Author Topic: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS  (Read 1155 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Clavius
"Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« on: July 06, 2017, 01:57:30 PM »
This link was sent to the Clavius inbox. 

http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm

The correspondent who sent it may likely join the forum to discuss it.  It's the latest by the author going under the pen name "Phil Kouts" and purporting to hold a relevant PhD.  We last discussed his work in this thread http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=740.0 .  And as such, some of the same criticisms apply -- Aulis is well-known for inventing bogus experts who conveniently hide behind pseudonyms and unverifiable credentials, but who expect to be taken as authorities.

The article wants to seem well-researched, but the author seems to have considered only GAO reports on Apollo, which are not generally technical in nature.  "Kouts" relies heavily on the notion that certain topics are not well covered in NASA materials, but we don't see a single reference to the Apollo Experience Reports or any of the actual technical literature for Apollo.  This alone is suspicious.  The strength of "Kouts'" writing is supposed to be how heavily it's based in officlal NASA publications, but it becomes quickly apparent that he's just cherry-picked a few sources.  He's not telling the full story, and he's sprinkling it liberally with his personal analysis and interpretation, which fails for want of actual expertise.  (No, I don't buy that he has to hide his identity for his "safety."  Orlando Sentinel authors are merciless to NASA, and they manage to stay alive.)

It's a lengthy article, so a full response will obviously take some time.  There are a few pretty good howlers in it at first glance, such as the notion that NASA avoids mention of the Rocketdyne F-1.  If "Kouts" had really done any research, he'd have discovered NASA published extensive documentation a few years ago in print and video on efforts to engineer an F-1A, uprated and modernized.  They're reverse-engineering the turbopumps, etc.

Comments?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2145
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2017, 09:29:25 AM »
Quote
The fact is that NASA is still totally incapable of safely returning crews from deep space
This is not researched very well and cherry picks outtakes from the recent Orion mission. 
Quote
It is no surprise that the F-1 engine of the Saturn V's first stage is not even discussed in NASA's current research documents;
As you have noted earlier in other threads, the F-1 while impressive, required more hands on building, ok during the wastes anything but time Apollo development.

Quote
An upgraded version of the J-2 engine from the Saturn V's second stage was proposed ten years ago for the new heavy-lift rocket, but NASA now recognises that it has to be a new development and so was put on hold.

Seems like a management decision to use Shuttle engines, nothing technical here.

Quote
NASA is still incapable of developing a heavy-lift rocket for payloads of 70 tons

Until the SLS development is complete.

Quote
NASA now classifies an ascent from the lunar surface as an escape from ‘a deep gravity well’ and its plans to land on the Moon have been deferred to the point of being virtually abandoned.

Again a political decision, not technical.

Quote
NASA still doesn’t have a reliable thermal shield for command modules

NASA hasn't attempted to develop one since there was no plans for manned missions beyond LEO, another political decision.

Quote
The ‘direct’ profile of re-entry, as claimed in the Apollo record

And yet there is clear graphing of the actual reentry profile with the "skip" that Apollo used.

Quote
If a CM had survived due to sheer good luck during re-entry, any surviving astronauts would be in a critical condition due to the real risk of severe gravity overloads following an extended period of microgravity

No evidence for this claim anywhere as there haven't been any missions beyond LEO, just speculation.

Quote
The cumulative absorbed radiation doses measured on the Orion CEV during the 5 December 2014 Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1) mission were about three orders of magnitude or 1,000 times larger than the cumulative absorbed dose as measured during the same period by detectors on board the ISS. (MB3)

Mary Bennett's calculation doesn't fit the Apollo mission profile, as Orion was in the VARB most of the time while Apollo missed the dense parts of the VARB.  Misdirection at best and I haven't checked her results.

