NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?

[Bob B.]

Mr.Windley and others claimed we do not use the scientific method here.  So I am adapting. Fair enough? i believe I proved that and got an admission to that effect on my other thread. or are you saying that a need to abide in  the scientific method applies only to me? If you will, SO WILL I. That would suit my interests better than you realize, since none of you are competent scientists or even understand what constitutes proof , as evidenced by your practically unintelligible caterwauling here.

Please show us little people how you would use the scientific method to prove that NASA faked the moon landings.  Show us all up with your great intellect.

[JayUtah]

Mr.Windley and others claimed we do not use the scientific method here.

False.  We said we do not misapply it as you proposed we do.  You, however, said that you would abide by the scientific method in your posts.

[smartcooky]

I WILL NOT entertain any back and forth bickering about the validity of this evidence and what it proves. It proves that radiation present on the lunar surface and without a doubt in cislunar space  degrades the Kodak Ectachorme film, , and that there is no evidence of this degradation in the most obvious examples whee it should, and that's all this element of proof involves. I will get into the minimum possible levels of radiation exposure to the film that are plausible along with proof at a later time. Please be patient

So what you are saying this that you want to present your evidence, and we must accept it and must not question any of it. No debate over the evidence?

Do you actually understand what a forum is?

If those are your rules, then I suggest you go back to GLP where you will be amongst all the other Apollo Hoax believing sycophantic nutjobs, and where you can moderate your own threads to remove dissenting views.

I'll have no further contribution to any thread of yours until you can show that you are capable of debating honestly

I strongly recommend that others follow suit

[Romulus]

I am sure you will "deal" with it1 You have no idea what it means Mr.Windley.

Nonsense.  My question was to interpret the graph at the value used by Groves, and the value that occurs naturally from the sun.  You didn't interpret the graph per se -- you just suggested that it confirmed that the attenuation of aluminum was negligible at the photon energy Groves used.  Now I want you to do the same for the sun.

What do you wish to know about the NOAA solar radiation graphs?

I want to know from you at what flux solar x-rays occur for the various energies that pertain to the x-ray band.  Your graphs don't explain that.  But I want you to.

The graphs  that measure  solar X rays on the NOAA data I presented do so in two very specific energy levels as measured from   two separate satellites. Although they don't measure the exact specific wavelengths he used, what they do show is  x ray emissions from the Sun in wavelengths that are negligibly attenuated by thin structures of aluminum. It's called interpolating data. Do you know what that refers to?

[JayUtah]

It's called interpolating data. Do you know what that refers to?

Of course.  How do you know interpolation in this case gives you correct results?  I assume you used a linear interpolation.  How do you know the underlying phenomenon is linear?

I still do not have an answer to my question.  In what energy band does the sun predominantly emit x-rays?  Give me an answer measured in electron volts and derived by a method I can verify.

[gillianren]

Romulus, if you don't present numbers, you aren't answering the questions.  Science really does work that way.

[Bob B.]

Gone quiet.  Romulus must be away Googling.

[Chief]

It's called interpolating data. Do you know what that refers to?

Of course.  How do you know interpolation in this case gives you correct results?  I assume you used a linear interpolation.  How do you know the underlying phenomenon is linear?

I still do not have an answer to my question.  In what energy band does the sun predominantly emit x-rays?  Give me an answer measured in electron volts and derived by a method I can verify.

Yes, I'd like to know too, It may help me to understand. Can you also throw in a indication of relevance as well?

Thanks for the explanation Jay, looks like some light home reading is in order for me.

[LunarOrbit]

I believe you could do anything you want with my posts and your own.

And you're wrong to believe that. Jay does not have (and never has) the ability to edit other people's posts. Even I can't secretly edit posts... the forum attaches "Edited by LunarOrbit" to the bottom of any post I edit. If you don't believe me, then go ahead and download the forum software here and upload it to your own web server.

Now, if you want to claim that someone has edited YOUR posts, then you will have to prove it. Otherwise withdraw the claim.

[Romulus]

Mr.Windley and others claimed we do not use the scientific method here.  So I am adapting. Fair enough? i believe I proved that and got an admission to that effect on my other thread. or are you saying that a need to abide in  the scientific method applies only to me? If you will, SO WILL I. That would suit my interests better than you realize, since none of you are competent scientists or even understand what constitutes proof , as evidenced by your practically unintelligible caterwauling here.

Please show us little people how you would use the scientific method to prove that NASA faked the moon landings.  Show us all up with your great intellect.

