Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[Luke Pemberton]

Do you go to the doctor every morning to get a check-up to make sure you're in fit health?

...and insist that the prescribed drugs are tested?

. . . On yourself. Filmed.

...in a double blind trial.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

[Luke Pemberton]

Neil. I'm on Tapatalk so it's hard to reply. There is nothing metaphysical about providing the numerical physics of the PLSS sublimator. That's hard quantitative physics. You don't get to define terminology here. Provide the physics to show the sublimator did not work as advertised and as requested.

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

[gillianren]

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!

Well, you're the one who has shown a complete lack of understanding of . . . everything discussed thus far.  Again, what exactly would video testing show?  What would you expect it to look like if the sublimator were doing its job versus what it would look like if it weren't?

[Jason Thompson]

Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?

[Luke Pemberton]

Neil, there is video of a PSS with a sublimator in it working in a vacuum. On the Moon. That video is replete with evidence of a vacuum, so why do you restrict yourself to video of use of a vacuum chamber when there is video of a spacesuited astronaut using the PLSS in a vacuum freely available?

How many times have you asked this question?

Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk

[JayUtah]

That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

No.  One is a technical question that can be tested objectively, and relates to your claim.  The other is a political question that ultimately has only a subjective answer, and it does not relate to your claim except in the form of your circular argument.  You constantly desire to steer the conversation away from testable questions into subjective ones about which you can hand-wave and foam.

I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession...

Gotcha.  Anyone who disagrees with you on 9/11 or any other subject is not, in your estimation, trustworthy.  Consider that many in your profession do not trust you.  It probably has something to do with your threatening to kill them.

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.

You have been invited many times to provide a technical rationale for your proposition, one that would be suitable to your claimed credentials and experience.  You refuse to do so, and offer instead the same handwaving assertions that boil down every time to nothing more than your incompetence at research.

Immoral? Please!

Continued bluster, mockery, and evasion do not absolve you from facing those issues, nor fix the problems with your argument that invokes it.

[Jason Thompson]

This is about the fourth time I think.

It doesn't matter because the answer Neil will offer is obvious: the stuff on the Moon is faked. Therefore we have no reason to believe he won't dismiss any evidence of the use of a PLSS in a vacuum chamber as faked anyway. It's pointless. He sets the goal such that no-one can ever satisfy his burden of proof, therefore he is always right and doesn't have to confront the fact that he really knows naff all about anything relevant to Apollo. He doesn't care about anything other than his utterly absurd 9/11 conspiracy crap, and doesn't care who he has to dismiss in order to do it. It's really rather sad.

[Peter B]

Why should LunarOrbit have to start the thread? You started this one. Why don't you start a Holocaust thread?

I read LunarOrbit's warning as being clear Baker would have to start his own forum for that.  Hence I doubt he'd allow such a thread anywhere on the forum no matter who started it, and I would endorse such a rule.

Fair enough. My fault for not reading carefully.

[Abaddon]

What level of trust do you have in technology?

That's not the correct question. The correct question is "What level of trust do you have in the government?"

Once again, which government? Are you so naive to think there is only one?

And the answer to that is very little especially after 9/11 when 3000 Americans were murdered in our faces to manipulate Americans into sending about 7000 service members to their tragic deaths in illegal preemptive wars and a preponderance of evidence indicates that it was a Zionist job.
http://bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book/

Off topic nonsense.

I have just as little trust for most others in my engineering profession (and other professions) who went wretchedly silent even though World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence was illegally removed and criminally destroyed and an official designated liar MIT professor of welding Thomas Eagar was trotted out after 9-11 to publicly pontificate on PBS NOVA about Structural Engineering that he wasn't an expert in, a clear violation of the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Engineers. I'm also disappointed that MythBusters and National Geographic have any credibility left after the superb Materials Engineer Jonathan Cole made them look like absolute tools with this most important video.

More off topic nonsense.

Also, I think the discussion about spacesuits and sublimators has become almost unbelievably ridiculous since it's taken such a huge metaphysical direction.
Immoral? Please!

Yes. It has become ridiculous. Every single crackpot point you have feebly attempted to make has been copiously refuted. This is why you try to introduce unrelated buffoonery to distract from your paucity of evidence.

Kindly stick to the topic at hand. Take your 911 crap to appropriate threads and take your Holocaust crud to other sites which may entertain it.

[Peter B]

Neil, a very simple question:

What law(s) of physics would the Apollo PLSS sublimator violate?

If none, why do you doubt its operation?

