Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Proof can render worthless even the biggest mountain of evidence.

According to only you apparently.

The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.

As has been pointed out to you and you are clearly not understanding, there is NO ANOMALY .

Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs to, the worst, it's already been proven--plenty of video shows the suits operating in the environment they were designed for. Duh.

Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.

NASA has demonstrated that space suits with sublimators work, you choose to ignore the facts.

[Luke Pemberton]

If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

Oh for the love of... go and look at a phase diagram for water to see how absurdly incorrect you are. This has to be the most ignorant example of pseudo-physics that I have every seen. You don't get to wave hands and make stuff up.

[Jason Thompson]

The Galileo comparison fails for two reasons:

1: Galileo's observations were not questioned, only his conclusions.

2: Galileo was also known for refusing to let many of his detractors look through his telescope, dismissing them as ignorant fools who would not understand the significance of what they saw anyway.

The proof argument fails for reasons already stated: the vacuum chamber test proves only that the suit works, not that it was ever used in space. There is no logical argument that if it works on Earth it was ever used anywhere else.

And the comment about only Americans matter is pretty much beyond belief. The US is a relatively young nation. I wonder how far he'd have to trace his family tree to find his almost certainly European origins...

[Andromeda]

If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.
So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money. When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.
Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

Oh for the love of... go and look at a phase diagram for water to see how absurdly incorrect you are. This has to be the most ignorant example of pseudo-physics that I have every seen. You don't get to wave hands and make stuff up.

It actually made me wince...

[twik]

Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

I have no idea what that means. How do you achieve proof without evidence?

[Allan F]

Neil, what is the difference between a fairly good vacuum as can be created here on Earth and the vacuum of space?  What forces are noticeably different? And how much different?

[Abaddon]

If they were testing sublimators, they would want to test them at the parameters they were expected to operate in orbit.

Sure. They did. and your point is ...what?

So a sublimator might work at low vacuum and let's say you tested it at low vacuum to save money.

Speculation devoid of evidence and thus dismissed because Chamber B 10^-6 torr.

When you got to orbit and exposed the sublimator to high vacuum something bad happened to cause the sublmator to fail in some catastrophic fashion that cascaded into failure of other systems and before you knew it the astronaut was dead and his buddy that tried to save him also had his equipment damaged in the process and he too died.

Fantasy. Sublimator failure would only cause discomfort.

Best to test it where you expect it will be operated to minimize the possibility of any surprises later on.

Which they did. You simply ignore that fact. That makes you ignorant of the facts. Quelle surprise.

[twik]

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

Who else but Americans matter?

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

Yes, and I wish they would identify themselves so I can ignore them. Which American CIA controlled country are you from?

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?

[Bob B.]

Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

Convincing evidence is proof.  Your proposed vacuum chamber test is not proof, it is just more evidence.  It just happens to be the evidence that would convince you that the sublimators work.  The rest of the engineering world is convinced by the evidence that already exists.

[bknight]

Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

Evidence builds a base for theories to be validated into proofs.  Get you head of your posterior.

[Abaddon]

Proof is evidence.


But is evidence proof?
Never.

Why would you say that since you have no evidence at all, let alone proof?

[bknight]

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?

Neil does not speak for me.

[Abaddon]

Hiya! I'm one of those people who don't matter. But since I don't "know the truth" (as Neil Baker sees it) I guess I'm CIA-controlled?

Neil does not speak for me.

Sure. But he thinks he does.

[bknight]

Sure. But he thinks he does.

That belief makes America not appreciated in many minds of the rest of the world.  I have travelled on my job and many asinine activities of the US are looked at with humor by the rest of the world.

[Neil Baker]

To invoke the Gallileo defence, you have to be right, you know.

I've never heard of the Gallileo Defense but you don't have to be right to invoke the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is the solution to the Apollo controversy today on Earth.
Unfortunately and very strangely, I'm the only one advocating it while the rest of you desperately grovel in subjective metaphysics.