ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:07:17 PM

Title: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:07:17 PM
On this thread, i will attempt to provided a wide variety of evidence  proving that specific parts of the Apollo photographic record have been fabricated. I cannot and will not attempt to prove every photo and every video be it on digitally rendered videos or in NASA's archives is faked. What I will do is attempt to provide enough evidence of fabrication to prove that much of it was, operating under the supposition that if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine. I believe that if enough time was spent analyzing any image NASA claims depicts a manned lunar surface mission that one could find evidence of fakery, but i will not and cannot do this, it would take me the rest of my life, so please, don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

My personal experience with critiquing these photos and videos is that the longer you critically analyze them, the more errors you discover and the less real they begin to appear.  The excuses you will make for each of these inconsistencies will build like evidence in a criminal trial, until a certain level of "beyond resolvable doubt" is achieved. I intend to reach the burden of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that NASA faked the photographic record.

I will endeavor to be systematic in my approach, proving each element one at a time. Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have. I contend that I am  at least equal to any of you and have an equal footing here as Mr.Windley stated, and since none of you have any idea who I actually am, any speculation is without evidence and not allowed by the standards of gentlemanly behavior and civil debate. The question being asked here has nothing to do with me (or you). Let's try to keep it that way..

  I believe as time goes on, it will become apparent to you that I am indeed qualified to come to certain conclusions about much of the evidence I will present here. Keep in mind I do not intend to attempt to prove that ever single photo or video is fabricated, as I believe it is sufficient to prove some of it was to invalidate NASA's credibility in this specific vein of evidence.. i will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis. i will provide my own.

Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions. Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it, and do not expect  to  be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed. Whether the moderator conducts himself in a an unbiased and fair manner will be a reflection on him and this  forum, and not myself. Please allow me time to present my first piece of evidence as I need to compile a post..
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 08:24:44 PM
Look forward to seeing anything specific, particularly if it is new.

I think I may be coming around a bit on the "bundle of straw" approach. It is easy to dismiss such arguments as an attempt to make fifty weak arguments stand in for one strong one. But my opinion at the moment is, there is such a preponderance of evidence pointing to the actual landings as described, you sort of need a weight of alternative evidence. One single photograph that can't be explained should simply be dismissed, as it is more likely you haven't found the explanation, than that every other bit of the record has been falsified. Hundreds of problems in the documentation, on the other hand, might give cause for a closer look.

That said, the obverse also holds. Not being able to explain how one bit of data could have been faked is one thing. Not having an explanation for the vast majority of the observations pointing to the veracity of the landings is quite another question.

There is a lack of parity in these two problems, of course. The potential explanations for every anomaly the hoax believer brings up do not have to be consistent. There is plenty of room in the real universe for varied effects to come into play on even superficially similar bits of evidence. On the flip side, however, the entire idea of a hoax requires that a limited set of methods was applied to creating it. Saying Photograph A shows artifacts consistent with rear projection, and Photograph B shows artifacts consistent with filming in New Mexico, is not compelling.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 08:27:13 PM
On this thread, i will attempt to provided a wide variety of evidence  proving that specific parts of the Apollo photographic record have been fabricated. I cannot and will not attempt to prove every photo and every video be it on digitally rendered videos or in NASA's archives is faked. What I will do is attempt to provide enough evidence of fabrication to prove that much of it was, operating under the supposition that if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine. I believe that if enough time was spent analyzing any image NASA claims depicts a manned lunar surface mission that one could find evidence of fakery, but i will not and cannot do this, it would take me the rest of my life, so please, don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

My personal experience with critiquing these photos and videos is that the longer you critically analyze them, the more errors you discover and the less real they begin to appear.  The excuses you will make for each of these inconsistencies will build like evidence in a criminal trial, until a certain level of "beyond resolvable doubt" is achieved. I intend to reach the burden of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that NASA faked the photographic record.

I will endeavor to be systematic in my approach, proving each element one at a time. Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have. I contend that I am  at least equal to any of you and have an equal footing here as Mr.Windley stated, and since none of you have any idea who I actually am, any speculation is without evidence and not allowed by the standards of gentlemanly behavior and civil debate. The question being asked here has nothing to do with me (or you). Let's try to keep it that way..

  I believe as time goes on, it will become apparent to you that I am indeed qualified to come to certain conclusions about much of the evidence I will present here. Keep in mind I do not intend to attempt to prove that ever single photo or video is fabricated, as I believe it is sufficient to prove some of it was to invalidate NASA's credibility in this specific vein of evidence.. i will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis. i will provide my own.

Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions. Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it, and do not expect  to  be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed. Whether the moderator conducts himself in a an unbiased and fair manner will be a reflection on him and this  forum, and not myself. Please allow me time to present my first piece of evidence as I need to compile a post..
Your wall of text lacks evidence, but has unevidenced claims in abundance. Surely you are not going to down the no claimer route?

On reading your post, why, yes you are.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 08:37:17 PM
Yipee! At long last a subject that I am familiar with.  Bought my first camera on 3 January 1968, became a professional photographer on 12 September 1975, and in the 1990s quickly found that the first claims I saw of fakery in the Apollo photos (by William L Brian and Ralph Rene) was a load of nonsense from people who were unqualified to judge photos. I should add though, that I had no formal qualifications as there were none available back in my time. People just worked their way up from the bottom. However, over the years I built up considerable experience in analysing photographs, which was part of my job.

I, too, look forward to something new and not just the same old stuff that has been long debunked. I am not a prolific poster, but will be watching with interest.  We have a few members here who are very experienced and capable photographic analysts.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:43:53 PM
The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.
Here is the description of an experiment describing the effects of specific forms of radiation on that film, after exposure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Ektachrome++temperature+range&source=bl&ots=xxdqsa0TkI&sig=Z7axlu9fewkYKsaDlJdFwKn0370&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nLRVPm2IYmmyQSZsYKgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ

As you can see from the evidence, chemical emulsion film like Ectachrome is extremely degraded by relatively low levels of radiation and it is destroyed at temperatures exceeding 120 degrees according to the manufacture of the film, who suggests cool dry storage of undeveloped and developed Ectachrome. We will  not be getting into that at this time, but we will at a later time.
.
And yet we see no evidence of radiation fogging in the Apollo Hasslebad/Ectachrome photography:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5860.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5861.jpg

{Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.)


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
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:46:07 PM
Moderator, this is my first request to remove the off topic blathering.Please remove the off topic posts and warn those who posted them to refrain from such distraction
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 08:48:49 PM
Wait, what? The evidence can't be discussed, only accepted?

Then there's no purpose in this thread.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
...if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine.

You set a low bar for yourself and propose to draw a conclusion that exceeds the evidence you can provide for it.  Conversely if any of your alleged proofs for fabrication are found to be faulty, does that give your critics license to assume that none of your proofs can be trusted to be valid?

I agree with nomuse.  Just considering the 70mm stills alone, there are around 23,700 photographs taken, of which some 6,000 were taken on the lunar surface.  Cherry-picking a handful of them and pretending that they're the bellwethers does not prove much.

Quote
...don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

Then don't draw a conclusion that would require a burden of proof you are unwilling to bear.

Quote
Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have.

Your competence to do what you propose to do is very much on-topic, as is your honesty.  The only one relying upon accusations of mental illness is you.

Quote
I will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis.

Rather than require an inference, state clearly where you disagree with your cited sources and why.

Relying on external sources is welcome, but you should clearly identify them.  There are a couple caveats.  First, you will be asked what, if anything, you did to confirm or verify the claims made by others.  Second, we don't generally condone the practice of citing sources in order to establish the argument, but then declining to defend it on the grounds that it's someone else's claim.  If you present it here, regardless of its source, you will likely be held accountable for arguing it.

Quote
Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions.  Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it...

How often you post is not as important as what you address when you are posting.  If you beg indulgence to deal with your real-life duties, but then spend your posting time unproductively, the indulgence tends to go away.

Quote
...and do not expect to be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed.

You don't get to decide for everyone what's on- or off-topic.  Arbitrarily excusing oneself from difficult points is a common tactic for evading discussion, and we generally don't let you get away with it.  The threads go in the direction they go.  You don't get to direct them along some predetermined path that you feel competent to argue.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 08:51:02 PM
I WILL NOT entertain any back and forth bickering about the validity of this evidence and what it proves.

