Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[nomuse]

So when is a vacuum good enough? I wonder if he understands that the sublimator will not work in atmosphere. Working in vacuum == working for that piece of technology. But I fail to see any way in which the test is invalidated if it isn't a "hard," "high," or whatever arbitrary standard of vacuum is named.

Of course, I also fail to see why the test is assumed by our Neil to either not have taken place, or have been done incorrectly, if it isn't on video. Adding anecdote to the careful explanation by others here, I'm currently working at a place that builds precision audio gear. Our gear has an extremely high standard of reliability, and part of achieving that is individual testing of every single unit (as well as all the significant sub-assemblies). There are shaker tables and cabinets for thermal cycling and of course audio test chambers with plentiful software everywhere around the facility.

But even today, when CCDs are about a dime to manufacture and every phone has a built-in camera, I have yet to see any of these tests including video footage as a regular event. For some reason, even with the combination of label reputation, legal responsibility, and the tracking back to notice when more failures are hitting the testing stage and where the problem is originating from (which can be a very expensive proposition when you are throwing completed pieces of high-end hardware into the recycling bins), I have yet to see a video being made. Anywhere.

Maybe, just maybe, engineers in the real world are less seduced by pretty pictures in YouTube convenient format, and communicate in other forms?

[dwight]

Then again, there were the pre-SMEAT vacuum chambre tests, which were shot on tape.

[Neil Baker]

BTW, I have a training technique that I virtually guarantee is one where you'll put yourself in the graveyard spiral, even if you're a multi-thousand hour IFR pilot, within about 90 seconds.  The longest I've seen someone last is about 150 seconds.  I got it from a very wise pilot examiner and use it as an object lesson about how unreliable seat-of-the-pants piloting is.

I'm all ears or all eyes. Can you describe it?

ETA and back on subject:  If I know the airplane has been tested at the factory, been properly maintained, know the G-load and V-speed limits, and have learned the techniques for flying an aircraft in an inadvertent thunderstorm encounter, then there's no good reason to actually go into a cell.  But your logic says my training and the testing of the aircraft is only valid if I do so.

Did my logic actually say that? I thought we agreed not to fly into the thunderstorm.

Now, that usually a self-induced emergency, so it doesn't match up precisely with the spacesuit/sublimator issue.  But take icing as an example.  I have flown  light GA airplanes with known icing equipment, notably the Diamond DA-42 with a "weeping wing".  I've read the approved flight manual, know how the system works, read the relevant training material from the FAA, Jeppesen, ASA, ad infinitum.  Because of this training, I know how to fly the airplane in icing conditions.  Never happened, because, even when conditions were favorable, I never was '"lucky" enough to pick up ice in the airplane (oddly enough, I picked up a boatload of ice in Cherokee when it was supposed to be too warm, but I digress).  Yet, even though I never had the experience of flying in ice I knew the system (not that particular aircraft) had been tested and approved, both at the component level and as an integrated whole.  Thus, I had confidence in it and did not have to take the plane to a full scale icing tunnel to test it before I flew it.

So you actually wanted icing because you were trained to deal with it? If you had gotten icing and dealt with it, would you have more or less confidence the next time you got it?  If you could simulate icing under controlled conditions and train your students under those conditions, would you do so?

[nomuse]

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen. But only if people are willing to risk being wrong and only if NASA is accountable.

Oh, really?

The reality of the Apollo Program can't possibly be shown by multiple converging lines of extremely hard-to-fake evidence (intercepted radio, visual tracking, correctly described lunar geology and return of bulk samples, emplacement of retroreflector arrays, etc., etc.) but would be "proved" by some guy making a pressure suit a little more comfortable by boiling off some water -- and that only if it is done in a chamber of some arbitrary specification of vacuum, with some equally arbitrary documentation on video?

"Your honor, the prosecution does not chose to enter the murder weapon, twelve witnesses, signed confession or DNA into evidence at this time. Rather, we intend to build our case upon the expert testimony of a graphologist who will analyze what the accused wrote in his high school yearbook. Your honor, I request a recess of six months to let me find an expert graphologist -- and I'm going to have to ask the defense to come up with a suitable yearbook for him to analyze."

[sts60]

No, evidence, even a mountain of evidence is not necessarily proof. You have no PROOF. That's why there's a controversy.
The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly...

You haven't presented an anomaly.  What you have done, through a combination of remarkable ineptitude at research, ignorance of the topic, avoidance of evidence presented to you, and selective windowing, is manufacture a controversy in your own head.  You don't get to just assert that your view is somehow obvious and have reality conform to that; I am one of several people here who actually work or have significant experience in this field, and you do not know what you are talking about. 

