Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[sts60]

All this stuff about how it's impossible to fake the video this, and there's no evidence for any kind of fake that, and Neil's record with former employers, and so on, obscures what's really happening here.

1. Neil has decides that large swaths of manned space flight are fake.
2. He asserts that the lack of documentation of the sublimator function in a vacuum proves this.
3. Except that there is quite a bit of it which can be found in the laziest manner possible: searching non-paywalled parts of the Internet.
4. Neil goes back and forth from denying the existence of it, to sort-of acknowledging it by saying the lack of plenty of video of astronauts using the EMUs in vacuum chambers is proof of a hoax.
5. He uses loaded language ("absurd", "faith-based", etc.) to support his claim that such copious video should of course be readily available over the Internet.
6. But he has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't know anything about the topic, so his claim amounts to nothing more than a layman's exercise in "If I ran the zoo". 

One could end the summary right there, but there are a few more amusing points:

7. He can't explain why any of the space technology or programs wouldn't work.
8. He can't provide any evidence for a fake (his uninformed opinion is not evidence).
9. He even admits his ignorance, but claims everyone else here is as ignorant, which is demonstrably false.
10. Despite projecting himself into a field he knows nothing about, and refusing all attempts to relieve his ignorance, Neil keeps lecturing everyone else about "accountability".

That this entire thread, in a nutshell.  All the rest is just window dressing.

[ineluki]

We will ask you, however, to lie to everyone who ever asks and act enthusiastic about how great it felt to fly in space. Okay?"

But thanks to crank magnetism the average Woopeddler will then bring up her/his belief in mindcontrol by CIA/NSA/Mossad

[bknight]

Not that you will take any notice, but you might want to spend a little time watching this video. Its by a film maker who has no opinion on whether NASA went to the moon, i.e. he doesn't care whether they did or not. He can, however, categorically prove that the video could not have been faked with the technology available at the time.

I think that Collins did a great job at debunking the video aspects of HB's.  And then there was the direct debunk of the Blunders video where the Blunder attempted to indicate that Collins didn't have correct information.
Fair notice I did not watch the Blunder's video just Collins rebuttal.

[bknight]

If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.

By this logic even your test could be faked even the witnesses you propose could lie to you.  It is a circular proposition that has no resolution, but then that is one of you behaviors.
You asked me whether I would want a test of the sublimator prior to utilizing it, here was my answer:

Perhaps 50 years ago prior to literally thousand of hours and being the first few to use it, I might like a functionality test, similar to the one you suggested took place with me on a tread mill and the sublimator in a vacuum.  The two difference are the length of hoses and me not in the vacuum chamber.  Yes, that test would suffice any lingering doubt that it would work.

[Abaddon]

Neil, there is evidence, on video and film, of a PLSS with sublimator (several PLSSs, in fact) working in what is clearly a vacuum on the Moon. This is the fifth time of asking and I am anticipating the fifth time of you ignoring it.

As I've said to Neil, over at YouTube, and here; The Whole Wide World has watched these PLSSs and sublimators in use, in the environment for which they were intended, for 50 years or so.

He ignores it every time. You going to ignore it again, Neil? Or are you going to suggest every spacewalk, moon EVA, etc. was carried out in front of a 'green screen'?

If they faked the moonwalks, then obviously the video is fake. It would be pure speculation on my part as to why or how they faked it. My position is that if the spacesuits and sublimators weren't operated in high vacuum on Earth with an astronaut wearing the suit (and that seems to be the consensus with many suggesting it would be immoral to do so), then it's probably a hoax because I don't think any astronaut in their right mind would wait until they're in orbit before donning the suit for a high vacuum experience.

That's all for today. Good night.

Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

[JayUtah]

Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

From a misreading of the statement that NASA does not test sublimators by using human subjects in spacesuits.

[Apollo 957]

Where did you get the crackpot notion that astronauts do not don their suits until in orbit?

From a misreading of the statement that NASA does not test sublimators by using human subjects in spacesuits.

and/or confusion over whether or not failure of suit or sublimator constitutes a life-threatening event....

Back to my earlier question to Neil - What's the worst that can happen if the sublimator fails?

(as opposed to)

What's the worst that can happen if the suit fails?

Neil - failure of the suit itself is not the same as failure of the sublimator

[Bob B.]

<potential explanation for mental breakdown snipped>

I read your responses here to there being nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966 and I’m creeped out even more.

You've been shown images of the suit being tested in a vacuum chamber in 1968. In addition, you have the personal testimony of Russell Schweickart. Finally, you've been given the Apollo Experience report which detailed the design and development of the sublimator, including the 60-80 hours of vacuum testing to simulate lunar conditions.
Why then the insistence that "nothing that could reasonably convince any responsible engineer that a spacesuit or sublimator had ever been in a vacuum chamber since 1966"?