Quote
NASA regularly reminds its audiences about Apollo 11,where astronauts were on the lunar surface for only two hours, while it ... is remarkably silent on Apollo missions 15 to 17 which would be crucial evidence in favour of harmless trips to the Moon
Quiet?  All he has to do is search for articles written on radiation effects for all the missions.  Apollo 12 data is skewed somewhat as one of the three badges broke and had to be shared by the landing crew, well known and no mystery.
EDIT:
Jay I asked on ISF, but you may not have seen it.  Is the heat shield on Orion being Redesigned?

« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 09:39:40 AM by bknight »
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Clavius
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2017, 02:31:45 PM »
This is not researched very well and cherry picks outtakes from the recent Orion mission. 

Indeed the author seems to want to consider the Orion development an ongoing failure because, well, it's still in development.  If I had to characterize his approach overall, "Kouts" seems to be claiming that SLS and Orion just rehash Apollo-Saturn and should be relatively easy to pull off.  If they allegedly did it back in the 1960s, and they claim they're borrowing Apollo techniques, then it should be easy, right?  As you can guess, that's a pretty naive line of reasoning.  It's clear "Kouts" has never been within 10 miles of an actual engineering development program.  His suppositions are essentially those of other layman who have made the same argument from the same position of ignorance.

Quote
[T]he F-1 while impressive, required more hands on building...

Correct; it and the J-2 were designed during a regime when schedule was everything.  As such, although we have all the documents that were produced during F-1 and J-2 development, the actual motors were built with a lot of hands-on tweaking and on-the-spot know-how that went away when all the people who retained it in their noggins retired and, in some cases, went on to Jesus.  This doesn't lend itself well to an exercise that's intended to determine whether adapting and improving a legacy design will be cheaper and more effective than using a more modern legacy design (e.g., the SSME) or buying engines from a number of excellent manufacturers that have sprung up since Apollo.  A putative variant of the F-1 exists, Dynetics' F-1B.  It has been shelved, but not because it doesn't work.  It's been shelved because Congress isn't chomping at the bit to lay out money for developing liquid-fueled SLS boosters.  If you won't need the F-1B until 2030, then there's no point working on it now.

Again, the line of reasoning seems to be that if NASA had a working heavy-lift launch vehicle and a working interplanetary spacecraft in the 1960s, then it should be a piece of cake to just uprate it for the 21st century.  And if they've tried to reuse Apollo designs and it's not just working right off the drawing board, then there must have been something wrong with the old designs.  The first mistake in that notion is that we use the same engineering processes now as we did in 1965.  The second is that extension of a design is just a matter of some simple, superfluous modifications.  We can't be as inefficient, cavalier, or cost-agnostic in the 2010s as we were in the 1960s.  We can't kill astronauts as a matter of course.  We can't spend exorbitant amounts of money.  What would have been done in 1965 by a very skilled worker welding two parts together today can be done with EDM machining, omitting the weld altogether.  That's safer, faster, and cheaper.  But it means departing from the original design.  Similarly, we use entirely different chemistry to produce the seals and gaskets in rocket engines than we did in 1965.  A modern rocket will want those advantages, but again it means changing the designs.  Since the margins and tweaky processes for 50-year-old engines aren't well known (*cough* NK-33 *cough*), changing a working design doesn't necessarily always mean improving it.

Quote
Until the SLS development is complete.

Indeed "Kouts" phrases his argument to make it sound like NASA's been trying (and failing) all along to do what was presumably already done in the 1960s and is an in-the-can design.  We've only lately resumed the market for payloads more than 30 tons.  Previously there just wasn't any such market and no reason to develop vehicles to serve it.  In the 1960s the Saturn V had to be a clean-sheet design because there was simply nothing else like it.  Today we can engineer a heavy-lift booster using a variety of techniques that involve component and design reuse from other systems.  But that still doesn't make it the best, fastest, cheapest, or easiest way to arrive at the sum of the requirements.  The SSME is a very complex engine.  The Rocketdyne F-1 is, in concept, comparatively very simple.  You'd be crazy not to at least investigate whether a big dumb design, uprated, will be easier to build.  But that investigation doesn't have a predetermined outcome, especially when you factor in politics.

