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

[Romulus]

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.

Oh, well good. We'll get to that. Not on this thread though. this one is dedicated to proving the Apollo photographic record is fabricated.  I intend to convince you. Not only you, but everyone else.And I have the facts in my corner, and facts are stubborn things. Not even a liar as skilled as Mr.Windley can make them go away

[JayUtah]

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).

Show your work.

[Romulus]

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.

Mr.Windley, you lie like a rug and waffle like a liberal democrat                       

[JayUtah]

Not even a liar as skilled as Mr.Windley...

The moderator has instructed you to prove this claim or withdraw it.

[Chief]

Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?

[JayUtah]

Mr.Windley, you lie like a rug and waffle like a liberal democrat                       

You were asked to link to a post where the admission was given in the way you phrase it.  You linked only to posts where we explained the misapplication.

[Romulus]

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).

Show your work.

I would prefer to go about this on my terms and abiding in the thread topic, if you don 't mind. If you do, I guess that's just another of your many intractable problems. I don't care.

[Romulus]

Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?

Is a fish wet?

[Chief]

Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?

Is a fish wet?

Now, now, I was asking Jay, but to answer,it depends if it's still in the water or not

[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.

Oh, well good. We'll get to that. Not on this thread though. this one is dedicated to proving the Apollo photographic record is fabricated.  I intend to convince you. Not only you, but everyone else.And I have the facts in my corner, and facts are stubborn things. Not even a liar as skilled as Mr.Windley can make them go away

If you want to save this for another thread, I'll wait.  But I don't want to see incomplete facts like you've presented above.  I expect to see a complete quantitative analysis.

[Romulus]

I have other things to attend to ATM. I will return later. Have fun. I see I have generated more interest  on this forum than anyone else has yet. I suppose that is a good sign I am being shown more respect than is  being  admitted to..

[Romulus]

Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?

Is a fish wet?

Now, now, I was asking Jay, but to answer,it depends if it's still in the water or not

typical NASA apollo-gist response. Man I am ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.

[JayUtah]

In fact aluminum is used in x ray machines as "windows" for this very reason...

No.  Aluminum is used as a collimator.  If it were transparent to x-rays in the relevant wavelength, it would not function in this capacity.  A collimator is a mass of aluminum with small, narrow holes drilled through it in a parallel direction.  Only x-rays that enter the collimator aligned with the hole axis pass; the rest are absorbed by the inner walls of the holes.  In this way, the x-rays that exit the collimator are all going the same direction and may be used to expose a silhouette onto photographic film.  This method works only if the substance from which the collimator is built is suitably absorptive.  If it is transparent, the x-ray machine will not work.

it's almost as if it is not even there.

At the energies used by Groves, thin aluminum is not opaque.  The question is whether the energies used by Groves properly mimic the energies emitted by the sun, in similar flux.  You have flux data for two bands of solar x-rays.  From that you say you have "interpolated" that Groves' energy is suitable.  Show your work that proves this.

[LunarOrbit]

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.

Do you believe that the first flight by the Wright Brother should have been considered a hoax up until it was replicated independently by other pilots? Or was the proof provided by the Wright's sufficient? Do you honestly believe that independent replication of a historic event is required in order for it to be considered true?

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%

Let me ask you a question I've been asking hoax believers for 15 years.

Do you think it makes sense for NASA to lie about something this big if it meant they would be 100% guaranteed to get caught?

NASA can't control the radiation. They can't make it weaker or make it go away, otherwise it wouldn't even be an issue at all. And they can't control all of the scientists around the world for the rest of time. Eventually someone would independently study the radiation and discover that NASA lied. It might not happen in 1969, but it would certainly happen.

It would be like me telling you it's a sunny day when it's actually raining. All you would have to do is look out a window to know I lied. I would have to be a fool to even try to lie about it, right?

So again I ask, would NASA lie about the radiation if they were 100% guaranteed to get caught? Do you really believe they are that foolish? If the radiation was an insurmountable obstacle, wouldn't it be less embarrassing to come right out and say "Sorry everyone, we now realize we can't go to the Moon" than to lie about it and get caught?

Why is it that hoax believers can't see the logical implications of their claims? You say NASA is lying about the radiation... which means NASA is incredibly foolish liars. Nobody is that foolish.

[JayUtah]

I see I have generated more interest  on this forum than anyone else has yet.

Interest can be generated for any number of reasons, noble or base.  Is it fair to say your goal is to attract attention?  Would such a goal give rise to methods that science approves of?