Mars he states "Unfortunately I cannot" and then asked about the landing coordinates had a perplexed look on his face and stated "I can't confirm that"  lol

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 04, 2016, 09:41:09 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.

It's all old debunked nonsense. Bean was talking about his Skylab tour. The 1959 study was later refined and is now the basis for all space activity radiation consideration.

Yeah sure.  And you watched the video right?  This is the reason I keep stating that the globe earth universe is a religion.  You refuse to believe the words out of legitimate nasa astro-not.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 04, 2016, 09:42:59 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what nasa is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 04, 2016, 09:45:17 PM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.

https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
 (https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication? 

This guy certainly received his B.S in engineering but the B.S. doesn't mean bachelor of science. 

If you want to see a better space actor  and egomaniac watch the conference with Adam Steltzner talking about the rover that landed on Mars.  When asked about the image file type use to capture the image from Mars he states "Unfortunately I cannot" and then asked about the landing coordinates had a perplexed look on his face and stated "I can't confirm that"  lol
Nowhere in that video does Mr. Smith state that NASA hasn't/can't get through the VARB.  The Orion capsule uses much radiation damage prone electronics, not the RTL very stable electronics of Apollo for a 14 day mission.  Orion is being designed for much longer flights perhaps years.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 04, 2016, 09:47:44 PM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.

https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
 (https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication? 

Good question, why can't it stay in communications? If the world was flat, no satellite would ever be out of line of sight from Earth unless it dipped around the underside, but if the world is round, it could go 'behind the horizon' and be blocked by the curvature of the Earth and all that dirt and rock.
In response to additional post: You take them out of context, literally quote mining and making them lies of your creation. If someone climbed Mt. Everest, and then, when asked about climbing  Hadley Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Mountain), said 'I don't think we went much higher than 800 metres', would it not be lying if you tried to use this quote as evidence they didn't climb Mount Everest.
To quote Daffy Duck, "You are dethhh . . .spicable!" Tradosaurus
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 04, 2016, 09:49:27 PM
Quote
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.
Did you look at the links or just hand wave them away, troll.
Do you think that further studies of the VARB possibly changed Dr. Van Allen analysis?
You continue to show us that you may have a degree, but you have no clue how to act like and engineer. 

ETA:
Jay has been in direct comment with Dr. Van Allen substantiating the post in CosmoQuest, so I would say the analysis changed with further study, including the trajectory of Apollo.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2016, 10:13:43 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)
I see "two zones of high-energyparticles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded"
they were shielded AND they went through the outer edges.
And this "Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space-rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles"
And AGAIN, they were shielded and while they didn't quite go through the poles, they did take a highly inclined orbit that took them through the thinner outer edges where the radiation was less and they got through it faster.

You were told this before and you've only proven you didn't bother to read.

Interesting that you don't believe rockets work in space yet you accept the measurements taken by a probe carried by a rocket in space.

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.
Because that is what hoaxies do?

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Were you going to come up with any inconsistencies and fabrications?  Because so far all we've got is hoaxie lies and deliberate misinterpretations.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2016, 10:15:01 PM
Basically you have a lot of argument from incredulity and not much else.

they did use batteries, the specs of which are available if you look and you can see there WAS enough power for what they needed to do.

As for the Van Allen belts, why should he remember an insignificant part of the trip multiple years later when they were on a preplanned trajectory that took them AROUND the belts anyway?
If the Van Allen belts are so insignificant why is NASA trying to figure out how to get through them on their supposed planned trip to Mars?
Is not that Van Allen Belts are dangerous, its the interplanetary space. Orion will need to travel for months in that place opposed to Apollo.

https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE
 (https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzE)
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication? 

This guy certainly received his B.S in engineering but the B.S. doesn't mean bachelor of science. 

If you want to see a better space actor  and egomaniac watch the conference with Adam Steltzner talking about the rover that landed on Mars.  When asked about the image file type use to capture the image from Mars he states "Unfortunately I cannot" and then asked about the landing coordinates had a perplexed look on his face and stated "I can't confirm that"  lol
And again he was talking about testing the electronics.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2016, 10:17:54 PM

What you either don't know or are ignoring is Al Bean was discussing the Skylab mission when the question of the Van Allen Belts came up. Taking a quote out of context is a poor way to get answers.
That part has been clipped out so it is out of context also.  I haven't heard the original video  where the Skylab question was asked, thanks for the info.
Another Apollo defender posted a clip of the actual question and answer on Youtube, but unfortunately I failed to save it anywhere and I cannot remember who it was who posted it. I'm afraid it's just my word on that until and unless I can find the clip, so take it with the appropriate grain of salt.
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

I don't know how the clip of Alan Bean was taken out of context.

You can watch the lies from Mr. Bean start here and I believe you can see it all in the same context.  https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s (https://youtu.be/LAbpWaDL4Zc?t=10m15s)

I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.
Dr. Van Allen did indeed state that in 1959, however, these comments were directed to plans for an orbiting space station at 1000 miles, one of the proposals at the time, and indeed without a great deal of protection those astronauts would be in danger, in fact when the ISS travels through the South Atlantic Anomaly, the astronauts need to go to a more safe portion of the ISS to have time to regenerate.
Now when Apollo flew to the moon the trajectory was through the less dense portions of the belts and since exposure is related to flux and exposure time the dose was very small.
Here is a post with a letter from him.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-3885.html
in addition since you are an "Engineer" you should be able to compute the radiation amounts using
http://spacemath.gsfc.NASA.gov/Algebra1/3Page7.pdf
No mysterier no lies no fabrications, just years of study and real Engineers working the problems.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.

Stop, you're breaking my irony meter.  Got an accurate flat Earth map yet?  An explanation for how the sun sets below the horizon?  An explanation for 24 hours of Sun in the Antarctic?  An explanation for how the sun sets later at higher altitudes?  How about how radar and radio range increases with altitude?  Or how the sun rises due East for EVERY PERSON on the planet on the equinoxes when on a flat Earth it would be in the North East?

There is NO EVIDENCE for a flat Earth.  The world was proven round over 2,000 years ago and no amount of recent ignorance on youtube will ever change that fact.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2016, 10:34:34 PM
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.

I spoke to Dr. Van Allen.  He specifically repudiates the hoax claimants.  He specifically said there's nothing to prevent missions to the Moon.  Maybe that's why every single astrophysicist in the world believes in Apollo.  But then you don't believe in astrophysics, or science.  Except, of course, for the one astrophysicist talking decades ago in a way you think you can spin to support your belief.

If I were to ask you the difference between a rad and a REM, would you be able to answer?  Or would you be stuck with what you Googled from hoax web sites?

Quote
I'm really surprised at the lengths the NASA fan base will go to defend inconsistencies and fabrications from NASA.

Yeah, we even go so far as to point out facts.  How silly is that, right?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2016, 10:37:05 PM
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.

Actually I practice it professionally, and have done so successfully for 30 years.  All you seem capable of is attracting laughter.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on February 04, 2016, 10:50:07 PM
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you or you are parroting what NASA is feeding you.   Again it all boils down to I believe what someone else tells me to believe which proves that modern day science is a religion.

I have to say that's rich coming from someone whose comments about Flat Earth are copied and pasted from the "200 proofs of a Flat Earth" book, and who noticeably ignores questions about issues which aren't covered in that book.

Plus, please note this yet again: NASA is not the only space agency in the world. If you don't like NASA, that's fine. Talk to the Russians instead. Talk to the Chinese. Talk to the Europeans. Heck, talk to the North Koreans. Just don't expect them to say anything different from NASA about whatever aspect of the space environment you're griping about this time.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2016, 11:02:36 PM
I have to say that's rich coming from someone whose comments about Flat Earth are copied and pasted...

All of his stuff is copypasted.  None of it is original.  That's why I'm sure he's just a troll.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2016, 02:27:06 AM
And doesn't he literally claim religious motivation for various of his beliefs?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 03:11:41 AM
And doesn't he literally claim religious motivation for various of his beliefs?

There's nothing more religious in life than blindly adhering to the writings of a single book and denying any and all evidence that contradicts the contents of said book. No matter if it is the bible (hes a declared Catholic) or Eric Dubay's (he draws all his stuff from "200 proofs..")

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 03:16:20 AM
...and, naturally, the irony and ridiculousness of someone declaring that satellites do not exist whilst simultaneously using a compute that connects to a world-wide network of computers, all connected by links that use timing signals from satellites will be totally lost on him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35491962
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 07:01:58 AM
...and, naturally, the irony and ridiculousness of someone declaring that satellites do not exist whilst simultaneously using a compute that connects to a world-wide network of computers, all connected by links that use timing signals from satellites will be totally lost on him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35491962
Picking and choosing which data might support his position even though those data points destroy his position and beliefs, go figure.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 12:06:55 PM
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.

Done that. It closes with a summary, handily highlit in yellow in your version.

"Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is ... Since a human being exposed for two days ...."

First - for every MAXIMUM level, there's a matching MINIMUM, is there not? If the maximum level is X, the level EVERYWHERE ELSE must be less than X, must it not?

Second - Apollo astronauts were not exposed to even the maximum for two days. They were exposed to a far lesser level for a matter of minutes.

You do realise that further studies were done after 1958, don't you? That this wasn't the final word? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 12:11:34 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 12:51:04 PM
Read Van Allen's article on the radiation belts in the 1959 Scientific American.   If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts.   Supposedly they were extremely high and dangerous to any humans.
https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf (https://www.testofbelievers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/VanAllenBelts-SciAm-Mar1959.pdf)

Don't you just love it when haoxies quote mine something and then provide the whole document that shows the full text in context?

Tradosaurus, me old mucker, on page 47, just after the handy yellow highlighting (no doubt, for the hard of thinking) did you read "Unless some practical way can be found to shield space travellers against the effects of radiation..."? Did you stop for a second and look into the shielding that is provided in the Apollo CM?

Secondly, did you not recognise that the trajectories followed by the probes in that article and the trajectories followed by Apollo were different? One went through the most active parts of the belts to research them and the other avoided the majority of the belts precisely because of the information gleaned from experiments like these. I'll leave a genius like yourself to work out which mission was which....

Finally, did your "research" only include popular scientific magazines up to 1959? Why not from later? Or would that be just another example of a hoaxie's efforts to quote-mine? Why didn't you research how Apollo flew their trajectories?


I await your answers with baited breath......
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 12:56:11 PM
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 12:59:17 PM
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.
Irony meter seems to be pegging out.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 05, 2016, 01:03:44 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 01:09:35 PM
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.
Irony meter seems to be pegging out.

Along with the BS meter....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JBA_90Mrxsw/SMa_YOm9nyI/AAAAAAAAFdQ/jr8WtUbbcEs/S240/bullshit_meter_200.gif)

Meanwhile, my give-a damnometer needle hasn't twitched..
(http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff202/jrgdds/Ohio%20State/Give-a-damn-o-meter.gif)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 05, 2016, 03:06:21 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 

Who or what created your universe?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 05, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.
I'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible.  I don't believe we really know what is beyond the "dome" of earth.  I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA.  I just find it humorous that the fanbase picks and chooses what it wants to hear because it validates their globe earth religion.

Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts and then you have NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars yet, even though its been supposedly done 7 times.  LOL.   
And then the nasa apologists will "but......but...but...." to soothe their own conscience. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 05, 2016, 03:16:35 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion. 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Jason Thompson on February 05, 2016, 03:20:22 PM
There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.

Why?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 03:20:33 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Allan F on February 05, 2016, 03:21:53 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 


Which one? There are hundreds of them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 05, 2016, 03:25:10 PM
I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.

No, you're just showing us your ignorance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 03:28:14 PM
Hey Troll check these out
https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite&biw=1366&bih=651&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4mrGFuuHKAhUGKyYKHTk2Ai0Q_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=images+of+the+iss+through+a+telescope
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on February 05, 2016, 03:28:31 PM
Wait...

You're using an outdated quotation from someone you believe is paid off by NASA to bolster your arguments?  You claim credibility by using a source you then say isn't credible?!

Nice quote-mining, BTW.   ::)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 05, 2016, 03:29:34 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.

So name calling is all you have left? lol

here is a picture of an astronaut entering into the station.
Real or not real?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/n0pd8qsxzet24l2msllb.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 05, 2016, 03:37:35 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.

So name calling is all you have left? lol

here is a picture of an astronaut entering into the station.
Real or not real?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/n0pd8qsxzet24l2msllb.jpg)
The question was why no images of satellites, and I provided you with a bunch.
Yes you are a troll, you stated so and I believe it, just calling a spade a spade.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 05, 2016, 03:41:12 PM
Didn't James Van Allen write to someone here directly on the subject of the hoaxers  misrepresenting his studies?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Andromeda on February 05, 2016, 03:44:07 PM
Yes, it was Jay I think.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 05, 2016, 03:48:41 PM
God. 

Who or what created your universe?
My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work.  How does yours do it?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2016, 04:17:00 PM
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts

Van Allen didn't say that in any context that would be applicable to Apollo.

and then you have NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars

The NASA representative is talking about Orion's Exploration Flight Test 1, which flew a different trajectory than Apollo.  The conditions are not comparable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2016, 04:18:57 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 

Who or what created your universe?


Ahhh....the classic cop-out of the religious fanatic "I have no idea......it was god what done it".
AKA "The god of the gaps".
How do you know that it wasn't god that put Armstrong on the Moon? Or guided them safely through the searing radiation hell of the VA belts?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2016, 04:41:49 PM
'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible.

But you don't find him credible.  So that's a fairly blatant admission that you're just stirring the pot, and that you really don't believe any of the hogwash you're spewing.

Quote
I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA.

Selectively so, of course.  You want his statements to have force when you think they support you, but you conveniently ignore the parts where he directly says there's no problem going to the Moon.

Quote
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts...

No, that's not what he said.

Quote
NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars yet...

No, that's not what they said.

Quote
And then the NASA apologists will "but......but...but...." to soothe their own conscience.

There's nothing to soothe.  It takes only a few seconds to determine where you got your facts wrong.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
Yes, it was Jay I think.

Yes, it was me.  But it was not only me.  He's said that to a number of people.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 04:45:57 PM
Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts

He didn't say that in the 1958 article you quoted earlier. He said they measured a MAXIMUM of X, but for every maximum, there's a minimum, isn't there? If it's a maximum in one place, everywhere else must be lower than that, must it not?

You must have got that from engineering school, surely ...

The article also says that 2 days in the belts would be a fatal dose. But Apollo didn't stay there for two days. Not even two hours.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 04:53:59 PM
There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

You're avoiding my question. You raised a theory that with 20k satellites, you could use any one of them for NASA comms - but they're not designed for that. Some are for domestic satellite TV, some for fleet vehicle tracking, some weather, some GPS, etc. You can't just dial in to them.

Are you familiar with Sputnik? If so, do you think that was a fake?

http://alanwatch.homestead.com/sputnik.html

http://www.coalwoodwestvirginia.com/sputnik.htm

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Sputnik+Stukus+glamorous+Marie+Moreau/6121947/story.html

Google "front page headlines sputnik"

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Chew on February 05, 2016, 05:07:13 PM
There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

You've absolutely no concept of orbital mechanics. If a satellite ever got close enough to the ISS to be photographed there would be a major shit storm at NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos. Being the flat earther you are, with your kindergarten level of knowledge, you think things in orbit just drift around lazily. In reality, things move incredibly quickly in orbit. A satellite with just a 1° orbital plane difference would pass the ISS at 300 mph.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Chew on February 05, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 

Typical flat earther lack of self-awareness. Accuses us of believing the "round earth religion" but freeing admits his god powers the Sun and magically keeps it from falling to Earth.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Chew on February 05, 2016, 05:11:52 PM
There are no satellites.

Get the Sputnick! app. It's free. It will give you ISS passes and Iridium flare predictions up to a week in advance. Find a convenient pass or flare and go outside and look and when you see it, come back here and try to tell us all how they faked it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2016, 06:00:00 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS?  The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth.  Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other.  Then there's the fact that most of them are smaller than a small car.  Far from pointing out any incosistencies, you've only pointed out that YOU haven't put any thought into the subject.

And the ISS by the way is provably in space.  You can see it flying over and with binoculars or a telescope you can see detail.  Its visibility is determined by its orbital parameters which show that it IS a few hundred miles up.  If you don't believe that then get with a few other people and observe it at the same time from different locations and show the math that has it lower than it should be.  You'd be the first as everyone else that claims it doesn't exist hasn't bothered to try.  I'm betting you won't either.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
If you believe that rockets can operate in a vacuum then this article talks about measurements taken of the radiation levels in the belts. 

(Bolding mine). I assume, from the way that you have phrased this, that you have another crank-magnetism belief that rockets can't operate in a vacuum? If that's the case, then how can you use an article that used information gained by flying a rocket through the VA belts as evidence???

So go on, enlighten us.
I'm just using someone (Van Allen) that NASA fan boys find credible.  I don't believe we really know what is beyond the "dome" of earth.  I also think Van Allen is bought and paid for by NASA.  I just find it humorous that the fanbase picks and chooses what it wants to hear because it validates their globe earth religion.

Again, you have a person, Van Allen, would be respected by NASA saying there is too much radiation in the belts and then you have NASA stating they don't know how to get through them to get to Mars yet, even though its been supposedly done 7 times.  LOL.   
And then the NASA apologists will "but......but...but...." to soothe their own conscience.
And then you have you ignoring the fact that Van Allen was talking about the center of the belts, which Apollo didn't go through as they went through the edge, and how shielding was needed, which they used.  Then you also ignore that the guy speaking for NASA was talking about testing the electronics.  All you've proven is you can cherry-pick and not even do that very well.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2016, 06:03:48 PM
The video of the NASA engineer admitting they don't know how to get through the belts.  Also this engineer states that  "just as it [orion] passes over the Indian ocean we lose all communication".  LOL.  What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?

You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?

There are domestic satellite TV, communications, weather, and (believe it or not) mobile fleet tracking satellites, amongst others. They have other functions. You can't press them into service to do just what you want.

There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.
You don't look very carefully as I see plenty of images of the ISS, Troll.

