We will after you tell us what evidence can we produce that would change your mind.
I don’t. Galactic Cosmic Radiation fluctuates with solar activity. It is at it’s lowest when solar activity is at its highest. During the Apollo era solar activity was at a peak and GCR was at it’s lowest of .24 mgy/day. This can be verified in this article: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf on page 7.
We’ll never convince Lord Foul with facts.
So let’s try logic:
There was basically only one reason why the politicians funded the moon landings: to prove it could be done, and claim the glory for planting the flag*.
Yet Lord Foul claims it was all a lie, staged for Hollywood.
Now here’s where the logic gets murky: if it was all a lie, the people who did it would not want to get caught, right?
Yet the space program took way too many chances where they would be caught telling lies.
Every child knows that if you make your lie too complicated, you get caught.
These “liars” would have achieved their purpose on that first “landing.”
Imagine the Hollywood producers writing the script: “Let’s film Neil Armstrong making his “leap for mankind”, Nixon leaving his signature on a plaque, and the American flag displayed to the whole world. It will be awesome!!!”
And indeed it was.
But one trip was enough. They achieved the glory they wanted.
So why did these “liars” keep doing it over and over again, making more and more trips to the moon, each one more complicated than the previous one?
All those trips leave you exposed to being caught in your lies.
If it was all faked on a Hollywood stage, you don’t want to leave lots of evidence laying around.
You would make the film ONCE, and then quit. You’d burn the stage props, hide all the evidence, and then sit back and bask in the glory and fame.
It would be illogical to keep repeating the fakery over and over again for the next decade.
You wouldn’t earn any more glory, and you would almost certainly make a mistake that would give away the secret, and ruin the lie.
(*of course there were lots of other reasons, based on scientific goals, not political ones. But those scientific goals could be met without actually walking on the moon and planting the flag.)
Using data from the space missions into and beyond the VAB conducted in the 21st century, show me that it is possible to transited the VAB at an exposure of less than .24 mgy/day. Do this an I will be convinced.
Funny how hoaxers from the Moon to JFK to WTC 9/11 all have the same mental flaw… they can never look at ALL the evidence and instead focus myopically on one or more items that they believe make their case.
Another flaw is that hoaxers tend to believe they are somehow enlightened and the rest of the public are just sheep. This makes the conspriacy theorist feel “smart” when in fact it is their lack of logic and comprehension on some basic principles that show they are neither enlightened or supremely intelligent.
Have you considered:
The moon reflectors left by the Apollo missions that can be viewed by land based telescopes?
Have you viewed the LRO photos from 2009 that SHOW the landing sites including apollo trails, the shadow of the flag and a clear man made object (lunar module)?
I suppose these are all hoaxes too… because it makes perfect sense for an ENTIRELY NEW generation of people - many of which that were not alive in 1969 - to keep perpetrating a lie because…?
And 30-50 years from now when we land on the lunar surface and Fox or CNN are reporting live from the moon standing in front of the flag that will be fake news too. :smack:
I forgot how tiring and futile arguing with dense conspiracy theorists can be. Fun for a bit, but I am bored now.
Go ahead and get your last words in… I am going to go and cash this month’s NASA coverup check 
You should work on your logic skills. If I robbed a bank to pay my bills and no one was aware of the robbery, I would have no problem robbing it again the next time I wanted something. The first time was a test run. The subsequent runs simply were validation runs. They were conducted to test the boundaries of our gullibility. In the information age we are not quite as gullible and they are reluctant to pull that crap when the eyes of the world are watching.
Then given the considerable evidence that lunar landings did indeed occur, I can only conclude that the radiation hazard is not nearly as big a problem as you suggest.
There are 5 reflectors on the moon and only three of them were placed by the Americans (List of retroreflectors on the Moon - Wikipedia). There is nothing to prove the crap on the moon was placed there by humans who had ventured there. All of it could have simply been unmanned missions.
WOW… For someone who is trying so hard to show the flaws and logic in landing on the moon, your lack of understanding what Chappacula posted should prove to everyone else in this thread that you are either:
A) Trolling us
B) Really unable to understand simple concepts that would make understanding how NASA achieved one of the greatest feats in history impossible for you.
Either way, wasting another post on this guy is tantamount to arguing with my dog.
You can’t have everything. It can’t be almost true. No amount of evidence can override the truth. The truth of the matter is they are incapable of doing in the 21st century that which they succeeded on the first attempt 50 years earlier. Why do you think Obama shifted the goal post from the Moon to Mars?
Did you try putting “people believed the magic trick” and “sdmb” in google?
Heh, I just noticed that you’re citing the same document I cited in post 36, which says the radiation hazard was no big deal. Where exactly are you getting this .24 mgy/day figure and what is its significance?
I don’t know your dog but I am willing to assume he is considerably smarter than you.
Page 7: "Cosmic Rays
Cosmic-ray fluxes have provided average dose rates of 1. 0 mr/hr in cislunar
space and 0. 6 mr /hr on the lunar surface. These values are expected to d ouble at the
l ow p oint in the 11-year cycle of solar-flare activity (solar minimum) because of decreased
solar magnetic shielding of the central planets. The effect of high-energy
(but l ow d ose rate) cosmic rays on humans is unknown but is c onsidered by most authorities
to be of relatively minor c onsequence for exposures of less than a few years.
Experimental evidence of the effects of these radiati ons is dependent on the development
of highly advanced particle accelerators or the advent of l ong-term manned missions
outside the geomagnetic influence. "
I don’t know what’s “almost true” about this - it’s conceivable to me that radiation levels are higher now then they were in the 1960s and 70s and thus the Apollo program had a lucky window of opportunity where the missions were doable and survivable.
Conceivable, but not so far demonstrated by anything you’ve brought to us.
Because we’ve been to the moon. To fire the imagination requires a new challenge, i.e. Mars.
Yeah, I’m not seeing a “therefore, we can’t land men on the moon” in there anywhere. It looks like they thought about the hazard and decided it was minor and manageable.
As a follow-up, why are you citing a NASA technical document as authoritative when your core premise is that NASA is at the center of a giant and decades-long conspiracy of lies?
The salient point I make is that it is not possible to transit to the moon and receive a daily dose rate less than GCR background radiation. Even if the VAB did not exist and the moon itself was not radioactive. The only place in the solar system you can receive less than .24 mgy/day is inside the shield provided by the VAB. Low earth orbit or on earth. The deception is obvious. Mark Twain said "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
The only way to catch a liar is through his own lies.
If any of you had chosen to question the validity of the radiation dosimetry, I might have a difficult time refuting that but to simply say that you can’t see any way to do the trick and therefore it must not be a trick is ridiculous. I am embarrassed for you.