Author Topic: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.  (Read 470853 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #270 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #271 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?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #272 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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #273 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. 
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #274 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.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #275 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #276 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. :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #277 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #278 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #279 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. 

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1273
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #280 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.

Offline Neil Baker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #281 on: August 28, 2015, 12:13:55 AM »

"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

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?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3789
    • Clavius
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #282 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #283 on: August 28, 2015, 12:33:48 AM »

"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

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?

Offline Neil Baker

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.
« Reply #284 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.