So name calling is all you have left? lol

here is a picture of an astronaut entering into the station.
Real or not real?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/n0pd8qsxzet24l2msllb.jpg)
From the movie Gravity.  I'll bet you didn't know that you can search directly for images in Chrome just by right-clicking on them, did you?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 06:05:56 PM
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS?  The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth.  Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other. 

I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2016, 06:07:10 PM
I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...

By international agreement satellites in the geostationary belt must be at least 1,000 nautical miles apart.  Even spacecraft at the "same" longitude are widely separated.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2016, 06:08:18 PM
Get the Sputnick! app. It's free. It will give you ISS passes and Iridium flare predictions up to a week in advance. Find a convenient pass or flare and go outside and look and when you see it, come back here and try to tell us all how they faked it.

Just go outside on a clear day at dusk or dawn and look up.  Scan the sky for a while and there's a good chance you might see one.  At that time of day the sun has already set on the ground while the satellites high overhead are still in sunlight (because of the curved earth thing), making them easy to spot.  When I was a frequent stargazer, I'd regularly see satellites passing overhead.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 05, 2016, 06:10:27 PM
I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...

By international agreement satellites in the geostationary belt must be at least 1,000 nautical miles apart.  Even spacecraft at the "same" longitude are widely separated.

Indeed. My point in the calculation (unstated) was that it's kinda difficult to photograph other satellites at this kind of spacing, even if they did happen to be at the same orbital height. Which they're not.

And you've reinforced that, thank you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2016, 06:14:19 PM
Why would you think you'd have film of them from the ISS?  The total space up there is multiple times the size of the surface of the Earth.  Satellites are set up in orbits that don't intersect so they don't have to worry about them running into each other. 

Exactly.  It just shows that the deniers that claim there should be pics taken from other satellites really haven't put any thought into what they're asking.

I did the arithmetic once, on the basis that all 20,000 satellites are in orbit at the same height as the ISS, and concluded there'd be one every 10,000 square miles or so...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2016, 07:13:54 PM
Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 

Who or what created your universe?

Then why argue any of the details?

If God wants ships to dip below the horizon while on a flat plane, or a Sun to appear to set whilst actually being in mid-air, or a Moon to fail to change apparent diameter when it grows closer or retreats (unlike any other object we observe), then they do.

Are you saying your God isn't powerful enough to pull off a paradox or two? Are you imposing limitations on His powers?

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2016, 07:49:01 PM
Get the Sputnick! app. It's free. It will give you ISS passes and Iridium flare predictions up to a week in advance. Find a convenient pass or flare and go outside and look and when you see it, come back here and try to tell us all how they faked it.

Just go outside on a clear day at dusk or dawn and look up.  Scan the sky for a while and there's a good chance you might see one.  At that time of day the sun has already set on the ground while the satellites high overhead are still in sunlight (because of the curved earth thing), making them easy to spot.  When I was a frequent stargazer, I'd regularly see satellites passing overhead.

Hell, my ren faire boss, who I'm not sure even finished junior high (he definitely didn't finish high school), can point out satellites as they go past.  He's certainly not part of some cartel of academia; they'd never let him in.  However, he is perfectly capable of observations and clever enough to spot when the world around him doesn't make sense.  And sensible enough to ask people he believes do understand.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 05, 2016, 07:56:37 PM

Hey, tradosaurus, just what powers your little sun, making it shine, let alone follow that odd circular path over the Earth that animation showed?

God. 

Who or what created your universe?
I generally don't get overtly religious on these forums, but He created mine, too.  Sadly, you've decided to neglect/disrespect the coolest stuff He created, particularly mankind's ability to create and think, such as being able to travel in space and go to the moon (and even further someday, I hope).

Your view of the Universe, whether one believes God created it or that it is a random act of nature, is sadly myopic and lacks wonder.  How sad.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 05, 2016, 07:59:21 PM

God. 

Who or what created your universe?
My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work.  How does yours do it?
I like that!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2016, 09:37:17 PM
God. 

Who or what created your universe?
My God was smart enough to make it all work with round planets and gravity so that every observation can be explained and no magic is needed like in the flat nonsensical Earth.  Too bad yours isn't too bright.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 05, 2016, 10:42:52 PM

God. 

Who or what created your universe?
My God invented nuclear fusion, so They don't have to fiddle around with the Universe all the time to make it work.  How does yours do it?
I like that!
Heh, thanks!
Seriously, tradosaurus, even if you take literalistic view on that book, it says "On the Seventh day, God rested" not words to the effect of, "And from the Seventh day on, God micromanaged every detail of every act of nature."
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on February 06, 2016, 12:49:12 AM
There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.

If there are no satellites, then how was this video recorded:

The longest single take on that video is about 5 minutes long, during which time: Williams talks almost constantly; she moves around in all directions through the air within limited space; her hair remains sprayed outwards; her necklace constantly bounces around rather than sitting against her chest.

The footage can't have been recorded on a Vomit Comet as the longest take is much longer than the maximum amount of time weightlessness can be maintained on such an aircraft.

The footage can't be spliced together from multiple Vomit Comet parabolas as the footage is a single take with no cuts.

The footage can't be faked in normal gravity as Williams floats in all directions and her necklace bounces around.

The footage can't be being replayed in slow motion as she's constantly speaking and her lips synchronise to her speech.

Williams can't be suspended from wires as the rooms she moves through provide no room for the necessary rigs, particularly when she turns around within the sleeping quarters.

Williams's hair is not being held in place with hair spray because she brushes it heavily enough to press it down against her head and the hair springs back into its original shape.

The only explanation which makes sense is that she's in freefall around the Earth.

(I excluded the possibility of anti-gravity machines because I assume you'd reject such devices as even more outlandish than space travel, but please let me know if that assumption is wrong.)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2016, 01:21:34 AM
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on February 06, 2016, 01:25:25 AM
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .

True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 01:45:37 AM
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .

True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...
Still, since when was consistency part of tradosaurus's belief . . . ?I hesitate to say 'structure' or even 'system', as it's just a disorganized mess, from what we've seen.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2016, 04:02:23 AM
Conglomeration?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2016, 04:06:17 AM
An accretion of stupidities?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 08:25:07 AM
What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
Especially since most of those 20,000 "satellites" are actually bits of debris. About 41,000 objects ~10cm and larger, from all countries, in earth orbit have been cataloged by NORAD since the Sputnik 1 launch; over half have since decayed.

Of the ~17,500 (not 20,000) cataloged objects still in orbit only ~4,100 are payloads, and of those payloads only ~1,500 are still active. The rest are spent launch vehicles, random bits of loose hardware, and debris from explosions and collisions -- the most disturbing being deliberate explosions and collisions from antisatellite weapons tests. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007 created over 2,300 cataloged bits of debris. The accidental collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 in 2009 created > 2,000 cataloged bits of debris.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of bits of orbital debris too small to catalog.

 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 08:44:22 AM
What happened to the 20,000+ satellites in orbit?  Why can't Orion stay in communication?
You don't REALLY think that every satellite in orbit is set up to enable NASA communications between their latest craft and home base, do you?
Especially since most of those 20,000 "satellites" are actually bits of debris. About 41,000 objects ~10cm and larger, from all countries, in earth orbit have been cataloged by NORAD since the Sputnik 1 launch; over half have since decayed.

Of the ~17,500 (not 20,000) cataloged objects still in orbit only ~4,100 are payloads, and of those payloads only ~1,500 are still active. The rest are spent launch vehicles, random bits of loose hardware, and debris from explosions and collisions -- the most disturbing being deliberate explosions and collisions from antisatellite weapons tests. The Chinese ASAT test in 2007 created over 2,300 cataloged bits of debris. The accidental collision between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 in 2009 created > 2,000 cataloged bits of debris.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of bits of orbital debris too small to catalog.
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Chew on February 06, 2016, 09:31:15 AM
Here is one source: http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Trebor on February 06, 2016, 09:43:42 AM
An accretion of stupidities?

The correct term is a 'Youtube of stupidities'.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 10:10:31 AM
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday
Predicting orbital decays is a bit of a black art. Or, to use my own favorite analogy, it's like predicting the outcome of a roulette wheel. As it gets closer you can begin to predict when, but exactly where is almost always a guess.

You can find all the objects associated with a given launch by looking up its international designator, which is of the form

2016-001A

where 2016 is the launch year, 001 is the launch sequence within the year, and A is the piece of the launch. Usually, but not always, A is the primary payload and B is the upper stage of the launch vehicle. C, D, and so forth are any secondary payloads. Then look for the other objects from the same launch and examine their orbital elements. Unless the perigee is lower than 300-400 km and the eccentricity is near zero, decay is not imminent.

Lots of things affect decay rate, from the mass, size, shape and attitude of the object (which controls its drag) and solar activity (solar maxima heats the outer atmosphere and increases drag at a given altitude). For decaying objects the keplerian orbital elements frequently include the time derivative of the mean motion, another indicator of decay rate. The mean motion is the number of orbits per day, i.e., 24 hours divided by the period. This increases as the orbit decays. When there's no decay and no perturbations, the mean motion derivative is zero.

In recent years it has become customary for launch vehicles to save some fuel to deorbit themselves after their missions are over. They may deorbit very quickly (like within an orbit or two) or they may simply maneuver into (or remain in) an orbit that will decay within some specified number of years.