"Kouts" limits his reading to Government Accountability Office documents, which naturally aren't going to paint a rosy picture of any program that's gone through the vicissitudes and tribulations in NASA's post-STS period.  But his mistake is trying to explain those in technical or scientific terms instead of the terms the reports are designed to examine.

Quote
No evidence for this claim anywhere as there haven't been any missions beyond LEO, just speculation.

And this is something we would expect someone with an advanced degree in physics to be able to show his work for.  He doesn't have to reveal his name -- if that's his concern -- but there's nothing wrong with expecting a physicist to do some physics.  As it stands, it's a naked claim.  It's the standard Aulis gambit:  anonymous claims to expertise, with conclusions based on that supposed expertise, but no demonstration of expertise.

Besides, re-entry in a Soyuz is not for the faint of heart -- literally.  That's been done for decades, after stays in space approaching a year.  We have data on the effects of strenuous re-entry after long-term habitation.  On this point we can say confidently that "Kouts" is just plain wrong.

Quote
Mary Bennett's calculation doesn't fit the Apollo mission profile, as Orion was in the VARB most of the time while Apollo missed the dense parts of the VARB.  Misdirection at best and I haven't checked her results.

It's cute that she thinks she can do those computations by hand.  It's a wonder she's not selling her miraculous skill in that area to the world's aerospace community, who have to rely on complicated models that take lots of skill and time to work.

But yes, Orion was specifically sent (unmanned) into a hazardous radiation zone in order to test its shielding.  Apollo was specifically sent on a safer trajectory in order to avoid all the hazards it could.  Apples and oranges.

Quote
Quiet?

Indeed, "remarkably silent" means simply that "Kouts" hasn't looked.  That argument worked reasonably well in the 1990s when Aulis' first book came out.  Back then you still had to leave your desk in order to do research.  Nowadays that claim that NASA is hiding information falls comically flat.

Quote
Jay I asked on ISF, but you may not have seen it.  Is the heat shield on Orion being Redesigned?

Sort of.  The way it's made and attached to the spacecraft is being redesigned based on data from the first test flight.  The materials science and chemistry comes from the Apollo era:  the notion of using Avcoat, which is a proven solution.  The manufacturing and assembly methods come from STS, which developed the technique of piecewise thermal shielding.  "Kouts" wants to insinuate that the "Apollo-era" heat shield on Orion has to be redesigned because it didn't work, and therefore that it wouldn't have worked for Apollo.

So most of "Kouts's" claims sooner or later come down to whether he knows what he's talking about.  Clearly he doesn't, but he's certainly following the Aulis pattern of claiming to be an expert, hiding behind anonymity to avoid a test of that expertise, and then fooling the gullible who can't tell for themselves that he's just making stuff up.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2017, 12:01:33 AM »
Quote
If a CM had survived due to sheer good luck during re-entry, any surviving astronauts would be in a critical condition due to the real risk of severe gravity overloads following an extended period of microgravity
Does this 'expert' think the ISS, Skylab, Gemini 7, several Salyut stations and Mir to be a hoax? Because all those had longer crewed missions than Apollo.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2017, 08:26:37 PM »
He lost me at the signature.

Maybe it is just I've been reading mostly archaeology stuff lately, but that's just not done. It's non-standard and is meaningless boasting to put that blank "PhD" up there. Either you describe your specific academic standing -- and that includes your affiliations -- or you just use your name.

And "The author has completed...?" That's clumsy at best. Either stay in the proper third person, "A thorough review of NASA documents..." or take ownership with, "I have reviewed..." The construction he chose is a classically passive voice, in which the documents are said to fall short, but you can't pin who said they fell short on any specific person. This is the opposite of what you want in a paper, or even an opinion piece.

The man is also changing voice from line to line.

Yeah, and you know, the stuff I've been reading lately when they cite themselves they cite by name. Not this cute hiding of "MB1" -- that is, a series of articles published by the same author with the group title "Moon Base something-or-other." The last set I looked at was a lot of "Wiseman, 2001" and done that way easily searchable in the standard resources.