This would require using experimental data to prove each element, since there is no way to completely duplicate the Apollo missions. This is what I intend to do, in essence.

 The conditions in space and the Earths magnetic field and radiation belts have changed, so duplicating Apollo cannot prove anything anyway. The astronauts would die and their film would be completely exposed, confidence 100%

Suffice it to say, if you sent astronauts (and film) through the proton layer at 35 degrees N latitude with the current flux/energy levels, they would be killed almost instantly. Flux values typically range between 4,000,000 and 7,000,000 protons per cubic centimeter at very high energy levels(velocities). What this translates into is hundreds of millions of protons penetrating each square centimeter of surface area every second.. And now you understand why we haven't tried it yet, in over 47 years that is..well, thats your claim, not mine.

 We know what the launch point was and we know where the landing positions are. The translunar injection trajectory can be interpolated accurately from those two givens and an approximation can be determined.

[Romulus]

Gone quiet.  Romulus must be away Googling.

I have no need to google anything. My research is archived along with the links I use

[Bob B.]

Suffice it to say, if you sent astronauts (and film) through the proton layer at 35 degrees N latitude with the current flux/energy levels, they would be killed almost instantly. Flux values typically range between 4,000,000 and 7,000,000 protons per cubic centimeter at very high energy levels(velocities). What this translates into is hundreds of millions of protons penetrating each square centimeter of surface area every second.. And now you understand why we haven't tried it yet, in over 47 years that is..well, thats your claim, not mine.

If this is the direction you want this discussion to go, I'm game.

[Romulus]

It's called interpolating data. Do you know what that refers to?

Of course.  How do you know interpolation in this case gives you correct results?  I assume you used a linear interpolation.  How do you know the underlying phenomenon is linear?

I still do not have an answer to my question.  In what energy band does the sun predominantly emit x-rays?  Give me an answer measured in electron volts and derived by a method I can verify.

Yes, I'd like to know too, It may help me to understand. Can you also throw in a indication of relevance as well?

Thanks for the explanation Jay, looks like some light home reading is in order for me.

The relevance is easy to explain. What it proves essentially is that x radiation isn't attenuated by thin layers of aluminum in any appreciable amount, In fact aluminum is used in x ray machines as "windows" for this very reason, x rays penetrate aluminum without very much extenuation at all in thin layers, it's almost as if it is not even there.

[JayUtah]

Romulus, if you don't present numbers, you aren't answering the questions.  Science really does work that way.

More than that, the numbers must be put into proper context.  The graph he shows for x-rays give the influx energy in two overlapping bands, specified by wavelength.  The photon energy is derived from wavelength according to a simple formula, and expressed in electron volts.  The particle energy in electron volts can then be used in his attenuation coefficient graph to determine how much aluminum will block x-rays of that particular energy.

30,000 electron volts is sufficient for a mammogram.  More invasive diagnostic medical x-rays approach 70-80 thousand electron volts.  Airport security is typically up in the 100,00 electron-volt range.  Medical x-rays do not penetrate much into metal objects such as plates, screws, and other mechanisms -- they show up as white silhouettes.

Groves bombarded his film with 8 million electron volts.  Romulus is trying to tell us the difference between a few ten-thousands of electron volts and a few million electron volts is negligible.

If you look at his graph, the longer wavelengths deposit more energy.  The longer wavelengths are the lower-energy ones (fewer electron volts).  Why do they deposit more energy?  Because there are many, many times more of them.  Their aggregate effect is much greater, and so they deposit more energy on the detector.  But why wouldn't that deposited energy affect film?  Because the graphs are of energy deposited on the surface of the detector, which works like a CCD.  It takes more electron volts to penetrate the film magazine case, and the vast number of solar x-ray photons (typically < 20 keV during quiescence) lack the energy to do that.

[Chief]

Suffice it to say, if you sent astronauts (and film) through the proton layer at 35 degrees N latitude with the current flux/energy levels, they would be killed almost instantly. Flux values typically range between 4,000,000 and 7,000,000 protons per cubic centimeter at very high energy levels(velocities). What this translates into is hundreds of millions of protons penetrating each square centimeter of surface area every second.. And now you understand why we haven't tried it yet, in over 47 years that is..well, thats your claim, not mine.

If this is the direction you want this discussion to go, I'm game.

Do I take it that he is wrong Bob?

Romulus, what sort of shielding would protect against that sort of bombardment?