Edited to add: This might be of interest: http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php


 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 06, 2016, 10:11:49 AM
There are no satellites.  If there were I'm sure the ISS station would have filmed plenty of them or when I google satellite I would see literally thousands of real pictures of satellites.   

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the globe earth religion.

If there are no satellites, then how was this video recorded:

The longest single take on that video is about 5 minutes long, during which time: Williams talks almost constantly; she moves around in all directions through the air within limited space; her hair remains sprayed outwards; her necklace constantly bounces around rather than sitting against her chest.

The footage can't have been recorded on a Vomit Comet as the longest take is much longer than the maximum amount of time weightlessness can be maintained on such an aircraft.

The footage can't be spliced together from multiple Vomit Comet parabolas as the footage is a single take with no cuts.

The footage can't be faked in normal gravity as Williams floats in all directions and her necklace bounces around.

The footage can't be being replayed in slow motion as she's constantly speaking and her lips synchronise to her speech.

Williams can't be suspended from wires as the rooms she moves through provide no room for the necessary rigs, particularly when she turns around within the sleeping quarters.

Williams's hair is not being held in place with hair spray because she brushes it heavily enough to press it down against her head and the hair springs back into its original shape.

The only explanation which makes sense is that she's in freefall around the Earth.

(I excluded the possibility of anti-gravity machines because I assume you'd reject such devices as even more outlandish than space travel, but please let me know if that assumption is wrong.)

The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.

You want to know how NASA continue their lies and deceits with the ISS? 

https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c (https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 10:14:57 AM
The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.
He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.

You made a claim. Prove it. Find a woman with similar hair, apply some hair spray, and have her recreate that scene. While you're at it, have her float around the room and do all the other things you see in that ISS video.

You have to test your claims. That's called "science".
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 06, 2016, 10:16:30 AM
Since he doesn't believe in gravity . . . .

True, but whatever force he thinks keeps us stuck to the ground clearly isn't operating in that video...

Throw away the science fiction you have been assuming is reality and watch this video. 

Learn why your god is called gravity,  Could the letter "G" in the masonic symbol stand for gravity?  Is it a coincidence that quite a few of the astro-nots were masons?

https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c (https://youtu.be/QxHc8Ns5g1c)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 06, 2016, 10:18:52 AM
The first obvious sign that it is fake is the woman's hair is sprayed with some hair spray to hold it in place.  If you look in the "vomit comet" scenes women's hair doesn't do that.
He just said that wasn't the case because of what she does with it, but let's set that aside.

You made a claim. Prove it. Find a woman with similar hair, apply some hair spray, and have her recreate that scene. While you're at it, have her float around the room and do all the other things you see in that ISS video.

You have to test your claims. That's called "science".

The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.

Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity? 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 10:36:40 AM
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.
Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.
Quote
Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?
No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 10:44:16 AM
Quote
Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?
No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 06, 2016, 10:44:39 AM
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.
Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.
Quote
Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?
No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Didn't they film some of the ISS scenes underwater to simulate zero g and pull off some of the long shots?

Not gonna lie, I actually enjoyed the movie, tho I found the concept of Bullock's character operating unknown equipment so handily ridiculous. However, she was in her skivvies a lot, so it worked for me, lol!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
Do you know a link to possible/probable re-entry dates of the larger pieces?  i.e. the Centaur stage that lifter the military GPS satellite yesterday
Here are the TLEs (Three-Line Element sets) from www.celestrak.com for this most recent GPS launch:

2016-007A               
1 41328U 16007A   16036.83090352  .00000088  00000-0  00000+0 0  9993
2 41328  55.0751 239.8894 0002661 313.2982  46.7560  1.97572917    05
2016-007B               
1 41329U 16007B   16036.31121856  .00000092  00000-0  00000+0 0  9996
2 41329  55.2159 239.3020 0138188 287.2086  69.6654  1.93486559    05

The international designator of the launch is 2016-007, i.e., the 7th launch of this year. The orbit looks right for GPS: 55 degree inclination, ~12 hour period. The epochs (times of set validity) is the 36th day of 2016, i.e., Feb 5 (UTC).

Object A has the smaller eccentricity (0.0002661) so it is probably the GPS spacecraft itself.

Object B appears to be the Centaur. Because of its low mean motion (1.93486559 rev/day) and relatively small eccentricity (0.0138188) it doesn't look like it's going to decay any time soon. But the epoch is over 12 hours before that of the spacecraft, and I don't know if it had finished its maneuvers yet. OTOH, it looks like the Centaur took the GPS satellite most of the way to its final orbit, and it takes a lot of delta-V to deorbit from there so I suspect they decided to just leave it up there.

It's much easier to deorbit a launch vehicle in low earth orbit, or from a highly elliptical transfer orbit since they have low perigees, and a small burn on apogee will bring it down in half a orbit.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 10:53:22 AM
 Tradosaurus, look at Livestreaming video like this (http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/). It would be hard enough to render a real time CGI of that level of detail, but to add animated clouds that follow the weather patterns world wide, also in real time? Your fantasy holds no bounds, does it? It shows the position of the ISS over the globe as well in another area, though I've already linked you to Heavens Above (http://www.heavens-above.com/) to let you find the overpass time for the ISS and other satellites. Have you tried it out yet?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.
On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.

The CGI people have something called the "uncanny valley" for computer-generated humans, and I think there's something like it for science fiction -- especially space travel. When you get the visuals as good as Gravity got them, then the remaining errors (notably those in physics) become far more glaringly obvious.

I can make up a bowl of popcorn and enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek as much as anybody because there's no pretense of realism. But Gravity drove me nuts because it did pretend. But not only did it get the physics very wrong, it also had actors who behaved nothing like real astronauts.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: tradosaurus on February 06, 2016, 10:56:47 AM
The test of women in the vomit comet and women in the ISS with hair spray should resolve the issue of a real iss to anybody of good will.
Your reading comprehension could stand some improvement.

It was just explained to you that the "vomit comet" (or any other synthetic freefall) can only be maintained for a short time. About 20 seconds, in fact. Perhaps you can guess what would happen if an airplane tried to maintain it much longer. Videos from the ISS regularly last for hours.
Quote
Do you see any wires holding up Sandra Bullock in the movie Gravity?
No. I also saw many, many violations of the laws of physics in that movie that I don't see in real-life space flights such as the ISS. In fact, that movie drove me nuts when I saw it because of all the inaccuracies.

Maybe you should try to understand them.

Typical elitist response from a globe earth cult member.   So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 10:58:31 AM
Thanks
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 06, 2016, 11:00:17 AM
Indeed I saw many inconsistencies with real actions in the movie, I was no impressed and really didn't care for it.
On the other hand, the visuals were gorgeous, even if a little inaccurate.

The CGI people have something called the "uncanny valley" for computer-generated humans, and I think there's something like it for science fiction -- especially space travel. When you get the visuals as good as Gravity got them, then the remaining errors (notably those in physics) become far more glaringly obvious.

I can make up a bowl of popcorn and enjoy Star Wars and Star Trek as much as anybody because there's no pretense of realism. But Gravity drove me nuts because it did pretend. But not only did it get the physics very wrong, it also had actors who behaved nothing like real astronauts.

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 11:02:50 AM

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!

[sidetrack alert]
But Sigourney Weaver in Alien was way better IMO[/sidetrack alert]

EDIT: Corrected movie name
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 06, 2016, 11:18:07 AM

Yeah, but she was in her skivvies!!

OK, I'll stop now, lol!

[sidetrack alert]
But Sigourney Weaver in Aliens was way better IMO[/sidetrack alert]
No argument from me.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 11:39:27 AM
So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.
Just one among many: she points a Soyuz spacecraft at a Chinese space station (which conveniently is in the same orbit plane), pushes the button and goes there.

That is simply not how orbital mechanics works.

Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2016, 12:03:08 PM
Learn why your god is called gravity,  Could the letter "G" in the masonic symbol stand for gravity?  Is it a coincidence that quite a few of the astronauts were masons?

No, you twit, it stands for "God."  Or "Grand Architect of the Universe," which to the Masons is the same thing.  Sometimes considered to stand for "Geometry," because the Masons believe that understanding the rules of the universe is understanding the Mind of God.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2016, 12:25:48 PM

Typical elitist response from a globe earth cult member.   So tell me what "laws" of physics were violated in the movie?  Because it looks like a typical movie production from NASA.

You're the superior intellect around here, you tell us.

In fact tell us anything that you can to support your position, because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2016, 01:16:16 PM
That is simply not how orbital mechanics works.

All of that was cringe-worthy.  I'd honestly rather see the Millennium Falcon blatantly ignoring all known laws of physics (and kicking ass doing it) than something trying to be real, claiming to be real, but then just pandering to the lay expectations of the audience.  Were it just a few artistic liberties taken to move the story along (a la Kubrick in 2001) I wouldn't mind.  But when the lion's share of the plot and conflict revolve around badly cobbled-up space mechanics, then it's just a bad story.

But yes, impressive visuals.  By the same token, even in Apollo 13, the means used to achieve the appearance of microgravity usually telegraphs itself.  After working in both engineering and theater for many years, it's often hard to watch the antiseptically storyboarded scenes that try very hard to mix up the techniques.  Gravity was the first film where I could largely ignore how the effects were done and just watch the story.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2016, 01:17:15 PM
...because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.

