Author Topic: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.  (Read 325624 times)

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1457
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #15 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?



Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1457
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2015, 01:00:00 PM »


How many experts will it take to convince you you're wrong?

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1573
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #17 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???
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #18 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #19 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
  ::)

Great programming and more than that to point.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1457
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #20 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..

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #21 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
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 01:38:19 PM 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 Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #22 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?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #23 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.

Offline Tedward

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #24 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?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 01:45:23 PM by Tedward »

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #25 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3757
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #26 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #27 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #28 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.
His browser broke? ::)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1573
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #29 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 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
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov