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

[Bob B.]

Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!) ,unless we had a continuous and accurate measurement, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive quantitative analysis with precise numbers.

Bullshit.

[JayUtah]

What I did say is we have no way of determining precise flux values of the wide variety of radiation in question with any specific mission parameters because space weather conditions are constantly changing

Why do you think the existing models can't account for this?

NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories.

Apollo By the Numbers.

...even if you "skirt" the worst of the heat and radiation of a thermonuclear blast by standing behind a tree...

You assume the cislunar radiation environment is equivalent to a "thermonuclear blast" but you provide no quantitative evidence to support this.

Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!)

Others have been able to figure it out from the published figures.  Why can't you?

...unless we had a continuous and accurate measurement, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive quantitative analysis with precise numbers.

Nonsense.  A quantitative assessment of the expected radiation exposure for cislunar space missions is a standard part of mission planning.  It has even been discussed recently on this board, including the tools used to do so.

As you know (or should know) , since the Apollo missions we have learned more than 99% of what we now know about the space weather enviroment and the radiation trapped by Earths magnetic field.

On the contrary, most of what we know today was learned during Apollo.

A few things most of us are aware of is the amount of radiation required to expose film is very tiny fraction of what causes biological effects.

You have presented no data to that effect.  The closest thing you have presented is David Groves' guess that photographic film would be damaged by exposures as small as 5 rem.

X rays penetrate thin layers of aluminum practically as if it is transparent...

Asked and answered.

...and secondary radiation from high energy particle interaction with metals like aluminum creates electromagnetic radiation (including especially x rays) and secondary particle radiation as well.

You have presented no quantitative data regarding secondary radiation.

If you will concede all of the above is totally accurate, i believe we can continue.

No, I will not simply agree that you're right, especially when considerable discussion has ensued to prove you wrong.

What has been said in my absence does not require a response, as far as I can see.

No, you may not simply declare significant portions of the discussion irrelevant.  If you believe they are personal attacks, report them as such.  If you believe they are merely "propaganda," you have the burden to show that they are.

[Luke Pemberton]

What I did say is we have no way of determining precise flux values of the wide variety of radiation in question with any specific mission parameters because space weather conditions are constantly changing

Agreed, space weather conditions are constantly changing, but so is the weather outside. We know enough about space weather to quantify shielding required for space craft, including Apollo. So what is the difference between flux and photon energy?

and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories.

No, you just don't know how to use the data. Over to Bob B.

They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.

It language used for the layman, you impose the condition that it is deceiving because it fits your world view.

even if you "skirt" the worst of the heat and radiation of a thermonuclear blast by standing behind a tree, 5 miles from ground zero you're still going to be vaporized.

Apples and oranges.

Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!) ,unless we had a continuous and accurate measurement, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive quantitative analysis with precise numbers.

Yet you claim the radiation hazard made Apollo prohibitive. You can't have it both ways.

What we can is prove that in the very best of circumstances and lottery winning luck, the astronauts would be killed and the film totally exposed.

You are basing your argument on principles of luck, that is not science. You even make comparison with your conclusion to a game of chance.

As you know (or should know) , since the Apollo missions we have learned more than 99% of what we now know about the space weather environment and the radiation trapped by Earths magnetic field.

Where did you obtain the 99% figure. We knew enough about the radiation hazard for Apollo.

A few things most of us are aware of is the amount of radiation required to expose film is very tiny fraction of what causes biological effects. X rays penetrate thin layers of aluminum practically as if it is transparent, and secondary radiation from high energy particle interaction with metals like aluminum creates electromagnetic radiation (including especially x rays) and secondary particle radiation as well.

Do you know how to classify x-rays according to their energy and how this classification relates to attenuation?

Please explain what types of secondary radiation are produced and by what mechanisms.

[Romulus]

A point I was trying very hard to get Romulus to see, but instead he tried to change the subject to particle radiation.

You forget, his science is so complicated that only a few people on the planet understand how Apollo was faked, except he can't get his head around flux and photon energy. 

Again, this is typical  of the theatrics and tactics NASA's proponents engage in. I think if Apollo was a hoax (which it was), the number of people who would be aware of how it was done would be a minute percentage of those who were involve in the project, and an even smaller percentage of people in general. I think this is obvious. I also believe I do have a general idea how it was done.I think we all know why.

I think as we go on, it will become increasing undeniable who is lacking in knowledge about the radiation and copy/pasting a party line, and who is independently knowledgeable. I do not need a data base of disinformation and pre prepared attack responses like you do, nor do I need to attack you using a pack of yes men minions patting me on the back and saying "atta boy, you got him". I operate strictly in my own base of knowledge, which it will become increasingly self evident greatly exceeds that of Jay Windley or any of his minions, including yourself come close to equaling.

[Romulus]

Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!) ,unless we had a continuous and accurate measurement, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive quantitative analysis with precise numbers.

Bullshit.

Post your proof or shut up

[JayUtah]

I think as we go on, it will become increasing undeniable who is lacking in knowledge about the radiation and copy/pasting a party line, and who is independently knowledgeable.

Do you plan to demonstrate your independent knowledge by answering the several questions put to you?

[JayUtah]

Post your proof or shut up

Are you familiar with the publication Apollo By the Numbers?  Yes or no.

[Luke Pemberton]

I think as we go on, it will become increasing undeniable who is lacking in knowledge about the radiation and copy/pasting a party line, and who is independently knowledgeable.

Care to try taking me on. I dare you here and now.

I operate strictly in my own base of knowledge...

That is evident.

which it will become increasingly self evident greatly exceeds that of Jay Windley or any of his minions, including yourself come close to equaling.

Really?

[Romulus]

No, you may not simply declare significant portions of the discussion irrelevant.  If you believe they are personal attacks, report them as such.  If you believe they are merely "propaganda," you have the burden to show that they are.

I just did.What you say I cando nd what I will do are two totally unrelated things, Mr.Windley.

You mentioned a book called "Apollo by the Numbers" claiming it  could provide continuous measurements of radiation in all of the types required and apparently a precise translunar injection trajectory.

. I  am assuming it is a propaganda  piece .Can you please post the specific translunar injection  claimed by NASA with, say Apollo 11, so as to save me from being required to buy a book that I do not wish to fund? If not I declare it as a non issue for the purposes of this thread, another unsubstantiated claim..


I would be intereted in debunking it. Idonot read NASA propaganda unless I am ready to d e bunk it.I AM. 

[Chief]

Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?

[onebigmonkey]

Ahhh the usual crap:

"I demand evidence"
"You mean this evidence?"
"No, different evidence that doesn't make me look like a retard"

and so on...

[Romulus]

Post your proof or shut up

Are you familiar with the publication Apollo By the Numbers?  Yes or no.

I have heard of it. I do  not see anyproof on your part the information in is factual and I seen no published  information from NASA describing the translunar injection trajectory in detail. If NASA publishes it, it becomes evidence. f you reference a  book written by a propagandist, without proper vetting it is useless as evidence.  It has to come from NASA to use against NASA, i think you understand that, Mr Windley                         

[JayUtah]

I just did.

Let me revise the statement then.  You cannot ignore large portions of the discussion and then claim rationally to have prevailed.  The moderator has directed you to answer questions put to you.

You mentioned a book called "Apollo by the Numbers" claiming it could provide continuous measurements of radiation...

I made no such claim.

I am assuming it is a propaganda piece.

Since you are relying upon assumptions, then I presume you are entirely unfamiliar with that publication.  You may want to consider investigating it before you make unfounded assertions regarding what NASA has or has not published.  In any case, your unwillingness to examine evidence to which you have been referred rather defuses your blustery demands that others take on a burden of proof.

[JayUtah]

I have heard of it.

Does it affect your claim that NASA has not published the trajectory information for Apollo missions?

[DD Brock]

Consensus around here is that, if any of us ever start a heavy metal band, it will be called Searing Radiation Hell.  Which is a longstanding in-joke with people who could not care less about the claims of Hoax Believers.  They just think the whole thing is funny.

That is classic!!! I humbly offer my services as rhythm guitarist!!!