I'm not impressed by your loaded language, your pretensions to engineering expertise outside of your competency, your off-topic digressions, or your auto-hagiographic stylings as The Lone Engineer Wih Courage.  Your "If I ran the zoo" opinions are irrelevant.  Most hilarious of all, though, is your fixation on a McGuffin you thought you could wave around triumphantly and carry the rhetorical day.  That was a bad miscalculation on your part; this isn't a YouTube comments section where you can fool people who don't know any more than you do.

[raven]

Still see no new topic in 'Other Conspiracy Theories' sub-forum, I see.

[Dalhousie]

I don't. I believe (but don't KNOW) that ISS is an unmanned prop possibly an inflatable. If any testing was performed it was probably minimal.

It wasn't minimal. ISS modules and systems were built on systems with decades of testing in the Shuttle, Mir, Progress, Spacelab, Spacehab, Soyuz, and Salyut programs.  Not to mention several decades worth of unflown station tests in the US.  But your probably think they are all fake as well.

That was purely speculative mind wandering and hardly a hypothesis. I don't know anything about the rocks.

If you don't know anything about rocks, ask questions of people here who do.

[Dalhousie]

Any future unmanned rover will probably head straight for the alleged Apollo 11 site where the hoax would probably bust open. Surveyor 3 would be a footnote.

Did you know that post Apollo 11 there have been three unmanned lunar rovers?  None went to the Apollo 11 site.   Why should they?  People want to visit somewhere new, not a place already visited. But you will no doubt say these were probably/possibly/likely to have been faked anyway.

You know what?  It is easier just to say you were wrong.  I did a couple of pages back.

[Luke Pemberton]

I don't know anything about the rocks.

You don't don't know anything about the rocks? They're fairly important evidence that the astronauts were on the Moon, but then you'd rather tap dance around the real evidence to keep your fantastical argument alive.

You've still got to answer the question. What exactly has stress got to do with testing a device that rejects heat?

[Luke Pemberton]

You don't distrust everything your parents say just because they lied about Santa Claus when you were a kid.

What do you mean lied about Santa Claus? What lie? Who brings the presents at night when I'm asleep? You'll be telling me that they lied about the Easter bunny and tooth fairy next.

[Jason Thompson]

The radical thing that I present to the argument is that I've delivered the anomaly that could allow PROOF today on Earth to very conveniently happen.

This is simply bull. You clearly don't understand what proof actually is. Even if the test you argue for is performed and you are shown conclusively that a PLSS sublimator works, even if you get into the suit and vacuum chamber yourself and make use of the suit for several hours, all that is PROOF of is that the spacesuit and sublimator work. It does not prove it has ever been used in space. It does not prove the ISS is real. It does not prove men went to the moon in the Apollo program nearly half a century ago.

And as for your comments about training astronauts because you have to include the fear of suit failure, what a load of crap. These men were test pilots who voluntarily got into new aircraft and flew them to the limits. People who were not sure when they got up in the air if they would come to Earth in a controlled landing or if they'd have to eject from a disintegrating airframe or a nosedive into the desert floor. Men who voluntarily got into a rocket containing millions of pounds of explosive rocket fuel and rode it into space. And you think they'd be paralysed by fear of their spacesuit failing if they didn't test it personally in a vacuum chamber first?

[Luke Pemberton]

These men were test pilots who voluntarily got into new aircraft and flew them to the limits. People who were not sure when they got up in the air if they would come to Earth in a controlled landing or if they'd have to eject from a disintegrating airframe or a nosedive into the desert floor.

...and some had tasted war, flying combat missions on a regular basis.

Men who voluntarily got into a rocket containing millions of pounds of explosive rocket fuel and rode it into space. And you think they'd be paralysed by fear of their spacesuit failing if they didn't test it personally in a vacuum chamber first?

Which is another good point. There is a wealth of video evidence that space vehicles explode on the launch pad, or shortly after launch. It is also abundantly evident from video that the Apollo astronauts were propelled into space in a huge rocket. Yet a tiny widget appears to Neil as a smoking gun. Why? The astronauts would have feared it not working, or it had not been tested to accommodate their fear, or any other reason that Neil wishes to invent. What a peculiar notion.

[Obviousman]

I presume Mr Baker is ignorant of the development series of the suits, from Mercury onwards? The difference between various types of suits (e.g. pressure and partial pressure)?

Probably, methinks, but I remain confident it will fail to change his opinion one iota. As I said earlier: no evidence, however compelling, will change his mind.

[Apollo 957]

I disagree, the 9-11 attacks have lots to do with Apollo if both are deceptions aimed at the American People to manipulate their thoughts.  The question that I was answering regarded how revelation of an Apollo hoax could ease Americans into a greater confrontation with 9-11 lies. 

If the government lies, they're committing a crime.

So only the Americans have been deceived, and everyone else in the world has been excluded, and therefore 'knows the truth'?

You do realise that contributors to this forum come from all parts of the world, don't you?

[Apollo 957]

Nice presentation but possibly fake. Evidence but no proof.

There's the handwaving again.

At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?