Which is why LunarOrbit banned him.  And good riddance.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 01:20:06 PM
...because all you've done so far is post adolescent sneers and proclaim your own genius.

Which is why LunarOrbit banned him.  And good riddance.
Amen, brother.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 01:22:17 PM
Spoiler warning.

A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.

But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.

And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on February 06, 2016, 01:28:21 PM
So why I wonder does The Martian seem to get a pass? I mean -- we recognize the errors and point them out, but there's a lot more flavor of forgiveness in respect to that movie.

(The errors aren't just in the screen translation -- I sat down and read the book and he fluffs breathing on mixed gasses so badly there I have to wonder what the heck he did with his research materials to get it that confused).

Is it that for a film like "Gravity" the approach can be summed up as, "Let's give the viewers a spectacle, now let's cobble up whatever science seems to work and ignore it when it gets in the way of the visuals we already decided on," whereas The Martian was, "Here's an interesting science problem; let's see where it goes?"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 01:30:26 PM
So why I wonder does The Martian seem to get a pass?
I wouldn't say I gave it a pass, but I do give him a lot of credit for trying.

Yeah, he messed up on the breathing gases, the pressure of the Martian wind, and the use of what looked like polyethylene sheeting to cover a ~2m hole against a 14 psi pressure difference. (I just saw the Mythbusters episode in which they (eventually) lift a car with a vacuum cleaner.)

But again, at least he tried.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 06, 2016, 01:30:35 PM
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".

I'm not going to ban someone the instant they post something that might be considered troll-like. There can be a fine line between a sincere belief and a phoney belief that is only intended to provoke anger. I am still not sure whether he really believes that the Earth is flat or not, and if he was actually willing to discuss it properly I would be more than willing to allow it.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
Spoiler warning.

A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.

But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.

And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.
Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 01:47:31 PM
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".

I'm not going to ban someone the instant they post something that might be considered troll-like. There can be a fine line between a sincere belief and a phoney belief that is only intended to provoke anger. I am still not sure whether he really believes that the Earth is flat or not, and if he was actually willing to discuss it properly I would be more than willing to allow it.
No complaints from me.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2016, 01:50:09 PM
Spoiler warning.

A few fantastical elements in Gravity were perfectly fine as dramatic license, e.g., Clooney's temporary reappearance in the Soyuz. That simply showed her state of mind, i.e., that she was hallucinating.

But the orbital mechanics was just plain terrible. So was much of the behavior and dialogue of the astronauts.

And don't get me started on the orbital debris. It's far less dense and moving far faster, usually many times the speed of a rifle bullet, which means a single tiny object is enough to kill you; you don't need the huge swarms depicted. You generally don't see a rifle bullet coming either.

Ive tried three times to watch that film, but have yet to make it further than 20 minutes in without wanting to put my foot through the TV screen. Clooney is normally OK in movies, but his pairing with Sandra Bollocks, and the ridiculousness of the movie made it unwatchable.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2016, 01:59:38 PM
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".

And good job, too.  Don't interpret my "good riddance" as criticism of your timing or method.  I just mean he was given more than a fair chance to be something other than a shrill attention-seeker, and he demonstrated no interest.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2016, 02:06:48 PM
I know some people might feel that I took too long to ban him, but I try to find the right balance between "insta-ban" and "all the other members are getting angry because I haven't banned him yet".

And good job, too.  Don't interpret my "good riddance" as criticism of your timing or method.  I just mean he was given more than a fair chance to be something other than a shrill attention-seeker, and he demonstrated no interest.

And a good riddance from me too.

It's one thing for someone to try and discuss something and encourage you to find things out in order to rebut an argument, but the all too common habit recently is for someone to declare themselves the expert and offer nothing but their contempt to the debate. This particularly idiot was a prime example of that trend.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 06, 2016, 02:12:51 PM
No, I've got no complaints how he was handled here. He was given every opportunity, yet he continued to simply troll away with reckless abandon.

I fully agree with not swinging the ban hammer right off the bat.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2016, 02:40:53 PM
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 02:43:23 PM
No, I've got no complaints how he was handled here. He was given every opportunity, yet he continued to simply troll away with reckless abandon.

I fully agree with not swinging the ban hammer right off the bat.
Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. In his case, he braided it and tied the knots!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 02:47:18 PM
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.
Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 03:01:20 PM
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.
Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.
Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.
I don't go to those types of forums, YT is as far up on the stupidity scale as I go. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 03:45:01 PM
It was only a matter of time before he was banned. He can slip back into the ooze from whence he came.
Commenting on his FE threads about how he was banned for attempting to reveal the "truth"
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.
I don't go to those types of forums, YT is as far up on the stupidity scale as I go. :)
Ooh, gotcha. Your wording made it sound like you were, but I see my mistake now. Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on February 06, 2016, 03:58:54 PM
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.

Technically, that prior post only showed a belief in a fixed Earth rather than a flat one.  He could have been advocating a round fixed Earth at that point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 06, 2016, 04:03:57 PM
You should point out his lies about only believing for a year only to have a thread of his from several years ago, if you have not already.

Technically, that prior post only showed a belief in a fixed Earth rather than a flat one.  He could have been advocating a round fixed Earth at that point.
OK, fair point.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 05:06:01 PM
Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.
It was said to be from the Kessler Syndrome, which is a real concept: as we reach a critical density of debris in orbit, collisions will become more frequent, generating even more debris that generates even more collisions. Whole regions of orbit could become almost unusable because of the debris hazard.

But it doesn't happen that fast. It develops over years, especially after rare but spectacular collisions like that between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 generate large amounts of debris. But the debris is mostly small and spreads out along the orbit; it doesn't travel in close groups of big visible chunks as depicted in the film. If one ever hit, it would be as if somebody shot you with a very high powered sniper rifle with (most likely) a very tiny bullet. And you wouldn't see it coming.

There are arguments that a Kessler Syndrome has already started in certain low-earth orbits, particularly around 800 km. The one in Gravity was said to originate in geostationary orbit (I think - somebody correct me) which is far less likely, would not develop as quickly as depicted, and would not send debris so low.

And you wouldn't see it coming, at least not in the way depicted. You might have warning of the larger chunks since they can be tracked and cataloged on the ground, and the ISS astronauts routinely dodge these things (if they have time) or hide out in the Soyuz (if they can't). But most of the objects are too small to be seen with current sensors, and that's what people are most worried about.

As an analogy, you wouldn't say the volume of space including an active battlefield is "crowded" with bullets in the sense that they mostly fill the available volume, nor are you likely to see any of those bullets in flight with your own eyes. But you sure wouldn't want to travel through there.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 05:17:44 PM
Since I am hard of hearing, I missed the origin of the debris field that the hit them.
It was said to be from the Kessler Syndrome, which is a real concept: as we reach a critical density of debris in orbit, collisions will become more frequent, generating even more debris that generates even more collisions. Whole regions of orbit could become almost unusable because of the debris hazard.

But it doesn't happen that fast. It develops over years, especially after rare but spectacular collisions like that between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 generate large amounts of debris. But the debris is mostly small and spreads out along the orbit; it doesn't travel in close groups of big visible chunks as depicted in the film. If one ever hit, it would be as if somebody shot you with a very high powered sniper rifle with (most likely) a very tiny bullet. And you wouldn't see it coming.

There are arguments that a Kessler Syndrome has already started in certain low-earth orbits, particularly around 800 km. The one in Gravity was said to originate in geostationary orbit (I think - somebody correct me) which is far less likely, would not develop as quickly as depicted, and would not send debris so low.

And you wouldn't see it coming, at least not in the way depicted. You might have warning of the larger chunks since they can be tracked and cataloged on the ground, and the ISS astronauts routinely dodge these things (if they have time) or hide out in the Soyuz (if they can't). But most of the objects are too small to be seen with current sensors, and that's what people are most worried about.

As an analogy, you wouldn't say the volume of space including an active battlefield is "crowded" with bullets in the sense that they mostly fill the available volume, nor are you likely to see any of those bullets in flight with your own eyes. But you sure wouldn't want to travel through there.
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit.  Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 06, 2016, 05:39:14 PM
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit.  Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).
Low earth orbit is actually very heavily used. We fly lots of earth observation satellites in polar orbits in that altitude range: earth resources, weather, spy, etc. The Russians also put a lot of stuff there, and because their satellites tended to have short service lives, they replaced them frequently. Besides the usual weather and spy satellites they flew nuclear-powered radars to follow US Navy warships. Radars are subject to the 1/r4 law so you want them in as low an orbit as possible -- and that means short-lived. But after a few of their reactors came down in places like Canada and Australia, the Russians began to separate the nuclear reactors at end of life so they could be moved to higher "disposal" orbits while the main part of the spacecraft decayed.

Problem is, these reactors were cooled by NaK (sodium-potassium alloy, a liquid metal at room temperature) and it often leaked out. So one important category of debris at certain altitudes and inclinations are these droplets of NaK. It has a very low vapor pressure so they won't evaporate any time soon.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: gwiz on February 07, 2016, 06:52:44 AM
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit.  Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).
It's a typical altitude for weather and resource survey satellites, including the one the Chinese used for target practice.  There have also been a number of explosions of used upper-stage rockets at that altitude or close above it, also several satellites have suffered battery explosions.  Current practice is to have upper stages burn to depletion after deploying payloads, which should reduce the problem.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 07, 2016, 05:40:11 PM
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;


"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."

Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 07, 2016, 05:50:51 PM
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;


"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."

Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
I would say stupidest maximus
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Peter B on February 07, 2016, 11:47:21 PM
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;


"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."

Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.

Hey, I was right!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dalhousie on February 08, 2016, 01:45:26 AM
Ok, but why a field of "debris" at 800 Km? I wasn't aware of that many satellites and upper stages in that orbit.  Seems like there would be a lot in geostationary or at ~400 Km(or whatever the ISS median is).
It's a typical altitude for weather and resource survey satellites, including the one the Chinese used for target practice.  There have also been a number of explosions of used upper-stage rockets at that altitude or close above it, also several satellites have suffered battery explosions.  Current practice is to have upper stages burn to depletion after deploying payloads, which should reduce the problem.

It's also too high to be cleared by atmospheric drag.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 08, 2016, 05:19:17 AM
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;


"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."

Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
I would say stupidest maximus

Or Biggus Dickus!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 08, 2016, 05:43:54 AM
Neil has been active at YouTube recently, with this gem posted today;


"The entire world as we currently know it teeters on a spacesuit with sublimator demonstrated in a high vacuum chamber. The consequences of admitting that NASA lied would be too horrendous to Zionism."

Wow. Megalomania rules large with this one.
I would say stupidest maximus

Or Biggus Dickus!
Don't encourage him.
His flow of words is closer to Incontinentia Buttocks.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Apollo 957 on February 08, 2016, 06:42:24 AM
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "

Make of that what you will ...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: JayUtah on February 08, 2016, 09:57:35 AM
Make of that what you will ...

The guy's clearly off his crumpet.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ineluki on February 08, 2016, 10:18:15 AM
if he was actually willing to discuss it properly

FWIW, I dismissed that possibility once he came up with

 
Quote
Well so far my post has demonstrated to me that NASA space is a religion.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 08, 2016, 10:46:46 AM
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "

Make of that what you will ...

He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....

More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 08, 2016, 07:11:56 PM
...and truly very fragile. It's all too easy to scorn these people, but I truly pity them. I can't imagine losing my mind like that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: mako88sb on February 09, 2016, 05:11:10 AM
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "

Make of that what you will ...

He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....

More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.

I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2016, 05:18:41 AM
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "

Make of that what you will ...

He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....

More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.

I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.

Which Neil are we talking about here?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 09, 2016, 05:22:26 AM
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.


That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2016, 05:33:53 AM
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.


That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.

If we are talking about Neil Baker, then I believe he is enough of a wind-up merchant to go the flat earth route even if be didn't beleive in it, for no other reason than to troll here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 09, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.


That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.

If we are talking about Neil Baker, then I believe he is enough of a wind-up merchant to go the flat earth route even if be didn't beleive in it, for no other reason than to troll here.

That was my thought too.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 09, 2016, 06:47:34 AM
Apparently his local newspaper, the Santa Barbara Independent, is "Zionist Controlled "

Make of that what you will ...

He's clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed.....

More realistically he (Neil Baker) was clearly once a well educated engineer with a track record in various high-tech employments. Something then happened, either gradually or quickly that caused him to decline into what we now see. I'd be guessing at to what caused it, but it could be many things. Alcohol/substance abuse, psychological or emotional trauma or a physical problem (tumour? early onset Alzheimers? (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_early_onset.asp)) are all possibilities. Whatever it was, it did for what appeared to be a successful individual and that I find particularly sad, especially if the root cause was something treatable.
I'm assuming that Tradosasurus was a sock-puppet of Baker? If not, and if his claim to be a degreed engineer is true, then it looks like he has undergone a similar process.

The mind is a terrible thing to lose.

I don't think Neil has ever said anything in favor of the flat Earth nonsense.
He has his own basket of issues.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on February 09, 2016, 07:42:57 AM


That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.

He would have picked that up by reading Baker's first post in this thread.  He would have ignored subsequent replies as being "NASA propaganda."   He would have spelled NASA with a Z but the forum software not longer allows that.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 09, 2016, 07:57:30 AM


That's true, but Traddy-boy did hint at believing that the sublimators didn't work. Now that's a fairly rare belief and one that's almost a "trade-mark" of Neil Baker. However, Tradosaurus also had a bad case of crank-magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism), so he could have picked that up on his travels through the mire.

He would have picked that up by reading Baker's first post in this thread.  He would have ignored subsequent replies as being "NASA propaganda."   He would have spelled NASA with a Z but the forum software not longer allows that.
True and thank goodness. I was very weary of looking at trad's consistent and purposeful misspelling.  Thanks LO! :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dragonblaster on February 11, 2016, 11:30:16 AM
 :o I've been away from you guys for a while, but, well, but... daaaaaaaamn!  :o

Wow, and back to Mercury status to prove it, too.

Talk about the thread that wouldn't die. Fuelled with stupid with life support from retarded.

I haven't yet ploughed through all of this monster of a thread to get up to date, but it has had its lighter moments: the ISS is an inflatable? That brightened my mood, I can tell you.

I didn't know stupid came in jumbo economy family-sized packs.

 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 11, 2016, 01:42:40 PM
Welcome back, Dragonblaster. Yeah, we've had some 'good' times here.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 11, 2016, 02:11:09 PM
:o I've been away from you guys for a while, but, well, but... daaaaaaaamn!  :o

Wow, and back to Mercury status to prove it, too.

Talk about the thread that wouldn't die. Fuelled with stupid with life support from retarded.

I haven't yet ploughed through all of this monster of a thread to get up to date, but it has had its lighter moments: the ISS is an inflatable? That brightened my mood, I can tell you.

I didn't know stupid came in jumbo economy family-sized packs.

 


Stupid comes in every size, variety, quantity and packaging you could possibly imagine.

Never forget the immortal words of Albert Einstein...

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."


nor those of the well known science fiction writer Harlan Ellison...

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."





Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 11, 2016, 02:17:05 PM

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Especially with the internet driven "critical thinkers"
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 11, 2016, 02:55:58 PM
Ironically, the next ISS module will be inflatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module

Speaking of which, here is the ISS from my garden last night :)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/10ht8ad.jpg)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 11, 2016, 03:01:00 PM
Ironically, the next ISS module will be inflatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module

Speaking of which, here is the ISS from my garden last night :)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/10ht8ad.jpg)
Neil would start foaming at the mouth if he saw this
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Count Zero on February 11, 2016, 03:17:32 PM
Nicely framed with Orion & Taurus.  It was nice of them to arrainge that for you!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dragonblaster on February 12, 2016, 08:26:23 AM
Welcome back, Dragonblaster. Yeah, we've had some 'good' times here.

Thanks a lot, Raven. Good to be back.

Stupid comes in every size, variety, quantity and packaging you could possibly imagine.

Never forget the immortal words of Albert Einstein...

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."


nor those of the well known science fiction writer Harlan Ellison...

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."

Ain't that the troof? The smell of stupid wafts from the screen when I look at some of the posts in this thread.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dragonblaster on February 12, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
Ironically, the next ISS module will be inflatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module

Speaking of which, here is the ISS from my garden last night :)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/10ht8ad.jpg)

That's clearly a fake garden.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 12, 2016, 08:39:41 AM
the ISS is an inflatable?
I don't remember who made this claim and in what context. Was it somebody claiming that rockets don't work in vacuum so it's impossible to put anything into orbit outside the atmosphere?

If so, it would be amusing to estimate the ballistic coefficient of an "inflatable ISS", and how many milliseconds such an object moving at the observed velocity within the atmosphere would take to completely vaporize.

(The ballistic coefficient of an object is the ratio of its mass to its cross sectional area times its drag coefficient. I.e., a balloon would have a low mass and a high cross sectional area, so it would have an extremely low ballistic coefficient. It would therefore decelerate very quickly in an atmosphere.)
 
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 12, 2016, 08:48:07 AM
the ISS is an inflatable?
I don't remember who made this claim and in what context. Was it somebody claiming that rockets don't work in vacuum so it's impossible to put anything into orbit outside the atmosphere?

If so, it would be amusing to estimate the ballistic coefficient of an "inflatable ISS", and how many milliseconds such an object moving at the observed velocity within the atmosphere would take to completely vaporize.

(The ballistic coefficient of an object is the ratio of its mass to its cross sectional area times its drag coefficient. I.e., a balloon would have a low mass and a high cross sectional area, so it would have an extremely low ballistic coefficient. It would therefore decelerate very quickly in an atmosphere.)
IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 12, 2016, 09:02:09 AM
IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.
I forget -- did Neil believe rockets couldn't work in space, or was that somebody else?

There are so many whackjobs out there with so many off-the-wall beliefs that it's getting hard to tell them apart without a scorecard. It used to be (so it seemed) that all we ran into were people who thought Apollo was faked, but that space flight was otherwise real.

But all of a sudden there seems to be a big influx of people who insist rocket engines can't work in space where there's no air to push on, and of the even-farther-gone flat earthers.