There is also the thesis of Dr. Shero who conducted his tests in 1969.
https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/14662/7023573.PDF?sequence=1

[bknight]

This what I see this thread has degraded into,
http://awesomegifs.com/2012/07/12/beating-a-dead-horse/

[JayUtah]

and/or confusion over whether or not failure of suit or sublimator constitutes a life-threatening event....

That too.  It isn't life-threatening.  Sublimator operation is loosely coupled to astronaut comfort and even more loosely coupled to astronaut safety.  Plus, they're highly reliable.  It's a very simple device in which very little can go wrong.  In the Apollo design there was a backup procedure in case the suit cooling failed.  Other aspects of spacesuit operation in a vacuum are, however, life-threatening.

Baker keeps misrepresenting exactly what I think is immoral.  By now I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation.  Prior to his arrival here, he seems to have acquired the notion that the regular tests NASA performs of sublimators are manned tests, and he wants to instrument one to verify they really are in a vacuum.  NASA doesn't test its sublimators by putting a human in a spacesuit and putting all that into a vacuum chamber.  Putting a human at risk -- not from sublimator failure but from all else that can go wrong in a vacuum chamber -- just to see whether a sublimator works is indeed immoral.  The operation of a sublimator can be fully tested with any heat load.  Testing it instead or additionally with a human as the heat load tells you no more about the sublimator than the previous test would.  In fact it tells you less because you can't as easily correlate heat input with sublimator performance when the heat load is a human with random fluctuations in heat emission.

Putting an astronaut in a suit in a vacuum to train the astronaut in his job is, of course, not at all immoral.  But then again the concerns are reversed.  You want the training session to be as safe as possible for the astronaut, which means substituting equipment where necessary that may be more effective in that environment than a PLSS.  The purpose in that case is to give an astronaut the feel of the suit in a space environment.  Cooling the suit may be more safely, cheaply, or effectively accomplished by other means for training purposes.

[Luke Pemberton]

No, I am not a registered professional engineer and I have not worked in any capacity as an engineer since January 2006. I was interviewed by Yale University in late 2006 and was anticipating an offer when I discovered that I had been blacklisted, defamed and sabotaged by a very powerful former employer for having blown the whistle regarding illegal activity and challenging its technicians, engineers and scientists to exhibit a spine regarding the criminal destruction of World Trade Center forensic crime scene evidence. I regrettably but legally ranted on the Internet instead of pursuing legal representation.

...or, the shorter version. You were given a bad reference and Yale would not make you an offer of employment. This thread  shows that you are someone who thinks the whole world is against them. I'm sorry you feel that way, but trying to prove Apollo was hoax to be taken seriously about 9-11 is just wrong at so many levels. Apollo and 9-11 are to unconnected events. In any case, your thesis was based on your no literature pre-2007 claim, and since you have been shown wrong you have twisted and turned at every opportunity. The minute you changed horses was your undoing. Rather than admit you were wrong about the literature you moved the goalposts and laid down your own standards for testing as being ultimate proof of the PLSS sublimator working. Can you see the problem with your approach to this argument. As sts60 said, your real problem is that you cannot admit you were wrong and you should have done that once your pre-2007 claim was overturned.

[ka9q]

That too.  It isn't life-threatening.  Sublimator operation is loosely coupled to astronaut comfort and even more loosely coupled to astronaut safety.  Plus, they're highly reliable.  It's a very simple device in which very little can go wrong.  In the Apollo design there was a backup procedure in case the suit cooling failed.

Right, and it involved two simple steps:

1. Open the main valve on the Oxygen Purge System (OPS) mounted on the remote control unit on the chest.
2. Pull the "red apple" locking pin on the purge vent valve on the front of the suit and adjust it to high or low flow.

You now had 30 minutes (high flow) or 60 minutes (low flow) to get back into the safety of the LM. This would handle a complete failure of the PLSS (including the sublimator) on any mission.

Low flow was sufficient to expel exhaled CO₂ and H₂O, but high flow provided better cooling. To extend the lifetime of the OPS, Apollos 15-17 carried the the Buddy Life Support System. This was a hose that let the astronaut with the failed PLSS share cooling water from the other astronaut's PLSS, letting him use OPS low flow for more time to get to safety. But if only cooling were to fail on the first PLSS, he could keep using it for O₂ supply and CO₂ and H₂O removal and they'd have even more time to get back inside.

The OPS was never needed on any actual mission, but the IMAX movie Magnificent Desolation accurately depicted its use in a fictional emergency.