I've answered this question already but I'm happy to answer again.
None.
I doubt it's operation because when in 2007 I asked myself the question, "How can we prove we went to the moon?", I stumbled upon the spacesuit cooling system. I discovered that they allegedly cooled the suits using ice sublimators. Initially, I was amazed and fascinated. But then I sought more information, specs, procedures, photos, video and although I found some stuff like a patent, line drawings and some elementary information sent to me by the alleged manufacturer Hamilton Sunstrand, little of the abundance of information expected could be found by me. No photo (although there's one now) and still there's absurdly only one. And most absurdly, no video. Plus, calls to NASA and Hamilton Sunstrand resulted in no additional information despite promises made by NASA to do so. I also failed to find any academic-level book mentioning them but have since after a better search identified one published in 1993 that does.

Now, it's revealed in the technical information about sublimators shared on this thread that only sublimators and not manned spacesuits are placed in vacuum chambers during their test. This has led to the discussion and speculation about whether any manned spacesuit is ever brought under high vacuum prior to actual ISS EVA. I argue that it's preposterous to expect an astronaut to wait until they're at the ISS before experiencing high vacuum in a spacesuit and many of the Antagonists on the site argue that it would be "immoral" to do so because it would unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of the astronauts.

My response is that if it's immoral to practice wearing the suit in high vacuum on Earth in a vacuum chamber, it's even more immoral during an ISS EVA where nothing of vital importance is being performed. Better to deconstruct or deflate a basically worse than worthless liability than it is to risk a single life performing experiments of highly questionable value. (There I go kicking the hornets nest again)
Plus it's just absolutely absurd to think that NASA would have so little confidence in their spacesuits that they wouldn't allow astronauts to use them in high vacuum chambers but would allow them to be used on an ISS EVA.

I'll admit that this whole "immoral" argument has taken me by surprise. For a while during this debate, I metaphorically felt like I was on the ropes being pummeled. But then all of the sudden my opposition, in a surreal fashion, backed off to the center of the ring and started pummeling themselves bloody with a laughable argument. And on top of it, even if you believe NASA tested the sublimators in a vacuum chamber attached to a man wearing a spacesuit outside the vacuum chamber running on a treadmill, where's the video? Where's the photo?

One person argues that video recording is too expensive and although that may have once been true it certainly isn't true now. I probably have one of the cheapest cellphones on the market and it takes great photos and video.

And why are we having this debate? Fundamentally, it's because NASA refuses to be accountable. As a government agency making certain claims of achievement to taxpayers that fund them, there is nothing inappropriate about asking questions and receiving answers, requesting video and getting video, and most of all allowing independent witnesses to observe spacesuit with ice sublimator testing or training in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit.

Neil Baker

Could you please answer these questions...

1. Is personal validation the only way you verify facts? If not, who do you trust to give you reliable information about subjects you're personally unfamiliar with and how do you verify their reliability? What's to stop you from using this process with people testing PLSSs?

2. If NASA faked Apollo because the spacesuit sublimators didn't or couldn't work, don't you think the Soviets would have been smart enough to work this out? Or do you think they were in on the hoax? If so, why would they go along with something which provided a propaganda victory to the USA at the height of the Cold War?

Thank you.

[Apollo 957]

Is it just me who's not allowed to talk about the holocaust or should everyone be threatened about it?

The clue is in the domain name, Neil. Look at it again, and again, and again, until you get why.

[Trebor]

http://calcoastnews.com/2010/02/ex-ucsb-emgineer-arrested-for-school-death-threats-2/

Repeat offender, as shown by the public record.

http://www.police.ucsb.edu/files/docs/130820.pdf

Maybe he should contact convicted criminal Bart Sibrel and compare notes.

I can see exactly why he was sacked.
This is not a picture of someone who is stable.

[Dalhousie]

Only Luna 24 and the unsuccessful Luna 23 had the flexible core, in order to get a longer sample than the earlier Lunas.

Do you have a source for that?  The Luna 16 core was 35 cm long and had to fit in a 25 cm return capsule.  Photos of the core suggest also a flexible core tube.  Luna 20 returned 25 cm of core. Luna 23 and 24 had the ability to drill much deeper than the earlier Lunas, 2 m as opposed to 38 cm.

[nomuse]

I dive, and learned nearly 30 years ago.  In those days they trained us to do emergency ascents.  A few years later that was abandoned, as it was considered too risky, although the theory was given.

That is interesting since I was an instructor 40 years ago and we still taught emergency ascents.  But the instructors were always above the student to interject our bodies and stop/prevent improper ascent.

For a moment I read that as "emergency accents" -- which is a lot more interesting a concept then anything Baker has put forward here.

[JayUtah]

For a moment I read that as "emergency accents" -- which is a lot more interesting a concept then anything Baker has put forward here.

Especially in a theater context.