So you have no confidence that your evidence will stand up to scrutiny?  You propose simply to post your claims and not be tested on them?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:51:58 PM
Wait, what? The evidence can't be discussed, only accepted?

Then there's no purpose in this thread.

You are not discussing the evidence in your preceding post, and you're not with this one. Again , moderator, please remove off all off topic  posts designed to distract (INCLUDING THIS OFF TOPIC POST)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:52:52 PM
...if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine.

You set a low bar for yourself and propose to draw a conclusion that exceeds the evidence you can provide for it.  Conversely if any of your alleged proofs for fabrication are found to be faulty, does that give your critics license to assume that none of your proofs can be trusted to be valid?

I agree with nomuse.  Just considering the 70mm stills alone, there are around 23,700 photographs taken, of which some 6,000 were taken on the lunar surface.  Cherry-picking a handful of them and pretending that they're the bellwethers does not prove much.

Quote
...don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

Then don't draw a conclusion that would require a burden of proof you are unwilling to bear.

Quote
Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have.

Your competence to do what you propose to do is very much on-topic, as is your honesty.  The only one relying upon accusations of mental illness is you.

Quote
I will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis.

Rather than require an inference, state clearly where you disagree with your cited sources and why.

Relying on external sources is welcome, but you should clearly identify them.  There are a couple caveats.  First, you will be asked what, if anything, you did to confirm or verify the claims made by others.  Second, we don't generally condone the practice of citing sources in order to establish the argument, but then declining to defend it on the grounds that it's someone else's claim.  If you present it here, regardless of its source, you will likely be held accountable for arguing it.

Quote
Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions.  Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it...

How often you post is not as important as what you address when you are posting.  If you beg indulgence to deal with your real-life duties, but then spend your posting time unproductively, the indulgence tends to go away.

Quote
...and do not expect to be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed.

You don't get to decide for everyone what's on- or off-topic.  Arbitrarily excusing oneself from difficult points is a common tactic for evading discussion, and we generally don't let you get away with it.  The threads go in the direction they go.  You don't get to direct them along some predetermined path that you feel competent to argue.

Moderator, please remove this off topic unresponsive personal attack
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 08:53:30 PM
Here is the description of an experiment describing the effects of specific forms of radiation on that film, after exposure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Ektachrome++temperature+range&source=bl&ots=xxdqsa0TkI&sig=Z7axlu9fewkYKsaDlJdFwKn0370&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nLRVPm2IYmmyQSZsYKgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ

You've provided the wrong link.  That one provides no description of such an experiment, unless there is some part on the page that we must click on.  A few of us have copies of "Dark Moon" so please quote the exact page on which the details can be read.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:53:55 PM
I WILL NOT entertain any back and forth bickering about the validity of this evidence and what it proves.

So you have no confidence that your evidence will stand up to scrutiny?  You propose simply to post your claims and not be tested on them?
If you have evidence to dispute that I have presented, PRESENT IT, Otherwise remain quiet
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:56:00 PM
Here is the description of an experiment describing the effects of specific forms of radiation on that film, after exposure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Ektachrome++temperature+range&source=bl&ots=xxdqsa0TkI&sig=Z7axlu9fewkYKsaDlJdFwKn0370&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nLRVPm2IYmmyQSZsYKgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ

You've provided the wrong link.  That one provides no description of such an experiment, unless there is some part on the page that we must click on .  A few of us have copies of "Dark Moon" so please quote the exact page on which the details can be read.
The confusion is not on my part. The title of that chapter is self explanatory
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 08:56:45 PM
As you can see from the evidence, chemical emulsion film like Ectachrome is extremely degraded by relatively low levels of radiation...

Tests were done with the incorrect x-ray energy value.  Tests were done using a non-Apollo magazine.

Quote
...and it is destroyed at temperatures exceeding 120 degrees...

Tests were done in an air atmosphere, failing to replicate the lunar surface vacuum.  Tests were done using a non-Apollo magazine.

The "scientist" in this study, David Groves, cannot be located or verified to be an actual scientist.  His egregious methodological errors suggests he is not.  The author of the book in which this study appeared, David Percy, has been invited twice by third parties to defend this and similar claims face to face with me, but declined both times.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 08:59:16 PM
As you can see from the evidence, chemical emulsion film like Ectachrome is extremely degraded by relatively low levels of radiation...

Tests were done with the incorrect x-ray energy value.  Tests were done using a non-Apollo magazine.

Quote
...and it is destroyed at temperatures exceeding 120 degrees...

Tests were done in an air atmosphere, failing to replicate the lunar surface vacuum.  Tests were done using a non-Apollo magazine.

The "scientist" in this study, David Groves, cannot be located or verified to be an actual scientist.  His egregious methodological errors suggests he is not.  The author of the book in which this study appeared, David Percy, has been invited twice by third parties to defend this and similar claims face to face with me, but declined both times.

Ahhhh, the fall back position. Slay the messenger.Please cite your evidence of your claims about this man, or retract them.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:00:54 PM


Tests were done with the incorrect x-ray energy value. Tests were done using a non-Apollo magazine.



Please cite your evidence of your claims along with a valid reference.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:01:32 PM
The claim you copied from Dark Moon is nearly 20 years old.  The explanation of its errors have been on my web site for at least 10 years.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:03:10 PM
Ahhhh, the fall back position. Slay the messenger.Please cite your evidence of your claims about this man, or retract them.

No, you're the one citing him as an expert.  It is your responsibility to lay the foundation for his alleged expertise.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:05:17 PM
Here is NASA's offical description of the camera used by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface. Please take not of its aluminum construction, as this figures into further conclusions. Also take note it is more or less identical to commercial versions of the same camera with a few minor exceptions that do not effect it's ability to shield radiation or radiant heat. it is essentially a high grade camera:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:09:19 PM
The claim you copied from Dark Moon is nearly 20 years old.  The explanation of its errors have been on my web site for at least 10 years.

I do  not accept your conclusions as proof of anything and I see no evidence to indicate you are the least bit qualified to come to them. Your expertise in the areas of human psychology, photography, radiation ,rocket science and so on are at best dubious.

Cite your credentials as they relate to photography/film. The individual that is the origin of the information I posted information above is a vetted source, and you are well aware of that fact.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:10:24 PM
The camera Mr. Groves used was a Bronica ETRsi 120.  The camera used for Apollo was a Hasselblad 500/EL with a modified longroll magazine.  What principle of science allows you to assume that those camera bodies and their magazines provide the same level of x-ray attenuation?  Groves offers no evidence that he tested the radiation attenuation factor of either camera.

Groves stated he subjected the exposed film, in the camera/magazine, to 25-100 rem of 8 MeV radiation.  He offers no evidence that 8 MeV is the proper energy to use.  I know what the prevalent energy level is for naturally occurring x-rays.  Do you?  Groves offers no evidence that the levels of exposure he used were reasonable in any way as a duplication of the space environment.  In short, Groves gives no evidence that his test in any way replicates the Apollo film environment with respect to radiation.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:12:46 PM
Cite your credentials as they relate to photography/film.

Photographer and photo analyst for pay for 20 years.  Cited in Science in 2007 on the subject.  What are yours?

Quote
The individual that is the origin of the information I posted information above is a vetted source, and you are well aware of that fact.

Do not tell me what you think I know.  Cite evidence of David Groves, PhD aside from Percy's claims about him.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 09:13:38 PM
Here is the description of an experiment describing the effects of specific forms of radiation on that film, after exposure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Ektachrome++temperature+range&source=bl&ots=xxdqsa0TkI&sig=Z7axlu9fewkYKsaDlJdFwKn0370&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nLRVPm2IYmmyQSZsYKgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ

You've provided the wrong link.  That one provides no description of such an experiment, unless there is some part on the page that we must click on .  A few of us have copies of "Dark Moon" so please quote the exact page on which the details can be read.
The confusion is not on my part. The title of that chapter is self explanatory


Which chapter title?