Not to get all hung up on standards for academic papers, but this is pure White Lab-Coating. He's doing all these cites and PhD dropping in a general audience article for the same reason the actor selling face cream on television is dressed in a lab coat.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2017, 08:42:51 PM »
Actually, on a quick read, essentially all of his problem stems from a failure to understand scalability. He seems to think that achieving a higher reliability on a more challenging mission (longer duration, higher re-entry velocity, etc.) is simply taking what had worked for a previous mission and making it a little bit better.

He doesn't appear to grasp the non-linearity. Many of Apollo's solutions were at the edge of the envelope over which they could be applied. They don't simply scale up. Working a mission to Mars, or even a long-duration lunar stay, is a quantitative change, not merely a quantitative one.

I feel this is someone who like me grew up in the L5 Society days when the literature was full of NASA think projects. When it was plausible at a first, limited glance that getting to the Moon was a stepping-stone and space stations and lunar colonies and all that could be done by just making enough Saturn V's. And he hasn't accepted emotionally that the next step is fully as high as the step before, and what worked for Apollo really doesn't get us there.

(And also that lunar colonies and terraforming Mars and all that aren't as economically feasible as certain writers tried hard to get us to believe back in the 70's. I'm reminded too hard of similar pipe dreams about underwater cities, which foundered on the reality of underwater living as being always cold, always damp, and mold growing on everything -- far from the delight of sunlit water and playful fish outside the subocean split-level with the plush carpet and the Syd Mead submersible parked outside.)

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2017, 12:56:32 AM »
Working a mission to Mars, or even a long-duration lunar stay, is a quantitative change, not merely a quantitative one.
(emphasis added)

???
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2017, 02:19:58 AM »
If it's Aulis, I don't bother with it. It's always either lies, distortions or just plain garbage. I used to spend a bit of time doing point by point refutations (specifically the image claims) but simply ignore them now. They won't acknowledge corrections (or only minor ones where they have an incorrect mission number) so it is no longer worth my time.

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Clavius
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2017, 11:51:57 AM »
They won't acknowledge corrections...

They used to.  By that I mean they used to have a forum much like this one.  When people started asking too many questions they couldn't b.s. their way through (i.e., when real photographers and real scientists and real engineers showed up). they took it offline for "maintenance" (for three months) and never brought it back.  A while later they replaced it with a sort of guestbook where people could leave short messages (moderated) and someone from Aulis might get around to answering it.  Then someone pointed out that their "light rays are always parallel" argument was flatly contradicted by one of their own sample photographs elsewhere in the book.  The guestbook went away, and since then no representative of Aulis has made himself available for public interview.

"Kouts" seems to be their typical combination of lies, distortion, and garbage.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Clavius
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2017, 01:10:59 PM »
He lost me at the signature.

Indeed, it's the standard Aulis equivocation.  They reproduce the work of someone they claim to be appropriately educated and experienced and expect the reader to bow to that expertise when it comes to interpreting relevant facts and drawing conclusions.  But they eliminate the opportunity of any critic to conduct a proper voir dire.  Either make a proper argument from expertise or don't.

Quote
It's non-standard and is meaningless boasting to put that blank "PhD" up there. Either you describe your specific academic standing -- and that includes your affiliations -- or you just use your name.

And of course "Kouts" does neither.  At least at one point, Commonwealth custom favored postnominals more than Americans.  Memberships, such as in the Royal Society, degrees (even baccalaureates), and -- of course -- orders of chivalry were more commonly listed than we would do in America.  So we can accept that perhaps "Kouts" is just being old-school Commonwealth.  But since "Kouts" is unwilling to offer any intellectual accountability behind the claim, it's more likely to be just pretentious posturing -- hoping people will really take his rambling nonsense as the real offerings of a real physics PhD on the American space program.  Just more "Bill Woods" and "Una Ronald."

Quote
And "The author has completed...?" That's clumsy at best.