[Neil Baker]

#1: You've candidly admitted that the higher purpose in your assault on NASA's credibility is to later use any perceived evidence of misconduct as a means to buttress your arguments for a 9/11 conspiracy.  If your positions on 9/11 have merit, why would they require the support of a guilt by association claim?  Would they not stand on their own? 

Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country is the inability of the majority of its Citizens to confront the possibility that the government is sensationally corrupt to the point of deceiving them about murdering 3000 Americans in their faces on 9-11 and then blaming it on 19 Arabs with boxcutters. As the alternative to the apparently unsuccessful technique of force feeding them the preponderance of evidence justifying an Independent 9-11 Investigation, I thought it might be better to ease them into a confrontation with their self-delusion by exposing something less difficult, like the possible Apollo moon landing hoax. But yes, to people like me and some others brave enough to admit when they don't know something and aren't willing to BELIEVE the government just because they say something is the way they say it is, I think the arguments that 9-11 was something much more sinister than 19 Arabs with boxcutters justifies an Independent 9-11 Investigation.

#2: Given your criminal history, to what extremes would you go in order to defend ideologies you deem important?  You appear to have no reservations about destruction of private property, threats of physical violence and cyber stalking.  Would arson or murder be acts you might find justifiable under a given set of circumstances?

My criminal history consists of one felony vandalism conviction for having broken ONE window valued at $600 during a political protest demanding an Independent 9-11 investigation. If it had been valued at $400, it would have been a misdemeanor. Also, back in 1996 I got a speeding ticket on Trinity Drive in front of the Los Alamos, New Mexico police station on Sunday morning around 6am. I was zoned out thinking about something while driving on a road with few cars when due to the police strobe lights in my rear mirror I suddenly realized I was doing 50 in a 35. $95.  Although I have contemplated violence, prior to breaking the window, I read Mark Kuransky's "NonViolence" that influenced me greatly. I recommend it. I'm disappointed at the reaction to my nonviolent protest but I'm still proud that I did it. I've been fully accountable for it and take full responsibility for it.
http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-History-Dangerous-Library-Chronicles/dp/0812974476/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441297098&sr=8-1&keywords=nonviolence&pebp=1441297104396&perid=0CNX5HSZ1YWKBS4W42B5

I've never threatened anyone with physical violence and I've never cyber stalked anyone. Although trumped up charges were pressed against me for alleged threats, those charges were dismissed due to no evidence. Anything you read regarding threats made by me are lies. 

Mark Kurlansky makes an excellent argument in his book that violent actions are almost always doomed to failure. Although murder and arson may seem justified, they are almost always a losing strategy. I don't advocate violence. I would like our New American Revolution to be a Glorious Revolution where nobody is physically injured except for those facing formal military firing squads after their trials for murder and treason.

Baker, 55, was arrested in August for felony vandalism and misdemeanor trespassing after he was caught damaging windows at the Engineering Science Building at UCSB. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Baker in August, specifying he was to remain at least 100 yards away from the campus.

Baker left his position as a senior development engineer at UCSB in 2004 and relocated to Washington. He was arrested in 2010 in Washington after he posted bomb threats and attacks against UCSB employees on Craigslist and Facebook, causing the university to go on high alert and warn people to immediately contact authorities if they saw Baker on campus.

Please note the error in the blurb above that I was not "caught damaging windows." I was arrested when the cops finally showed up about ten minutes after I directed a bystander to call them (I even gave them the number) after I broke ONE window and placed check marks on 86 others to indicate to the judge that I could have broken many more if vandalism had been my intent. I did 4 months in county jail, got 3 years probation and had to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for 6 months while I spent a mandatory one year at the New Directions mental institution for Veterans at the V.A. in Los Angeles.

Also, please note that I was arrested in 2010 because I had gotten close to inciting a strike demanding an Independent 9-11 investigation.  Desperate to have me arrested, a bogus public charge of "threats to bomb or injure property" were made against me. The discovery also contained hidden charges of "threats to incite a strike" and "threats to accuse my former employer of crimes," both surprisingly felonies in Washington State. But I didn't threaten anything.  I did incite and I did accuse, both legal.  I know it's strange, the threat to do something is a felony while the actual doing it is legal. I spent ten days in jail as a political prisoner and twelve days in a mental hospital as a political dissident. Three psychiatrists evaluated me and unanimously determined no mental illness, no personality disorders and no required meds before releasing me.
All charges were dismissed days before the trial because they knew they would lose and be exposed in court as unaccountable criminal thugs.
[/quote]

[ka9q]

Sorry, but 9/11 is off-topic in this thread. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Apollo program.

Please stay on topic.

[JayUtah]

Good question and I think the major problem we're having in this country...

No, the major problem we're having in this discussion is your inability to stop stroking your ego and start making sense.