The chapter names in "Dark Moon" are:
1 Photo Call
2 Northern Exposures
3 Radiant Daze
4 Rocket Rackets
5 'masters of infinity'
6 Truth or Consequences
7 Distant Horizons
8 Servants of Circumstance
9 Slaves of Limitation
10 Essentials
11 THE Triangle
12 Prints of Mars
13 Hurmaze

Sic in every case.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 09:14:00 PM
If you have evidence to dispute that I have presented, PRESENT IT, Otherwise remain quiet

You are the one claiming that the Apollo missions were faked, therefore you are the one who needs to present evidence.

Until you understand this, there is no reason to engage you...

Oh, and just how many threads do you intend to start??
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:14:38 PM
Here is NASA's offical description of the camera used by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface.

No, that is not NASA's official description.  Their official description is the Statement of Work, which specifies radiation hardening for the magazine.  Can you tell me the name of the company in Hollywood that made those modifications?  It's well known as an after-market supplier for Hasselblad accessories, including the longroll magazine.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:18:00 PM
The camera Mr. Groves used was a Bronica ETRsi 120.  The camera used for Apollo was a Hasselblad 500/EL with a modified longroll magazine.  What principle of science allows you to assume that those camera bodies and their magazines provide the same level of x-ray attenuation?  Groves offers no evidence that he tested the radiation attenuation factor of either camera.

Groves stated he subjected the exposed film, in the camera/magazine, to 25-100 rem of 8 MeV radiation.  He offers no evidence that 8 MeV is the proper energy to use.  I know what the prevalent energy level is for naturally occurring x-rays.  Do you?  Groves offers no evidence that the levels of exposure he used were reasonable in any way as a duplication of the space environment.  In short, Groves gives no evidence that his test in any way replicates the Apollo film environment with respect to radiation.

Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor, and the biggest source of damage would have been secondary radiation resulting from particle radiation impacting/penetrating  the aluminum frame of the camera that had both solar and lunar surface origins..

While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:19:29 PM
Which chapter title?

FWIW, it's on page 540 of the e-book to which he linked.  It's the appendix of Dark Moon in which Groves' reports on his purported physics experiment.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:21:46 PM
Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor...

Prove it now please.  You have purported that Groves' experiments constitute a valid test of Apollo claims.  Simply handwaving away the ways in which they are not will not suffice.

Quote
While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.

Assumption.  Please prove the range of error was acceptable.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:24:02 PM
As I suspected, you are going to resort to obfuscation. It makes no difference what you claim has been proved, as it makes no difference what i claim has been proved. That is self evident, that x radiation of low levels at moderate energy  levels exposes film and fogs it. if you cannot concede this there is nothing you will agree to accepting as fact.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 09:25:08 PM

Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor, and the biggest source of damage would have been secondary radiation resulting from particle radiation impacting/penetrating  the aluminum frame of the camera that had both solar and lunar surface origins..

While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.

So we must provide exact evidence without ambiguity, but, meh, as long as the camera was roughly the same it's ok. After all it does support your claim.

It doesn't work like that. You are presenting a very, very old argument. It has been debunked countless times before.

Give us something new for goodness sake, not the same old tired, boring arguments. Please.

I hope that's not too off topic.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:25:17 PM
Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Describe the difference between x-ray photon energy and x-ray flux.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 09:25:29 PM
Clearly, romulus does not know anything beyond "press the button and magic happens". Fine. If that is the malarkey he chooses to believe in, who can disagree with his fantasy?

But it is his fantasy, and his fantasy alone.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 09:29:05 PM
Moderator, this is my first request to remove the off topic blathering.

And it might as well be your last. Let me explain to you how things work: you make a claim, we respond to it. You do not get to decide how we respond.

If you are too cowardly to defend your claims then don't make them in the first place.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:29:19 PM
As I suspected, you are going to resort to obfuscation.

Explain how reviewing Groves' claims for scientific validity is "obfuscation."  Groves failed on several methdological points, which I raised.  Further, his oven experiment benefits from convective heat transfer, which is not an available heat transfer method in the lunar environment.  It's not as if Groves' scientific methodology fails for trivial or obscure reasons.  It fails for reasons of basic physics.

Quote
That is self evident, that x radiation of low levels at moderate energy levels exposes film and fogs it. if you cannot concede this there is nothing you will agree to accepting as fact.

"Low levels" and "moderate energy" are your ill-defined, subjective characterizations.  I gave you specific number figures from Groves' tests and asked you to demonstrate that they really do duplicate the space environment.  If you cannot, you're just begging the question.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:29:33 PM
Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor...

Prove it now please.  You have purported that Groves' experiments constitute a valid test of Apollo claims.  Simply handwaving away the ways in which they are not will not suffice.

Quote
While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.

Assumption.  Please prove the range of error was acceptable.

X ray attenuation of aluminum:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ElemTab/z13.html
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:31:38 PM
X ray attenuation of aluminum:

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ElemTab/z13.html

Interpret this graph for the x-ray photon energies that Groves used, and the x-ray photon energies of naturally-occurring x-rays.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 09:32:55 PM

Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor, and the biggest source of damage would have been secondary radiation resulting from particle radiation impacting/penetrating  the aluminum frame of the camera that had both solar and lunar surface origins..

While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.

So we must provide exact evidence without ambiguity, but, meh, as long as the camera was roughly the same it's ok. After all it does support your claim.

It doesn't work like that. You are presenting a very, very old argument. It has been debunked countless times before.

Give us something new for goodness sake, not the same old tired, boring arguments. Please.

I hope that's not too off topic.
Well, You are right and wrong. Sure it is an old argument, but the Gish Gallop requires that you abandon failed arguments and invent new ones out of whole cloth while ignoring those arguments that have been disproven. that is the CT M.O.

You or I or any rational person can see this. It is jet propelled goalposts all the way. Still, it is amusing to observe the inefectual flailing.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:33:06 PM
Moderator, this is my first request to remove the off topic blathering.

And it might as well be your last. Let me explain to you how things work: you make a claim, we respond to it. You do not get to decide how we respond.

If you are too cowardly to defend your claims then don't make them in the first place.

In other words you are admitting that it is all of you against one of me, I must abide in the rules and you and your comrades are free to break them at will. Just so long as we understand each other, this is one of the things I set out to prove about forums Jay Windley frequents, that he engages in methods that are highly biased against his opposition because he is completely incompetent and unable to defend his claims..
Thank you for not disapointing
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 09:34:13 PM
...if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine.

You set a low bar for yourself and propose to draw a conclusion that exceeds the evidence you can provide for it.  Conversely if any of your alleged proofs for fabrication are found to be faulty, does that give your critics license to assume that none of your proofs can be trusted to be valid?

I agree with nomuse.  Just considering the 70mm stills alone, there are around 23,700 photographs taken, of which some 6,000 were taken on the lunar surface.  Cherry-picking a handful of them and pretending that they're the bellwethers does not prove much.

Quote
...don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

Then don't draw a conclusion that would require a burden of proof you are unwilling to bear.

Quote
Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have.

Your competence to do what you propose to do is very much on-topic, as is your honesty.  The only one relying upon accusations of mental illness is you.

Quote
I will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis.

Rather than require an inference, state clearly where you disagree with your cited sources and why.

Relying on external sources is welcome, but you should clearly identify them.  There are a couple caveats.  First, you will be asked what, if anything, you did to confirm or verify the claims made by others.  Second, we don't generally condone the practice of citing sources in order to establish the argument, but then declining to defend it on the grounds that it's someone else's claim.  If you present it here, regardless of its source, you will likely be held accountable for arguing it.

Quote
Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions.  Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it...

How often you post is not as important as what you address when you are posting.  If you beg indulgence to deal with your real-life duties, but then spend your posting time unproductively, the indulgence tends to go away.

Quote
...and do not expect to be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed.

You don't get to decide for everyone what's on- or off-topic.  Arbitrarily excusing oneself from difficult points is a common tactic for evading discussion, and we generally don't let you get away with it.  The threads go in the direction they go.  You don't get to direct them along some predetermined path that you feel competent to argue.

Moderator, please remove this off topic unresponsive personal attack

No. In fact, not only will I not remove it, I expect you to respond to every comment Jay made in that post in order to prove that you can comprehend what he said.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:36:36 PM
Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Describe the difference between x-ray photon energy and x-ray flux.
Energy relates to frequency, shorter wavelengths and higher frequency are higher energy. "Flux" is"volume"or amount.

Ganerally speaking an increase in frequency or flux compound the effects of electromagnetic radiation
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:37:16 PM
...if it can be proved NASA fabricated some of the photographic evidence, none of it can be trusted to be genuine.

You set a low bar for yourself and propose to draw a conclusion that exceeds the evidence you can provide for it.  Conversely if any of your alleged proofs for fabrication are found to be faulty, does that give your critics license to assume that none of your proofs can be trusted to be valid?

I agree with nomuse.  Just considering the 70mm stills alone, there are around 23,700 photographs taken, of which some 6,000 were taken on the lunar surface.  Cherry-picking a handful of them and pretending that they're the bellwethers does not prove much.

Quote
...don't ask me to present an impossible burden of proof.

Then don't draw a conclusion that would require a burden of proof you are unwilling to bear.

Quote
Since this is my thread, I would appreciate keeping the exchange focused on the subject, and off of myself and your personal opinions about my competency, honesty, integrity, mental state or any other disqualification you may feel I have.

Your competence to do what you propose to do is very much on-topic, as is your honesty.  The only one relying upon accusations of mental illness is you.

Quote
I will be using evidence many others have posted, though there is no implication that I agree verbatim with their analysis.

Rather than require an inference, state clearly where you disagree with your cited sources and why.

Relying on external sources is welcome, but you should clearly identify them.  There are a couple caveats.  First, you will be asked what, if anything, you did to confirm or verify the claims made by others.  Second, we don't generally condone the practice of citing sources in order to establish the argument, but then declining to defend it on the grounds that it's someone else's claim.  If you present it here, regardless of its source, you will likely be held accountable for arguing it.

Quote
Also keep in mind this is not the only iron I have in the fire. I am raising a family and making a living, and I have many responsibilities and distractions.  Do not expect me to respond to every question you ask the minute you ask it...

How often you post is not as important as what you address when you are posting.  If you beg indulgence to deal with your real-life duties, but then spend your posting time unproductively, the indulgence tends to go away.

Quote
...and do not expect to be allowed to steer the direction my thread takes. I will not allow this and will request off topic material be removed.

You don't get to decide for everyone what's on- or off-topic.  Arbitrarily excusing oneself from difficult points is a common tactic for evading discussion, and we generally don't let you get away with it.  The threads go in the direction they go.  You don't get to direct them along some predetermined path that you feel competent to argue.

Moderator, please remove this off topic unresponsive personal attack

No. In fact, not only will I not remove it, I expect you to respond to every comment Jay made in that post in order to prove that you can comprehend what he said.

And you can expect  in one hand and crap in the other....
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:40:16 PM
Ganerally speaking an increase in frequency or flux compound the effects of electromagnetic radiation

Which of the two effect scales linearly and which effect does not?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:42:03 PM

Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Also note that I intend to later prove that this is a very minor factor, and the biggest source of damage would have been secondary radiation resulting from particle radiation impacting/penetrating  the aluminum frame of the camera that had both solar and lunar surface origins..

While it is true an identical camera was not used in the test, the fact that it's construction was essentially the same       and sufficient for validating the experimental results  to an acceptable range of error.

So we must provide exact evidence without ambiguity, but, meh, as long as the camera was roughly the same it's ok. After all it does support your claim.

It doesn't work like that. You are presenting a very, very old argument. It has been debunked countless times before.

Give us something new for goodness sake, not the same old tired, boring arguments. Please.

I hope that's not too off topic.
Well, You are right and wrong. Sure it is an old argument, but the Gish Gallop requires that you abandon failed arguments and invent new ones out of whole cloth while ignoring those arguments that have been disproven. that is the CT M.O.

You or I or any rational person can see this. It is jet propelled goalposts all the way. Still, it is amusing to observe the inefectual flailing.
All of these worn  out tactics and terminology straight out of the propagandists handbook...my my my  boys, you don't disappoint. Does X radiation cloud film or not? That's what I  am proving at this point.All of this obfuscation and posturing is unnecessary, you  either agree it does, or you do not.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 09:43:39 PM
Romulus, as you are relying on Bennett and Percy for your information, did you perform the one simple test that any able-bodied and sighted person can do on their book?

Assuming that you did indeed use your intelligence and laid straightedges along the tree shadows (and I mean the shadows, not the white lines provided) on page 22 of "Dark Moon," what did you find?

How does that agree with the statement on page 21: "Take a look at (19) and (19a), pictures of typical tree shadows. Notice the parallel lines of shadow..." (My emphasis.)

Do their converging shadows indicate something to you, such as Percy and Bennett laughably attempting to fool gullible readers?

Please tell as that you have performed that test, and your results. Are the shadows indeed parallel as claimed? Are Bennett and Percy reliable?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:44:25 PM
Ganerally speaking an increase in frequency or flux compound the effects of electromagnetic radiation

Which of the two effect scales linearly and which effect does not?
It depends on what scale you're using.If it's measuring flux at various energy ranges like the graph I posted, I believe that is self explanatory, isn't it? I mean it says "X RAY FLUX" , so the Y axis is flux level and x axis is time
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:44:40 PM
Does X radiation cloud film or not? That's what I  am proving at this point.All of this obfuscation and posturing is unnecessary, you  either agree it does, or you do not.

No, it's not a binary question.  The answer to your question is, "It depends on several factors such as flux, energy, and the attenuation factor of the container."

You have cited an experiment which you allege duplicates the environment in space.  But you refuse to discuss whether it really does or not.  You just want a cargo-cult answer.  I'm asking about real science.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:46:51 PM
It depends on what scale you're using.

No, that's not what is meant by "scale" in this context.  I don't mean graph scales.  You said that the effects generally increase with an increase in either of those two values.  Does one have a greater effect per delta than the other?  If so, which one?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 09:48:07 PM
In other words you are admitting that it is all of you against one of me

I realize that it is difficult for you to respond to everyone. Take as much time as you need. You DO NOT get to tell people that they are not allowed to respond. There is no rule here against responding to someone else's posts... in fact it is encouraged. This is a discussion forum, after all.

Quote
I must abide in the rules and you and your comrades are free to break them at will.

Which rules have people been breaking, exactly? Here they are for reference: The Rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120)

And no, responding to one of your claims after you so politely ordered us not to is not considered a personal attack.

Quote
Just so long as we understand each other, this is one of the things I set out to prove about forums Jay Windley frequents, that he engages in methods that are highly biased against his opposition because he is completely incompetent and unable to defend his claims..

You're the one making the claims here, and so far I haven't seen you defend one of them.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:53:03 PM
Romulus, as you are relying on Bennett and Percy for your information, did you perform the one simple test that any able-bodied and sighted person can do on their book?

Assuming that you did indeed use your intelligence and laid straightedges along the tree shadows (and I mean the shadows, not the white lines provided) on page 22 of "Dark Moon," what did you find?

How does that agree with the statement on page 21: "Take a look at (19) and (19a), pictures of typical tree shadows. Notice the parallel lines of shadow..." (My emphasis.)

I haven't gotten into parallax errors and the experimentally provable presence of he use of front screen projection yet and lighting which is in close proximity to the objects in Apollo photography . Be patient. I diidn 't rely on this mans studies for anything other than a simple  experiment proving the effects of x rays on film in an aluminum body camera, and since the attenuation of   x  aluminum is practically non existent at the thicknesses involved (as referenced), I believe I have proved my point adequately.
 I would think is pretty much common knowledge among competent physicists and even photographers and x ray technicians. It is amazing the trouble I have had getting any of you to admit x rays  cloud and expose film, not one of you has yet. Like I said,  none of you have disappointed me yet,

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 09:54:04 PM
measuring flux at various energy ranges like the graph I posted, I believe that is self explanatory, isn't it?

Yes it is, in the sense that it is an exponential scale dealing in microscopic fractions of a watt of energy.  But there's a fairly large gaffe you've committed that it's now appropriate to address.

I asked about x-ray photon energy, and you posted a graph of deposited energy over time, such as the raw reading from a detector.  The detector cannot differentiate between the various photon energies that strike it, but it can measure the overall energy deposited.

But see, those are two different uses of the word "energy."  Deposited energy is measured in watts, such as the solar influx for the purposes of computing solar heating.  Photon energy is measured in electron volts.  I asked you about photon energy for naturally occurring x-rays.  Let's say solar x-rays.  And instead you went away for 15 minutes and Googled up a graph of deposited energy.  You don't seem to understand the difference.

Photon energy determines, among other things, the penetrating power of each x-ray photon.  Groves used 8 MeV x-rays.  What is the photon energy of solar x-rays?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 09:59:11 PM
In other words you are admitting that it is all of you against one of me
]

Which rules have people been breaking, exactly? Here they are for reference: The Rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120)



Well, trolling , spreading out topics  bad behaviors as in violating  number one.When i first posted here last night I stated i would  treat you with respect as long as you reciprocated. You clearly have not. WIndley attacked almost instantly, and the rest followed suit in a pack like mentality.

 If you don't respect me I'm going to injure your ego, perhaps fatally. None of you here is capable of engaging in a  civil scientific debate about the validity of Apollo and you are proving it..
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 09:59:40 PM
And you can expect  in one hand and crap in the other....

Which leaves me with no reason to believe that you even understand what Jay said. Got it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:00:28 PM
Romulus, as you are relying on Bennett and Percy for your information, did you perform the one simple test that any able-bodied and sighted person can do on their book?

Assuming that you did indeed use your intelligence and laid straightedges along the tree shadows (and I mean the shadows, not the white lines provided) on page 22 of "Dark Moon," what did you find?

How does that agree with the statement on page 21: "Take a look at (19) and (19a), pictures of typical tree shadows. Notice the parallel lines of shadow..." (My emphasis.)

I haven't gotten into parallax errors and the experimentally provable presence of he use of front screen projection yet and lighting which is in close proximity to the objects in Apollo photography . Be patient. I diidn 't rely on this mans studies for anything other than a simple  experiment proving the effects of x rays on film in an aluminum body camera, and since the attenuation of   x  aluminum is practically non existent at the thicknesses involved (as referenced), I believe I have proved my point adequately.
 I would think is pretty much common knowledge among competent physicists and even photographers and x ray technicians. It is amazing the trouble I have had getting any of you to admit x rays  cloud and expose film, not one of you has yet. Like I said,  none of you have disappointed me yet,


I made a quoting error so I reposted this reply
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:02:47 PM
And you can expect  in one hand and crap in the other....

Which leaves me with no reason to believe that you even understand what Jay said. Got it.

I know that none of it had to do with whether or not X radiation clouds film. All I want to here him say is that yes, moderate energy levels and low flux values of x radiation can and do cloud the type of film NASA claims to have used.It's a yes or no answer, we will get into quantitative later.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:03:46 PM

All of these worn  out tactics and terminology straight out of the propagandists handbook...my my my  boys, you don't disappoint. Does X radiation cloud film or not? That's what I  am proving at this point.All of this obfuscation and posturing is unnecessary, you  either agree it does, or you do not.

If you ever bothered to notice these "worn out tactics" have never changed, the counter arguments to all of the hoax theories have been the same. Because when it is the truth, well, it is the truth. On the other hand Hoax theories are full of different solutions that could explain a perceived anomaly and often change when a particular idea is proven wrong.

The problem with your statement is akin to asking us whether one gets wet if they go out in the rain. The answer is yes, which is the answer you are looking for and will be when you will declare victory. But you won't get wet if you have an umbrella or get very wet if it is only spitting.

Now tell us, did the camera have an umbrella?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 10:07:08 PM
Which rules have people been breaking, exactly? Here they are for reference: The Rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120)

Well, trolling , spreading out topics  bad behaviors as in violating  number one.When i first posted here last night I stated i would  treat you with respect as long as you reciprocated. You clearly have not. WIndley attacked almost instantly, and the rest followed suit in a pack like mentality.

Once again, it is not a personal attack to respond to your claims with criticism. It is also not a personal attack to express doubt about your claim of being a scientist when you have provided absolutely zero proof to support that claim. Claiming to be Superman does not make it true.

It is also not against the rules for people to respond to the claims you make. It is, however, against the rules for you to not defend your claims. But hey, I'm a pretty lenient guy. I have let you make well over 100 posts in 24 hours, after all.

Quote
If you don't respect me

Respect is earned. You can earn it by actually defending your claims with more than just "I've said it, therefore it is true".
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 10:09:11 PM
I made a quoting error so I reposted this reply

What? But how could that be? How could someone who is supposed to be vastly superior to the rest of us make such a noob mistake? That would mean you're not as perfect as you think you are.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 10:10:19 PM
Romulus, as you are relying on Bennett and Percy for your information, did you perform the one simple test that any able-bodied and sighted person can do on their book?

Assuming that you did indeed use your intelligence and laid straightedges along the tree shadows (and I mean the shadows, not the white lines provided) on page 22 of "Dark Moon," what did you find?

How does that agree with the statement on page 21: "Take a look at (19) and (19a), pictures of typical tree shadows. Notice the parallel lines of shadow..." (My emphasis.)

Missing paragraphs reinserted below.

Do their converging shadows indicate something to you, such as Percy and Bennett laughably attempting to fool gullible readers?

Please tell as that you have performed that test, and your results. Are the shadows indeed parallel as claimed? Are Bennett and Percy reliable?

I haven't gotten into parallax errors and the experimentally provable presence of he use of front screen projection yet and lighting which is in close proximity to the objects in Apollo photography . Be patient. I diidn 't rely on this mans studies for anything other than a simple  experiment proving the effects of x rays on film in an aluminum body camera, and since the attenuation of   x  aluminum is practically non existent at the thicknesses involved (as referenced), I believe I have proved my point adequately.
 I would think is pretty much common knowledge among competent physicists and even photographers and x ray technicians. It is amazing the trouble I have had getting any of you to admit x rays  cloud and expose film, not one of you has yet. Like I said,  none of you have disappointed me yet,


I made a quoting error so I reposted this reply

Thank you.  But you left off the two paragraphs and three questions at the end of my post and your reply has nothing to do with them.

Please answer the questions. I have replaced them in the quote above.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:11:46 PM
I know that none of it had to do with whether or not X radiation clouds film.

It had everything to do with the method you propose to determine whether such things happen.  Please address the questions I raised regarding your proposed method for studying the photographs.  Please pay special attention to where I told you to expect to have to defend sources you cite.

Quote
All I want to here him say is that yes, moderate energy levels and low flux values of x radiation...

Asked and answered.  Your vague terminology is not indicative of actual values.

Quote
It's a yes or no answer

Not in the way you think.  Whether I hit you on the toe with a sledge hammer is a yes-or-now answer.  Whether the effects are negligible or catastrophic depend on how hard I hit you.

Quote
...we will get into quantitative later.

No, let's do quantitative now.

Groves used 8 MeV of x-rays.  What is the photon energy of solar x-rays?

Groves used absorbed doses of 25-100 rem.  What is the absorbed dose of solar x-rays for the equivalent time (4 hours)?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:12:50 PM

All of these worn  out tactics and terminology straight out of the propagandists handbook...my my my  boys, you don't disappoint. Does X radiation cloud film or not? That's what I  am proving at this point.All of this obfuscation and posturing is unnecessary, you  either agree it does, or you do not.

If you ever bothered to notice these "worn out tactics" have never changed


Well, that is exactly my point. If you could defend your position you would engage in tactics known to be used by propagandists to obfuscate and deceive. The fact that not a damned one of you is willing to concede that low flux levels of moderate energy level x radiation clouds film  proves you will never admit anything, no mater how obvious it is. That's not an honest approach and there is a reason for it. If I prove my points in a step by step approach I can prove the objective proof, that the Apollo photographic record would have been damaged by radiation and it is simply not possible that it wouldn't under the best of conditions.

BTW this issue concerning the film and photography and it's condition is only one MANY independent disqualifications of the Apollo evidence. My goal is to produce so much evidence that it becomes impossible to deny, and to do that I have to do it step by step without being derailed, and I will do it

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 10:14:07 PM
Wait, what? The evidence can't be discussed, only accepted?