And blatantly false, because his bibliography omits all the sources one would normally go to in order to find technical information about Apollo.  "Kouts" has relied heavily upon reports to and by the political organs.  I might expect a non-American physicist to be able to discuss, in round terms, the engineering problems faced by the American space industry.  I do not -- in any way -- expect an New Zealand physicist to have notable insight into American politics and fiscal policy for a nationalized space program.  Not without a suitable voir dire, which Aulis denies us (as usual).

Quote
The man is also changing voice from line to line.

Which says "inexperienced writer" to me.  Skill in writing on scientific and technical matters is something I would expect from anyone claiming a PhD, regardless of the field.

Quote
Not this cute hiding of "MB1" -- that is, a series of articles published by the same author...

And published only in blatantly conspiracy-mongering venues.  Why would someone who has legitimate subject-matter expertise and a legitimate opinion on the state of the American space program need to hide behind pseudonyms and fringe pulp mags?  It's said he desires to keep his professional life and personal writings separate, which tells me this is not his area of professional specialty -- in which we have to treat it as a lay opinion, not an expert one.  And he pierces his compartmentalization by making sure we know he holds a PhD in physics.  He's not keeping his alter egos separate; he's carefully walking a line between claiming just enough to be believable -- if we believe him -- and making sure we'll never find out whether his expertise is genuine or not.  "David Groves, PhD" all over again.

Indeed, I was hoping to find some documentation for his claim that the lunar module APS was impractical because it was mated too close to the descent stage top surface.  He makes the claim as if the impracticality were documented elsewhere, with references.  The reference, of course, is to his own writings.  And when I follow the reference, all I get is the same naked claim with only a grainy, unrevealing photograph of the docked LM stages without the insulation blankets in the way.  Naturally I wanted to know what "external" source told him his facts -- which are wrong.  The "surface" underneath the APS is a 0.5-mil (0.013 mm) sheet of kapton.  That's roughly a tenth the thickness of common cling wrap.  It disintegrates almost instantly when the oxidizer is pre-injected, and the APS plume passes through the open center section of the LM descent stage, around the now-useless DPS.  Some of the stuff you see flying away in Apollo 14, 16, and 17 launches is this yellow kapton flim.

Padding your footnotes and references by referring simply to places where you've made the same unevidenced claim previously is a long-standing trick to convey the illusion of scholarship.

Quote
Actually, on a quick read, essentially all of his problem stems from a failure to understand scalability.

Which is something physicists generally don't have to deal with and generally don't care about.  A big reason the Wrights succeeded and Samuel Pierpont Langley failed -- Langley was a well-funded, highly respected physicist of his day -- was that Langley erred in trying to scale up his glider designs to a full-sized manned airplane.  The Wrights had vast experience actually designing and building machines.  They knew they couldn't just multiply dimensions by a scaling factor.

Quote
He seems to think that achieving a higher reliability on a more challenging mission (longer duration, higher re-entry velocity, etc.) is simply taking what had worked for a previous mission and making it a little bit better.

Indeed, which is something a real aerospace engineer would laugh heartily at.

Quote
...is a qua[l]itative change, not merely a quantitative one.

Indeed.  We know Avcoat works.  We've known since my father was in high school that Avcoat is a reliable method of rejecting heat during atmospheric re-entry.  We didn't use it for the shuttle because the shuttle had a vastly larger surface than had ever been made out of a single layup of Avcoat.  Hence, unexplored territory.  And because the shuttle had to be reusable, and Avcoat is an expendable thing.  There was no provision in Apollo for reusing the spacecraft, so an expendable heat shield was acceptable.

Orion is different.  It's big -- bigger than any previously single Avocoat layup.  And we have to figure out how to bond it to the spacecraft in way that it won't come loose, but such that we can still reuse the Orion carcass for other missions by attaching a new heat shield.  It's smart, moving forward, to want to separate the reusable parts of a spacecraft from its expendable parts.  And it's smart, moving forward, to see if we can learn from the shuttle how to manufacture and attach an Avcoat heat shield using a tiled method.  This is all new engineering.  It's not a matter of making the same fruit tart recipe your mother made for years and switching out the crème patisserie for lemon curd.