So many of these "independent critical thinkers" repeat so many of the same talking points that either there are a lot of sock puppets out there, or (more likely, I think) some nutjob's book or website suddenly got a lot of attention from a lot of like-minded people who are now merely repeating the same claims.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 12, 2016, 09:10:55 AM
IIRC it was Neil commenting on the ISS being a balloon, not a metallic satellite.
I forget -- did Neil believe rockets couldn't work in space, or was that somebody else?

There are so many whackjobs out there with so many off-the-wall beliefs that it's getting hard to tell them apart without a scorecard. It used to be (so it seemed) that all we ran into were people who thought Apollo was faked, but that space flight was otherwise real.

But all of a sudden there seems to be a big influx of people who insist rocket engines can't work in space where there's no air to push on, and of the even-farther-gone flat earthers.

So many of these "independent critical thinkers" repeat so many of the same talking points that either there are a lot of sock puppets out there, or (more likely, I think) some nutjob's book or website suddenly got a lot of attention from a lot of like-minded people who are now merely repeating the same claims.
Not going back into the thread, I don't believe he thought rockets wouldn't work, just that manned work outside a vehicle, thereby construction the ISS.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on February 12, 2016, 09:35:42 AM

But all of a sudden there seems to be a big influx of people who insist rocket engines can't work in space where there's no air to push on, and of the even-farther-gone flat earthers.


Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible.  I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Zakalwe on February 12, 2016, 10:48:06 AM

Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible.  I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.

Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 12, 2016, 11:51:55 AM

Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible.  I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.

Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!
LOL ;D  That is a refuge for the clueless.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on February 12, 2016, 03:30:15 PM


Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!

I think it was Clueless forum.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 12, 2016, 07:07:31 PM

Then you've got Heiwa you believes unmanned spaceflight is possible, but not manned because safe atmospheric reentry is impossible.  I think he got banned from some ultra-nutty forum for promoting the mainstream lie that rockets work in a vacuum.

Wasn't that Cluesforum? You know you are in the company of complete nutters when Bjorkmann appears to be the most sensible of them all!

You should try Godlike Productions... just make sure your coffee is nowhere near your monitor or keyboard. The level of stupid there can be breathtaking at times.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Philthy on February 12, 2016, 07:41:26 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 12, 2016, 08:17:31 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there.  Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling.  Even a few of the moderators fall into that category.  While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 12, 2016, 08:21:26 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there.  Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling.  Even a few of the moderators fall into that category.  While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"?  I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 12, 2016, 08:27:48 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there.  Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling.  Even a few of the moderators fall into that category.  While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"?  I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.
Hang around long enough and you'll see many are not consistent.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 12, 2016, 08:35:20 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

True, but I think the troll content is higher than GLP there.  Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling.  Even a few of the moderators fall into that category.  While there are trolls at GLP, there are far more that truly believe the crap they post.
Why do you believe that "Most of the flat earthers there don't really believe it and are just trolling"?  I find it hard to decipher whether they are or aren't.
Hang around long enough and you'll see many are not consistent.
That hardly proves they're trolls though. ;)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 12, 2016, 09:09:58 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil


You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?

The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional  disciples.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 12, 2016, 09:21:22 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

At this point in time, everything is out of stock.

You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?

The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional  disciples.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 12, 2016, 11:44:54 PM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil



You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?

The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional  disciples.
At this point in time, everything is out of stock.


Well, there is certainly a lack of brains and common-sense at that site....however, stupid is in plentiful supply!
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 13, 2016, 01:16:06 AM

This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough!  It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 13, 2016, 01:32:48 AM
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 13, 2016, 02:10:25 AM

This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough!  It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...

Followed the rockets don't work in a vacuum thread for a few pages. I need to go and lay down for a couple of hours, my head hurts.

A couple of people on that thread mentioned the experiment of sitting on a wheeled chair and throwing a ball.
A modification of that experiment can PROVE that the air has nothing to do with the propulsive force. If you have two objects, A heavy medicine ball and an equally sized balloon and throw each in turn from the chair. IF pushing against air is what is causing the reaction, then objects of the same volume will cause the chair to move the same distance. BUT if mass is the prime agent, then you will move further throwing the medicine ball. A simple experiment for the doubters.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: smartcooky on February 13, 2016, 04:02:01 AM
Mythbusters have proved that rockets work in a vacuum, by actually firing one in a home made vacuum chamber...



... of course, none of this will convince the membership of  The Stupidati, who will declare the experiment fake and the Mythbusters paid NASA shills
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 13, 2016, 08:00:17 AM
This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil


You do realise that the site is actually a Poe?

The people who started it were on the wind up; they created a one-stop-shop where flat earthers could make public fools of themselves, while the site owners cashed in on sales of coffee cups, T-Shirts and other accessories to the delusional  disciples.
All the items for sale are out of stock, not very businesslike.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 13, 2016, 08:06:01 AM

This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough!  It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...

Followed the rockets don't work in a vacuum thread for a few pages. I need to go and lay down for a couple of hours, my head hurts.

A couple of people on that thread mentioned the experiment of sitting on a wheeled chair and throwing a ball.
A modification of that experiment can PROVE that the air has nothing to do with the propulsive force. If you have two objects, A heavy medicine ball and an equally sized balloon and throw each in turn from the chair. IF pushing against air is what is causing the reaction, then objects of the same volume will cause the chair to move the same distance. BUT if mass is the prime agent, then you will move further throwing the medicine ball. A simple experiment for the doubters.
I haven't been to the site to read through that thread, but I have seen a YT where some guy "proved" that rockets don't work in space.  The same tired "logic", nothing to push against.  His head might be full of hot air with no science remembering or learning.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on February 13, 2016, 08:22:19 AM
Mythbusters have proved that rockets work in a vacuum, by actually firing one in a home made vacuum chamber...



... of course, none of this will convince the membership of  The Stupidati, who will declare the experiment fake and the Mythbusters paid NASA shills
I have never thought of bottle rockets containing an oxidizer.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: frenat on February 13, 2016, 09:16:17 AM

This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough!  It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Did you post there?  What was your username?
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Philthy on February 13, 2016, 02:11:55 PM

This place makes GLP seem like it's populated by geniuses.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?board=20.0

Phil

2 minutes in the chemtrail section was enough!  It's like being curious about that seedy little bar in the unincorporated part of town...
Did you post there?  What was your username?

The ONLY reason I subscribed there is to so I could see the new posts.

No, I don't post on sites like that anymore, it's a waste of time. I've learned that you can't educate the willfully ignorant. It gets old very quickly if the only responses are insults and stupidity. If, a very big if, someone genuinely wanted to learn something, and I knew the answer, or at least part of the answer, I'd post.

I did PM 2 members there mikeman and raznor, I think. Mikeman came here briefly, I told him about this board.

I have seen some of your posts there though. If I were to post there, my username is, oddly enough, Phil.

Phil
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2016, 05:45:44 PM
Mythbusters have proved that rockets work in a vacuum, by actually firing one in a home made vacuum chamber...
The nutjobs are very familiar with that clip, and of course they have plenty of excuses:

The chamber wasn't completely evacuated. (How much air is enough?)
The Mythbusters didn't show the vacuum gauge. (Actually, they did.)
The chamber wasn't a vacuum after the rocket ignited. (So I guess that means a rocket does push on its own exhaust, huh?)
The rocket pushed off the chamber walls.
The Mythbusters are in NASA's pockets.

The stupid never ends.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: nomuse on February 13, 2016, 09:20:50 PM
It's like a mirror image of science.

Good science is about looking for anything that can prove your hypothesis wrong.

CT thinking is about looking for anything that can be twisted to AGREE with you.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Tedward on February 15, 2016, 03:15:41 AM
What they are saying is then, the experiment is above their ken to repeat and use that chance to disprove science.

If it really was that important they would have nailed it by now. :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: HeadLikeARock on February 16, 2016, 07:41:07 AM
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.

I think you're spot on with that assessment.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 16, 2016, 12:02:40 PM
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.

I think you're spot on with that assessment.

A lot of the Moon Hoax old guard (Jarrah included) believe that Flat-Earthers are trying to make the "Moon Hoax" cause, a laughing stock and that NASA (or the CIA, or the Government, or whoever) is behind it all. :D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: raven on February 16, 2016, 05:49:26 PM
Didn't at least a few try to claim about our old 'friend' Bart 'Punching Bag' Sibrel, after it was shown rather handedly that he lied about the 'cutout/porthole' claim, with a later portion the very same transmission showing it to be a rounded edge quadrilateral with the Earth still in view.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: DD Brock on February 16, 2016, 08:46:41 PM
I think a lot of the so-called flat-earthers don't actually believe it but pursue the idea as a kind of pseudo-intellectual exercise to prove how clever they are and how poor they believe conventional science is. It's a way of proving not so much that the earth is flat but that it revolves around them, which is where tradosaurus came in.

I think you're spot on with that assessment.