Then there's no purpose in this thread.

You are not discussing the evidence in your preceding post, and you're not with this one. Again , moderator, please remove off all off topic  posts designed to distract (INCLUDING THIS OFF TOPIC POST)

Yes, oddly enough, having no pretension of trying for the James Randi Challenge, I could not address claims that had not yet been posted.

I could however indulge in meta-discussion of the possible claims, plural, and the validity of the approach.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:16:23 PM

Respect is earned.

Yes,  I agree. Now tell me what level of respect you have earned and how your behavior correlates with rule number one .What about Windley and the rest of his pack of wolves? Have they earned respect, or a kick to the crotch?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 10:18:16 PM
Here is NASA's offical description of the camera used by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface. Please take not of its aluminum construction, as this figures into further conclusions. Also take note it is more or less identical to commercial versions of the same camera with a few minor exceptions that do not effect it's ability to shield radiation or radiant heat. it is essentially a high grade camera:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

I disagree with that characterization of the presented document. It takes but a moment to find where it clearly states:

The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes.

And this is far from the only mention of how the camera and magazine were modified for the lunar surface.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:19:59 PM
Wait, what? The evidence can't be discussed, only accepted?

Then there's no purpose in this thread.

You are not discussing the evidence in your preceding post, and you're not with this one. Again , moderator, please remove off all off topic  posts designed to distract (INCLUDING THIS OFF TOPIC POST)

Yes, oddly enough, having no pretension of trying for the James Randi Challenge, I could not address claims that had not yet been posted.

I could however indulge in meta-discussion of the possible claims, plural, and the validity of the approach.

You do a lot of talking but I have noticed an odd thing about it. You never say anything. Off topic or otherwise. How do you do that?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:21:47 PM
...tactics known to be used by propagandists to obfuscate and deceive.

Begging the question.  Methods of examining the strength of your claims are not automatically obfuscation tactics just because you say so.

Quote
The fact that not a damned one of you is willing to concede that low flux levels of moderate energy level x radiation clouds film...

Asked and answered.  Although you use terms such as energy and flux, you cannot demonstrate that you know what they mean, and consequently whether the experiment done by Groves is a suitable replica of the space environment.

No one will concede that which you have not proven.  Your inability to understand why it is not proven is not my fault.  I have explained in detail, in scientific terms, why your proof fails.  More than that, no one can do.

Quote
I can prove the objective proof, that the Apollo photographic record would have been damaged by radiation and it is simply not possible that it wouldn't under the best of conditions.

The data you cite does not support that conclusion, for the reasons given.  You are unwilling to address those reasons.  You simply want people to agree with your belief simply because you have stated it.  That's not how science works.

Quote
My goal is to produce so much evidence...

This sounds as if you are preparing to abandon this point and change the subject.  A Gish Gallop is not proof.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:22:32 PM
Here is NASA's offical description of the camera used by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface. Please take not of its aluminum construction, as this figures into further conclusions. Also take note it is more or less identical to commercial versions of the same camera with a few minor exceptions that do not effect it's ability to shield radiation or radiant heat. it is essentially a high grade camera:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

I disagree with that characterization of the presented document. It takes but a moment to find where it clearly states:

The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes.

And this is far from the only mention of how the camera and magazine were modified for the lunar surface.

What affect does a silver finish have on x radiation ? If it is none then you're off topic and getting into factors (I presume radiant heat/electromagnetic radiation) that haven't even been mentioned yet.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:26:06 PM

Asked and answered.  Although you use terms such as energy and flux, you cannot demonstrate that you know what they mean, and consequently whether the experiment done by Groves is a suitable replica of the space environment.


I gave an adequate and  accurate description of what energy level and flux describe as it relates to electromagnetic radiation on the preceding page and you Mr.Windley ARE A BOLD FACED LIAR.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:27:21 PM
What affect does a silver finish have on x radiation ?
 If it is none then you're off topic...

No.  You may have forgotten that you made two claims so far in this thread based on Groves -- the radiation claim and the heat claim.  You raised the issue of heat damage, therefore you are on the hook to defend that one as well.  Although I would not object if you deferred the discussion in order to focus on radiation.

His further, and most important point, is that you have characterized this web page as "NASA's official description" of the camera in question.  The unstated premise is that if a feature of the camera is not mentioned on that page, it can be concluded not to exist.  But for that purpose none of your critics accepts that characterization of the source.  The Statement of Work for the 70mm still camera is NASA's official requirements for what it must do, and one of those requirements is survival of the film up to 600 rads exposure.  (If you'd like, please explain why Groves used the wrong units to measure the radiation he subjected the film to.)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I gave an adequate and  accurate description of what energy level and flux describe as it relates to electromagnetic radiation on the preceding page and you Mr.Windley ARE A BOLD FACED LIAR.

I asked several follow-up questions which you have not answered.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:28:34 PM
Here are current levels and energy levels of x radiation in cislunar space:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?

Describe the difference between x-ray photon energy and x-ray flux.
Energy relates to frequency, shorter wavelengths and higher frequency are higher energy. "Flux" is"volume"or amount.

Generally speaking an increase in frequency or flux compound the effects of electromagnetic radiation

Proof Windley lied. If this brief description isn't succinct and correct, show your version Mr.Windley
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:29:24 PM

All of these worn  out tactics and terminology straight out of the propagandists handbook...my my my  boys, you don't disappoint. Does X radiation cloud film or not? That's what I  am proving at this point.All of this obfuscation and posturing is unnecessary, you  either agree it does, or you do not.

If you ever bothered to notice these "worn out tactics" have never changed


Well, that is exactly my point. If you could defend your position you would engage in tactics known to be used by propagandists to obfuscate and deceive. The fact that not a damned one of you is willing to concede that low flux levels of moderate energy level x radiation clouds film  proves you will never admit anything, no mater how obvious it is. That's not an honest approach and there is a reason for it. If I prove my points in a step by step approach I can prove the objective proof, that the Apollo photographic record would have been damaged by radiation and it is simply not possible that it wouldn't under the best of conditions.

BTW this issue concerning the film and photography and it's condition is only one MANY independent disqualifications of the Apollo evidence. My goal is to produce so much evidence that it becomes impossible to deny, and to do that I have to do it step by step without being derailed, and I will do it

And I'll include the rest of my statement.

The problem with your statement is akin to asking us whether one gets wet if they go out in the rain. The answer is yes, which is the answer you are looking for and will be when you will declare victory. But you won't get wet if you have an umbrella or get very wet if it is only spitting.

The answer to your question is a matter of exposure to radiation. If the film was unprotected and if the conditions were right, the film would cloud.

However the film was protected. So your argument is irrelevant. You are presenting a scenario which did not occur.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Proof Windley lied. If this brief description isn't succinct and correct, show your version Mr.Windley

And the followup questions?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:32:32 PM
I gave an adequate and  accurate description of what energy level and flux describe as it relates to electromagnetic radiation on the preceding page and you Mr.Windley ARE A BOLD FACED LIAR.

I asked several follow-up questions which you have not answered.

Well, YES I DID. Care to retract that claim?.. or ask them again and I will  quote the post where I answered ALL on topic questions. You're a liar. It's really all you do as far as I can see and you're not even good at it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:35:09 PM


The problem with your statement is akin to asking us whether one gets wet if they go out in the rain. The answer is yes, which is the answer you are looking for and will be when you will declare victory.


I agree, in principal. it is not enough to prove that you get wet when it rains, now all I have to do is prove an umbrella won't keep you dry in a hurricane.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:35:28 PM
Stop with the liar business, that's becoming tiresome too.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:35:51 PM
Well, YES I DID. Care to retract that claim?.. or ask them again and I will  quote the post where I answered ALL on topic questions.

What is the photon energy of solar x-rays?  That's the big one of several you have not answered.  Show me the link where you answered it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:37:40 PM
Stop with the liar business, that's becoming tiresome too.
If Windley or anyone else lies, I am going to point it out for the record and prove it. This is a major part of my objective, to  prove that NASA's representatives routinely engage in dishonest and unethical practices.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:39:04 PM


The problem with your statement is akin to asking us whether one gets wet if they go out in the rain. The answer is yes, which is the answer you are looking for and will be when you will declare victory.


