Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

[Luke Pemberton]

Who cares when it was published?  You claimed no texts books mention it and that claim is false.

But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting. 

[JayUtah]

I admit it's pure speculation but that's the best I can do absent any responsible scientific accountability from NASA.
Does this level of duplicity seem plausible?

No.  It is not NASA's fault you are unwilling and unable to prove your accusations against them.  "Responsible scientific accountability" does not mean acquiescing to delusional demands made without evidence.

For someone like me, no. But after confronting 9-11, I'm astounded at the evil of media-controlling Zionists.

This is telling.

[Abaddon]

As for ISS spacewalks, they have been observed from earth using backyard telescopes by amateurs.

Oh bull!

Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

[JayUtah]

http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

Oh please!

Once again, bare denial is not an argument.  You are repeatedly and distinctly unable to explain any contrary evidence.

[Neil Baker]

Who cares when it was published? 

Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

[Bob B.]

Here's the US patent that discusses ice sublimation. Note the filing date Neil, well before you raised your concerns about their existence.

http://www.google.ca/patents/US3613775

Now, it you claim that this was filed during the Apollo missions so was too late for the Apollo missions, you clearly do not know a lot about patents OR have read through this patent which discusses previous sublimation systems. So, it would appear that a patent existed for ice sublimators well before your objections.

Your move.

Here is the patent on the sublimator (which I posted yesterday).  The filing date is 1963.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

[JayUtah]

But, once Neil raised it, the whole scientific community had to rush out and make sure it was covered by filling in the gaps. I think that is what he is suggesting. 

Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.  Or perhaps telepathically altering my memory.  Baker complains that NASA ignores him.  Perhaps he would be more successful if he were able to recruit some appropriately qualified allies?  But the record shows Baker is roundly regarded as a crackpot.  And for good reason, it appears.

[Abaddon]

...no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

Here a text book titled Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer that asks its students a question about porous plate sublimators (question #4.2.1).

https://books.google.com/books?id=yxMnotbAAz4C&pg=PA436#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, published in 2010 long after I began publicly disputing the ice sublimators in 2007

Heat and Mass Transfer - Anthony Mills - 1995 - ISBN 0256114439

You were saying?

[Luke Pemberton]

http://www.google.com/patents/US3170303

Sorry Bob, I missed that. The evidence is clear though, patents exist for sublimation technology prior to Neil's concerns. The conclusion being that Neil is a poor researcher and is now trying to dig himself from a hole.

[mako88sb]

Please list any your relevant qualifications.

Just in case you missed the question in all the posts.

Here's his resume from when he was running for governor back in 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224132630/www.oceanchinampa.com/BakerResume.pdf

[JayUtah]

Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

It's already been figured out:  you're changing horses.  In your original post, you represented the "lack of information" regarding nickel porous plate sublimators as an ongoing concern.  It clearly is not, hence you have revised your argument to claim that you were responsible in 2007 for motivating the recent publication of suitable descriptions.

[Neil Baker]

Why? Is that yet another thing your bumbling efforts at research failed to find?

Hoaxers love blurry photos.
Okay, throw it in the pile with your other so-called evidence.

[Bob B.]

Think hard. I'm sure you can figure this one out by yourself.

Ok, I've thought about it.  You claim is false.

[Luke Pemberton]

Including, I suppose, time-traveling back to the 1980s and planting one in the Smithsonian, where and when I first saw a sublimator in person.

Time travel, that would mean a bit of Einstein's relativity I guess.