Quote
I feel this is someone who like me grew up in the L5 Society days...

Weren't those great days?  In my extracurricular activities lately I've come to meet a number of the artists who envisioned those times (those who are still alive, anyway).  What a vision there was.

Quote
And he hasn't accepted emotionally that the next step is fully as high as the step before, and what worked for Apollo really doesn't get us there.

And more darkly, that the social, financial, and political climate that made a giant step like Apollo happen is not likely to happen again in our lifetime.  This is why von Braun left NASA.  The sparkling toruses at the Langrange points were all well and good for Colliers and National Geographic, but von Braun could see that NASA had neither the will nor the support to get there.  Still don't, in many estimations.  That's what plays into "Kouts'" scheme.  There are legitimate criticisms against SLS and Orion, from all manner of perspectives.  It's not hard to spell out a gloomy plot for a story surrounding it.  And then -- as you say -- all you have to do is suggest that the gloom comes from having predicated the system on something that should have easily succeeded, but has evidently failed.

Quote
...the Syd Mead submersible parked outside.

For the part of my profession that deals with designing things that aren't necessarily going to be built as real functioning objects, Syd is my hero.  When I illustrate, I illustrate (as best I can) in his style.  (I can't draw figures.)  His illustration workshops are amazing for teaching you how to think about how something should work, yet still excite the imagination.  For the past decade or so, however, he has relied more upon his studio artists, which dulls the mystique a little.  (Obligatory tips of the hat also to John Eaves and Rick Sternbach, guys I've learned a lot from -- and hopefully vice versa.)  But if you want the real old wizard of imaginary space, you want Ron Cobb.  Ron almost never relied on studio artists and will sit down with you and spend three hours talking about designing spaceships whether you're the head of Warner Brothers art department or a seventh-grader from Oklahoma.  Among the books I own, only a handful are bequeathed to specific people in my will; Cobb's autographed copy of Colorvision is one of them.  I wish I had met Ralph McQuarrie, because I put him in the same camp as Cobb.

The tremendous imagination and hope these folks had for the future is still inspiring.  But no, it's not our present or our future.  The nationalized space program is not, and will never be, what it was in the 1960s.  That doesn't mean we won't still continue to innovate.  But to expect that it will require only an incremental step beyond Apollo is just unrealistic.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2017, 08:11:34 PM »
Working a mission to Mars, or even a long-duration lunar stay, is a quantitative change, not merely a quantitative one.
(emphasis added)

???

Bah.  Yes, I meant to type "qualitative" on the second. Durned muscle memory!

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2017, 08:20:35 PM »
I've got a Cobb book somewhere. I'd be tempted to credit him with the "used future" look that Star Wars pioneered but Alien established so memorably it set the look for a generation. I may be imagining it -- I'm (obviously) no engineer -- but his stuff feels like he studied ergonomics and man-machine interface. There's a rightness about the buttons and levers and labels and lockout tags you just don't see in the work of others.

I also have a Mike Trim book. Again, I can't judge for practicality, but boy is the stuff he made fun to look at!

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2017, 10:35:01 PM »


Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2017, 01:36:10 AM »
It always amuses me that the hoax community will eschew the teachings of those long-haired college professors and their indoctrinated compartmentalised preaching of the elite's oppressive gospel...until they find someone claiming academic qualifications that they think agrees with them.

Oh no he's OK - he's a whistleblower...

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 596
  • Another Clown
Re: "Phil Kouts PhD" is at it again, at AULIS
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2017, 10:08:34 AM »
It always amuses me that the hoax community will eschew the teachings of those long-haired college professors and their indoctrinated compartmentalised preaching of the elite's oppressive gospel...until they find someone claiming academic qualifications that they think agrees with them.

Oh no he's OK - he's a whistleblower...

It's the same with any form of evidence they, of course, can present any image or document in support of their notions. But if you produce any documentary evidence you have to have the Vogon evidence profile. (signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.)
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)