I agree, in principal. it is not enough to prove that you get wet when it rains, now all I have to do is prove an umbrella won't keep you dry in a hurricane.

And there you go. You only have to prove there was a hurricane and that the umbrella was inadequate. Should be easy.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:40:35 PM
Well, YES I DID. Care to retract that claim?.. or ask them again and I will  quote the post where I answered ALL on topic questions.

What is the photon energy of solar x-rays?  That's the big one of several you have not answered.  Show me the link where you answered it.

The energy levels of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION originating from the Sun encompass a very wide range of wavelengths (energy levels), from infra red long wavelengths, visible light, ultra violet a&b ,  microwaves , x rays and nearly everything in between
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:41:47 PM
Romulus, please link to where you have already answered the questions in these posts.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25887#msg25887
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25898#msg25898
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25901#msg25901
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25910#msg25910
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:42:02 PM


The problem with your statement is akin to asking us whether one gets wet if they go out in the rain. The answer is yes, which is the answer you are looking for and will be when you will declare victory.


I agree, in principal. it is not enough to prove that you get wet when it rains, now all I have to do is prove an umbrella won't keep you dry in a hurricane.

And there you go. You only have to prove there was a hurricane and that the umbrella was inadequate. Should be easy.

http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:44:03 PM
Stop with the liar business, that's becoming tiresome too.
If Windley or anyone else lies, I am going to point it out for the record and prove it. This is a major part of my objective, to  prove that NASA's representatives routinely engage in dishonest and unethical practices.

Oh dear me. When someone does not remember the exact post word for word or does not consider an answer given by you to be sufficient, it does not make them a liar.
Effectively you are actively searching for a basic error or lapse in memory or indeed a rejection of an inadequate answer so you can shout out liar to bolster your case.

Give it up.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:44:33 PM
The energy levels of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION originating from the Sun encompass a very wide range of wavelengths (energy levels), from infra red long wavelengths, visible light, ultra violet a&b ,  microwaves , x rays and nearly everything in between

I didn't ask about all electromagnetic radiation.  I asked specifically about x-rays, which span a certain band of photon energies from a lower boundary to an upper boundary.  The quiescent sun emits x-rays most prevalently in what range of photon energies?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:44:39 PM
Romulus, please link to where you have already answered the questions in these posts.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25887#msg25887


The graph indicates that the attenuation of x radiation at the frequency levels he used (and in any energy range)  is practically  non existent at the thickness of aluminum used in a camera case or magazine
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:46:22 PM
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

Asked and answered.  You have provided this data before, but simply providing it does not mean it necessarily has the effects you claim.  You need to interpret the quantitative values in this data.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:47:04 PM
[auquote thor=Romulus link=topic=767.msg25931#msg25931 date=1423021235]
The energy levels of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION originating from the Sun encompass a very wide range of wavelengths (energy levels), from infra red long wavelengths, visible light, ultra violet a&b ,  microwaves , x rays and nearly everything in between

I didn't ask about all electromagnetic radiation.  I asked specifically about x-rays, which span a certain band of photon energies from a lower boundary to an upper boundary.  The quiescent sun emits x-rays most prevalently in what range of photon energies?
[/quote]
Well,no you didn't. You edited your post.AT any rate it is a non issue. The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:47:59 PM
The graph...

That was not the question.  You claimed you had previously answered the questions, hence I asked for a link to where the question was answered previously.  Answering it now admits you did not answer it previously.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:48:34 PM
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

Asked and answered.  You have provided this data before, but simply providing it does not mean it necessarily has the effects you claim.  You need to interpret the quantitative values in this data.

Well yes sir, it DOES. that is IF you know what the attenuation graph for aluminum/x rays illustrates and how to interpret it. But you don't do you?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:48:53 PM
The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

At the same flux for all energies?  Show your work.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:49:03 PM
Jay,

I don't understand the graphs in that link at all, it's not my field. But do they represent all the activity in all directions or only the activity facing the earth?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:50:28 PM
Well yes sir, it DOES. that is IF you know what the attenuation graph...

I wasn't referring to the attenuation graph.  I was referring to your NOAA data.  I will deal with the attenuation graph in a moment, but first you need to show where you gave that answer prior to my reminding you of it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 10:51:37 PM
But do they represent all the activity in all directions or only the activity facing the earth?

The direction facing the satellite that detected them.  Solar radiation is very isotropic.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 10:54:21 PM
Respect is earned.

Yes,  I agree.

So when do you intend to start earning it?

Quote
Now tell me what level of respect you have earned and how your behavior correlates with rule number one .What about Windley and the rest of his pack of wolves? Have they earned respect, or a kick to the crotch?

If you only respect people who agree with you without giving any critical thought to what you say, then you will likely not respect anyone here. Oh well. I guess you'd find more friends on YouTube.

I personally don't care if I have your respect. In fact, if I had your respect I might think I was doing something wrong. But let's be clear: I pay for this forum. If I don't like you I don't have to put up with you.

You believe the others here are violating the rules. How so? Give me some examples, please. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: disagreeing with you is not against the rules. Responding to your claims and asking you to provide proof is not against the rules. Doubting your credentials is not against the rules. Refusing to acknowledge your self-proclaimed superiority is not against the rules.

You, however, have blatantly insulted people many times. I can provide examples. But not to worry... like I said, I'm a lenient guy. I haven't held you to the rules... so far.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:54:40 PM
The graph...

That was not the question.  You claimed you had previously answered the questions, hence I asked for a link to where the question was answered previously.  Answering it now admits you did not answer it previously.
I have caught you before editing posts and although I cannot prove it because the evidence is gone, this is typical of your approach. I certainly cannot answer questions as fast as  five or  six can fire them away without knowing the answers themselves nor even knowing what they're taking about . This is exactly why this method is used, as I pointed out before. You demand the impossible and intimidate and  denigrate your opponent. This is not the actions of man secure in his abilities  and able to use them effectively. T
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 10:58:00 PM
Jay,

I don't understand the graphs in that link at all, it's not my field. But do they represent all the activity in all directions or only the activity facing the earth?

The radiation detected by those graphs almost all originates from a single direction and point, the Sun. However, there have been many instances of elevated proton flux of high energy levels (velocity in the case of particles) that was not related with solar activity or emissions, but cosmic in nature..
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 10:58:44 PM
But do they represent all the activity in all directions or only the activity facing the earth?

The direction facing the satellite that detected them.  Solar radiation is very isotropic.

Well that makes sense, thanks. I don't know what relevance that link has though.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 10:59:50 PM
Yesterday...

I suppose I am still posting because other people are. I am satisfied that I achieved my objective and recommenced unless you have intentions of altering your position you simply close the thread to additional posting. I'm not going to respond to it any longer. If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

Today...

My personal experience with critiquing these photos and videos is that the longer you critically analyze them, the more errors you discover and the less real they begin to appear.  The excuses you will make for each of these inconsistencies will build like evidence in a criminal trial, until a certain level of "beyond resolvable doubt" is achieved. I intend to reach the burden of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that NASA faked the photographic record.

What happened to the scientific method, Romulus?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:00:02 PM
Well yes sir, it DOES. that is IF you know what the attenuation graph...

I wasn't referring to the attenuation graph.  I was referring to your NOAA data.  I will deal with the attenuation graph in a moment, but first you need to show where you gave that answer prior to my reminding you of it.

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

What do you wish to know about the NOAA solar radiation graphs?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:02:01 PM
Chief, the x-ray flux graph is labeled misleadingly.  Particle flux is always given as the number of received particles per second, per "window" of detection, where the window is normalized to an area (typically square centimeters) and to an incoming angle.  Imagine baseballs thrown through your window.  Your window has a given area -- square feet, or what have you.  If a hooligan wants to throw a baseball through it, he'd have to stand reasonably in front of it -- i.e., within a certain solid angle.  Otherwise he'd just see the window edge-on and couldn't throw his ball through it.  The number of times he can do that per second is the flux.  Obviously it's dependent on which way your window is facing.  You can only count balls thrown from that direction.