A lot of the Moon Hoax old guard (Jarrah included) believe that Flat-Earthers are trying to make the "Moon Hoax" cause, a laughing stock and that NASA (or the CIA, or the Government, or whoever) is behind it all. :D

That sounds like Jarrah logic. That boy is the living embodiment of the pseudo-intellectual. I imagine his parents spend a lot of time wondering where they went wrong  ;D
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: godscountry on May 20, 2016, 08:36:06 AM
The proof is in the dust.http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: bknight on May 20, 2016, 09:20:58 AM
The proof is in the dust.http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust
It is interesting that hunchbacked recently published a video that he contends the dust movement "proves" the exact opposite.  I didn't buy into his argument, as I see dust behaving as it likely should in  a near zero atmosphere.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: godscountry on May 29, 2016, 01:37:15 PM
My contention is that most of the NASA space program is probably a hoax. I say "probably" because I don't know. But neither does anyone else and I think that's unacceptable. A faith-based space program during this great age of the scientific method is unnecessary and absurd. It's way past time for NASA to be scientifically accountable.

After my painful 2003 epiphany regarding 9-11, I gained the courage to confront my mythological beliefs about the space program and other things. I was confronted with the difficult question, "How do we PROVE we went to the moon?"

Photos? Video? Could be fake. Narrative? Could be lies. Launches? Yes, but what happened after they went into orbit out of sight? Did they really go to the moon? Do they really go to the space station or is just a lighted orbiting umannned and possibly inflatable prop? Did they really repair a Hubble telescope? What about the flag waving? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about it on Earth. What about the shadows? I don't know and there's nothing we can prove about them on Earth.What about the Lunar laser reflector? I don't know and who knows how it got there even if it's actually there.

But then I stumbled upon the spacesuit ice sublimators. Being in either the vacuum of orbit or the vacuum of the moon, heat transfer is a difficult engineering challenge. There's nothing cool to conduct heat to, there's no atmosphere so there's nothing to convect heat to and a radiator would be huge and ungainly so NASA describes the clever and exotic technique of using nickel porous plate ice sublimators to explain how heat was allegedly transferred from the spacesuits and the Lunar Modules(LM).

A primary closed loop of water circulates around the heat source, either a human body or the Lunar Module, through a nickel porous plate heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is open to the vacuum of space through many small pores. Water passes into the heat exchanger, receives the heat of the closed primary loop and then, because it's exposed to vacuum, phase changes from liquid to ice and sublimates into space transferring heat with it. Very neat and ingenious. Naturally, I wanted to learn more. What does a spacesuit sublimator look like? Specifications? Procedures? Video of one being tested? Photographs? Technical discussions in heat transfer or thermodynamics books? I searched. Strangely and absurdly, I found almost nothing. I received almost nothing.

I got stonewalled when I appealed for information. Absurdly, there were no photographs. Absurdly, there was no video of spacesuits with ice sublimators being tested. Most absurdly, there was no information in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics books. Absurdly, the alleged manufacturer, Hamilton Sunstrand of United Technologies would only release very elementary information. Absurdly, NASA's Johnson Space Center refused to provide video or photos and stonewalled me instead. Absurdly, the Rice University Department of Mechanical Engineering, most closely associated with Houston's Johnson Space Center refused to comment. Absurdly, my Congressional representatives in two states, California's and Washington's Feinstein, Boxer, Cantwell, Murray, Capps and Hastings, stonewalled me also when I requested their assistance acquiring accountability from NASA.

But voila! The good news was that I had stumbled upon the way to PROVE whether the NASA space program was a hoax. The lack of information and evasion regarding spacesuits with sublimators represents a huge anomaly upon which attention should be focused. NASA must publicly demonstrate, before independent witnesses, a spacesuit with ice sublimator cooling system in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit. NASA refuses to be accountable. It's unacceptable. We can PROVE today on Earth if the NASA space program is a hoax. For independent witnesses I recommend retired Army General Antonio Taguba, retired Navy Admiral William Fallon and me.

Please demand NASA accountability from your respective Congressional representatives.As President Ronald Reagan said in his Farewell Address, "We the PEOPLE tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us."  Please tell them that you want to see a spacesuit with ice sublimator work in a high vacuum chamber on Earth.
Thank you.
In the case of apollo,millions of professionals around the world would all have to be part of a elaborate fraud,the suit was pressurized,the internal liquid cooling was not taking place in in the vacuum of space,so i don't understand what exactly it is your claiming.The only heat they had to worry about was reflected solar radiation [heat]for which the lightly covered material of the suit reflected 90 percent of it  away,with no conduction of heat,other than the ground,which was insulated away by GE made silicone over boots,cooling was not a problem,both in the LEM and during the EVA's at lunar dawn[much cooler]
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: godscountry on May 29, 2016, 02:55:08 PM
Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally  a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources.   .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Grashtel on May 29, 2016, 05:25:16 PM
Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally  a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources.   .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.
A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
B) Neil Barker hasn't been active since last year so you aren't likely to be getting a reply
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Nowhere Man on May 29, 2016, 08:16:48 PM
Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally  a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources.   .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.
A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
B) Neil Barker hasn't been active since last year so you aren't likely to be getting a reply
C) Put a space after every comma, period, question mark, etc.  Do not put a space before a comma, period, question mark, etc.

Fred
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: godscountry on June 11, 2016, 07:26:35 AM
Not much logic in that statement,your don't know,so its probrally  a hoax,why don't you know ?,research it Neil.You should be asking ?why would millions of professionals from around the world,who are part of the world wide science community lie and make up false stories,documents,how could they have faked thousands of high res photos,film,without neither the processing power ,nor the imaging software,why would they fake 9 manned flights to the moon and 6 landings,why so many flights ?why would India,Japan and other nations send spacecraft to the moon to do science and mapping,then post fake images and scans of Apollo landing sites? how could a phd,geologist not know the difference between a moon rock and a piece of petrified wood? Why would Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK and other tracking station's around the world claim to have tracked Apollo spacecraft to the surface of the moon multiple times?,JB even made a graph of Neils incredible decent,avoiding a debris field at the last few seconds ?Why hasn't a anyone connected to the Apollo program, or even one of the 400,000 workers hired by NASA,ever come forward,with evidence of a fraud,why hasn't anyone proven any of the hoax claims,all have been refuted 100's of times? hundreds of thousands of people watched the Saturn V launches ,a 360 foot monster rocket,why would NASA,use a 7.5 million pound thrust rocket to lift nothing and do it over and over ?How can anyone just flat out claim everyone and everything connected to apollo is fake without a single piece of evidence ? A moving flag ?how about applying a little logic?it was bumped out of the camera's view by the astronaut ?.Ignorance ? Which is more likely,a fan,a gust of wind [we see nothing else blow around or move] or the astronaut bumping it? The Van Allen Belts?Dr.James Van Allen has explained it over and over,the belts were the least of Apollo's risks,they were of little danger to the crews,all the data on the radiation is available to read,but people are still saying,they could not of made it through safely,so again Dr.James Van Allen's life's work is fraudulent,he's just a big fake?which is more likely?I say he's telling the truth reason being,we can look at all the data from multiple sources.   .Bottomline,all the hoax claims are easily refuted,usually with a simple search online or a trip to the library. The documentation is all there and available to anyone, all for free.NASA doesn't charge you a penny,while all the hoax believer's have a dollar sign on NASA's free information,a book,movie or magazine is always for sale,funny how it that goes.
A) Paragraphs are your friend, they make text far more readable than dumping huge walls of it
B) Neil Barker hasn't been active since last year so you aren't likely to be getting a reply
C) Put a space after every comma, period, question mark, etc.  Do not put a space before a comma, period, question mark, etc.

Fred
Sorry guys, I meant to edit it.Hope I'm not in trouble.
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Nowhere Man on June 11, 2016, 11:25:07 AM
You're not in trouble, unless your English teacher sees it.  When what you write is difficult to read, it will not be read and your ideas will go nowhere.

Fred
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: molesworth on June 14, 2016, 04:53:29 PM
A lot of the Moon Hoax old guard (Jarrah included) believe that Flat-Earthers are trying to make the "Moon Hoax" cause, a laughing stock and that NASA (or the CIA, or the Government, or whoever) is behind it all. :D
In a moment of boredom I visited a certain, well-known, three-letter forum the other day, and it was full of flat earth threads.  I succumbed to temptation to try to argue with them, but I doubt any rational explanations will get through  :D

However, there was a bit of a furore, as apparently the logged IP of one flat-earth proponent was from a US government department!  I expect it was probably someone having a lunch-time browse, and either he did believe the idea, or was just trolling for laughs, but it did raise a lot of questions, and doubts about whether the government is deliberately spreading the flat earth meme to discredit other conspiracies.

Personally, I doubt they give conspiracies much thought, and have far better things to do than worry whether a few folks believe we didn't go to the moon, that the Kennedy assassination was arranged by the CIA etc.  :)
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Ranb on June 15, 2016, 11:13:33 PM
However, there was a bit of a furore, as apparently the logged IP of one flat-earth proponent was from a US government department!  I expect it was probably someone having a lunch-time browse, and either he did believe the idea, or was just trolling for laughs, but it did raise a lot of questions, and doubts about whether the government is deliberately spreading the flat earth meme to discredit other conspiracies.
I post at work sometimes, at the Puget Sound Shipyard, through their firewall.  Anything I post will show up as from a government website.  A wide variety of people work for the US government with most them not allowed to represent the government views on any certain topic.  There are bound to be tin foil hatters of all kinds posting on the WWW using government computers.

Ranb
Title: Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
Post by: Glom on June 16, 2016, 03:29:20 AM
Sure. That's what you want us to think.