Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Neil Baker]

Now please explain to us all why you think a sublimator does not work in a vacuum.

I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd. Nobody would post that video.
But there you go.
It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits. It could have been the preApollo test that finally convinced them they had to fake it.

[Luke Pemberton]

Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Not a cheap shot at all. By your own admission you could not be bothered to find basic information from a link, so I would agree that you cannot manage to carry out basic research. Why should you demand one standard from others, but fail to show the high standards yourself?

You have managed to hoist yourself by you own petard once it was shown that the information about the PLSS and its operation exists. You changed horses and have no jumped back onto your original horse.

Now, please explain why you think an ice sublimator cannot function in a vacuum. I would like an answer to this question please.

[Abaddon]

However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

None of this lends any credibility to my position in any way. What does lend credibility to is my position Re: facts and evidence.

Your position seems entirely devoid of such regardless of whatever prior history you may have had. I really couldn't care less about any of that, except as it pertains to your claims here and now on this site.

[Neil Baker]

Repeating your claims anew does not unwind the previous 15 pages of discussion.

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.
Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.
I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.
Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?

[JayUtah]

I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Insults are not an argument.

As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

We have discovered a serious problem with your "As far as I can tell" strategy, namely that you admit you aren't as good a researcher as your critics are, that you are willing to lie regarding what has been published and when, and that you demonstrate your search not to have been even remotely exhaustive.

Talk about the LM egress tests.

[Abaddon]

Don't tell a bunch of scientists what the scientific method is. It doesn't involve staging random demonstrations at the whim of a layman who can't even manage basic research, for starters.

Cheap shot and a cop out. The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

Nope. It is not a cheap shot. You failed to find data that has been on-line for decades. You fail at research.

[mako88sb]

However, I sure would like to hear from Neil why he felt a bomb threat seemed like a reasonable course of action to him.

No bomb threat.
Trumped up charge.
Ten days in jail.
Twelve days in a mental hospital.
Evaluated by three psychs, no mental illness, no personality disorders, no required meds, I doubt most could pass the test.
Discovery revealed two additional quiet charges, "threat to incite strike" and "threat to accuse of a crime." No threats, I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.
Theft (seizure) of my rifle.

Bogus charges dismissed a day before scheduled trial.
Lots of stories about my arrest, few if any about dismissal.

I'm on 3 years probation now after 4 months jail for felony vandalism for breaking a window demanding an Independent 9-11 Investigation.
I signed a gag order as part of my probation agreement the violation of which would probably result in 4 years prison.
This is all I want to say on the subject except don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Thank you.

Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation. Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

[Neil Baker]

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.

I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.

[JayUtah]

But it does emphasize that nobody has answered the challenge.

The absurdity of your challenge has been discussed at length.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

Even if you believe the spacesuits and sublimators work as claimed, you should want the demonstration I describe so that you can KNOW they work as claimed.

I don't need the test you propose in order to know that they work.  You don't get to beg the question that your demands are reasonable.

I'm puzzled by everyone's reluctance to demand a demo.

And that should tell you something.  If you're the only one who seems to want something, you shouldn't presume it to be something that's objectively necessary.  Further, you have ignored the production of everything else you said didn't exist.  So your critics can be excused for not taking your demand at face value.  You offer them no assurance this is really what would convince you.  You instead convey the impression that no amount or kind of evidence would change your mind.

Is believing you're right so much better than knowing the truth?

You offer no truth.  By your own admission you offer only speculation, and you are unable to reconcile that speculation with the evidentiary record except by more speculation.  Since you offer no reason to reject the null hypothesis, it remains the presumption.

[Jason Thompson]

Cheap shot and a cop out.

No, you have already demonstrated unwillingness to do basic research. The 'cheap shot and a cop out' here is you handwaving away massive piles of evidence as 'probably' faked and insisting on one piece of proof you know damn well you will never get. Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest if you're supposed to be out for the truth?
 

The best thing NASA could do is allow the validation of its claim.

What you consider validation and what the rest of the world considers validation are two entirely different things. Another thing about real validation is that it seldom involves videos. To repeat my question from earlier, exactly what do you expect to see in a video of a spacesuit with sublimator beng tested in a vacuum chamber that would actually qualify as validation? How would you verify that the sublimator was in fact working based on a video?

[Luke Pemberton]

I can't believe you posted it. Honestly, I was about to tell everyone not to post that 1966 video but then I thought that this was a more mature crowd, a better crowd.

Of course you were.

It's a spacesuit without sublimator. It has an umbilical. It's a failure. Someone almost died. As far as I can tell, it's the last time NASA ever attempted performing vacuum chamber tests of spacesuits.

I know it had no sublimator. I wanted to drag you back into the real nuts and bolts of this rather than allow your continued avoidance and gish gallop, and the fact that you have ignored everyone of my posts. I had to try a few different flies to get your attention. I'm a keen fisherman you see, and not all fish go for the same fly. You went for the YouTube link, a nice popular source of CTs, video and audio so not much need to find textual information. I found the correct fly, you could say. Fly fishermen like me are quite canny.

Now, why does a sublimator not work in a vacuum? What physics prevents the sublimation of the ice when there is no atmosphere? I would like you to show me evidence using the standard phase diagram for water. There's a nice bit of research for you to carry out.

[Neil Baker]

Still wondering why you continue to pursue this to such extreme unreasonable lengths when anybody can see that a test of this sort will never satisfy you despite what you say.

I think or at least used to think that it was the quick route to the much more important Independent 9-11 investigation.
I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.
Although I understand the fear that NASA can't validate its claim.
And that's what would lead to 9-11 truth.
If it was revealed that the government lied big about NASA, people would be more agreeable to confronting the harder truth about 9-11.

And you're wrong. The test before independent witnesses would satisfy me. I'm sick of this subject and want it settled.

[Abaddon]

How is this relevant except to establish that you have prior form for really odd notions?

Mako asked about it.

I have never threatened anyone with anything, never been psych evaluated, nor spent time in jail, nor mental hospital and so forth.

 And you've never done your duty either. You're derelict and complicit.

"derelict and complicit." in what exactly?

[Bob B.]

I'm bewildered by the level of resistance from educated men. It's a simple thing.   A validation.

It's already been done.  The fact that you or I weren't a witness to it doesn't pain me in the least.
 
 

[Jason Thompson]

So why exactly does that one single standard of proof override objective investigation of every other bit of evidence? If you REALLY want the truth, why are you so insistent about avoiding the (actually not that) difficult hunt for it in favour of sitting back and demanding something be handed to you on a plate?