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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
