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.
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.
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.
But they refuse...
Submit verifiable proof of this claimed refusal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