Particle energy is like throwing a fast ball versus a softball lob.  The faster he throws it, the more likely it is to break the glass.  If he just tosses it underhand, it may just bounce off and have no adverse effect.  Nature is like a hooligan who tires after a while.  The vast majority of baseballs that fly into your window are softball lobs, which he can do until the cows come home.  Fast balls take a lot of strength, so you won't get many of them.  Similarly, in terms of electrons and protons from the sun, the vast majority of them are "slow pitch" particles.  Only a few are zingers.  So for science, it makes sense to measure the speed of the ball and keep a separate flux for lobs and fastballs.  So at some given instant, particle flux is a graph of the rate at which particles of different energies are hitting the detector, so it looks like a graph with speed (which is particle energy in electron volts) on the x-axis and the number of hits for that energy as the y-axis.

X-rays are a little difficult because x-ray photons are harder to slice up that way.  So the graph for x-ray "flux" isn't really a flux in the standard physics sense.  The GOES detectors can't differentiate very well between "soft x-ray" photons (slow-pitch photons) and "hard x-ray" photons (slow-pitch).  It really can only count how much broken glass is on the floor, so it counts up the total amount of energy in watts that's created by absorbing all the photons of all the different energies and graphs that instead.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:04:27 PM
I have caught you before editing posts and although I cannot prove it because the evidence is gone...

So your defense is that I edited your posts in which you previously answered?  And that's why you can't now produce them as you promised?  Explain how I am able to remove your posts.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:04:34 PM
Yesterday...

I suppose I am still posting because other people are. I am satisfied that I achieved my objective and recommenced unless you have intentions of altering your position you simply close the thread to additional posting. I'm not going to respond to it any longer. If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

Today...

My personal experience with critiquing these photos and videos is that the longer you critically analyze them, the more errors you discover and the less real they begin to appear.  The excuses you will make for each of these inconsistencies will build like evidence in a criminal trial, until a certain level of "beyond resolvable doubt" is achieved. I intend to reach the burden of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that NASA faked the photographic record.

What happened to the scientific method, 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.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:08:52 PM
I have caught you before editing posts and although I cannot prove it because the evidence is gone...

So your defense is that I edited your posts in which you previously answered?  And that's why you can't now produce them as you promised?  Explain how I am able to remove your posts.
No sir, you edited your own previous post. It is standard procedure, isn't it?  I believe you could do anything you want with my posts and your own. You are not dealing with a naive fool, M.Windley. I know where I am or I wouldn't be here, and this is you house, as one of your minions pointed out. I'm just letting the children out  of their cages and encouraging them to misbehave  in a manner of speaking, and you don't like it, do you?
 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:09:11 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:11:26 PM
No sir, you edited your own previous post. It is standard procedure, isn't it?

The forum allows you to edit your own posts for a short time after posting them, such as to correct formatting errors.  It does not allow you to edit anyone else's posts.

Quote
I believe you could do anything you want with my posts...

So your claim is that I erased the posts where you claimed to have answered my questions previously.  Do you have any proof that this is what happened?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:12:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:13:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2015, 11:13:39 PM
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
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:14:51 PM
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:17:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 11:18:53 PM
Romulus, if you don't present numbers, you aren't answering the questions.  Science really does work that way.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:23:01 PM
Gone quiet.  Romulus must be away Googling.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 11:24:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 11:25:04 PM
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 (http://simplemachines.org/) 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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:25:42 PM
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.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:27:06 PM
Gone quiet.  Romulus must be away Googling.

I have no need to google anything. My research is archived along with the links I use
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:29:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:31:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:32:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 11:32:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:34:21 PM
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
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:34:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:35:24 PM
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                       
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:35:45 PM
Not even a liar as skilled as Mr.Windley...

The moderator has instructed you to prove this claim or withdraw it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 11:36:15 PM
Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:36:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:37:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:37:50 PM
Oh boy, not again.

Jay, are you a liar?

Is a fish wet?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 11:39:27 PM
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
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:40:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:41:36 PM
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..


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:43:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:44:48 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 11:47:02 PM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:48:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 11:48:24 PM
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.

I am not nearly done with this thread topic. We have a long  ways to go. What I have proved is three things, x rays cloud film, x rays exist in the regions of space the astronauts used their cameras, and the camera bodies and magazines did little to attenuate it. I will add to this several other factors that would have degraded and damage the film and show evidence film is  and has been damaged by radiation in space at levels far less than Apollo encountered. be patient. This is a lot of material to cover and I am begin continuously distracted. I will return later.Keep in mind this degradation issue is only one of several disqualifying the NASA photographic record.  The evidence is staggering in scope.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 11:50:15 PM
I see I have generated more interest  on this forum than anyone else has yet.

There are threads with far more posts than this one. Isn't that right, AwE130?

I really don't understand why the post count excites you. Basically, you're becoming "famous" for making stupid claims. I'd be embarrassed if I were you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:53:20 PM
What I have proved is three things, x rays cloud film, x rays exist in the regions of space the astronauts used their cameras, and the camera bodies and magazines did little to attenuate it.

No you haven't.  You've merely alluded to caricatures of those phenomena and egregiously begged the question.  I have asked you several specific questions pertaining to your claims, and you have largely failed to answer them.  Not only that, you lied about it.  Yes, I question your competence, honesty, and integrity -- because you have made that relevant.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:53:24 PM
What I have proved is three things, x rays cloud film, x rays exist in the regions of space the astronauts used their cameras, and the camera bodies and magazines did little to attenuate it.

Until you provide an analysis that uses correct data, you haven't proven anything.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 11:53:52 PM
Not even a liar as skilled as Mr.Windley can make them go away

Ok, look. I've been very loose with the rules here. But the next time you call anyone a liar I'm placing you under moderation.

Making baseless accusations will no longer be tolerated.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 11:57:43 PM
The elephant in the room is that x-rays are not attenuated by the Van Allen belts.  Hence the solar x-ray environment in low Earth orbit (in sunlight) is substantially identical to that on the lunar surface.  The conspiracy theorists make the mistake of assuming that the lunar surface is somehow "special" for x-rays, so they attack only Apollo.

So the notion that soft solar x-rays (hard x-rays are emitted only during a solar event) damage photographic film in cameras is tantamount to claiming every use of photographic film in space is fraudulent.  We'll see if Romulus is ready to admit that.  Keep in mind that NASA isn't the only one to use film in space.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 11:58:20 PM
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?

Yes.  This is a topic that I have become very familiar with.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 12:01:53 AM
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.

I am not nearly done with this thread topic. We have a long  ways to go. What I have proved is three things, x rays cloud film, x rays exist in the regions of space the astronauts used their cameras, and the camera bodies and magazines did little to attenuate it. I will add to this several other factors that would have degraded and damage the film and show evidence film is  and has been damaged by radiation in space at levels far less than Apollo encountered. be patient. This is a lot of material to cover and I am begin continuously distracted. I will return later.Keep in mind this degradation issue is only one of several disqualifying the NASA photographic record.  The evidence is staggering in scope.

No Sorry, you haven't proved that to me at all. (The bold sentence). I am following this thread to learn, if that is from you great, but unfortunately you really are just like all the other conspiracy theorists I have encountered so I don't hold much faith in that.

Every piece of information that Jay et al present can be independently verified with a little research, I know which ones I trust.

I discovered this forum because it is mentioned in a lot of others, not politely most of the time I must add, but it was the reason I was drawn here because the majority of members are experts in their fields and directly have experience with the subject at hand. If I can learn 1% of what they know it will be a good start.

Can you please start answering questions to their satisfaction because if not you are wasting your time.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: BarnabyMoose on February 04, 2015, 12:21:10 AM
If there is so much of this so-called evidence, why am I reading about it here? Surely people who want to believe the moon hoax would find a broader and more far-reaching forum than this website to expose this entire fiasco.

But they don't.

Because Apollo happened. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that makes me question even the tiniest thing about that fact. If they had something, it would be all over the nightly news that not only were the Apollo landings faked, but that somehow the laws of physics had changed.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 12:21:36 AM
Here is NASA's offical description of the camera used by Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface. Please take not of its aluminum construction, as this figures into further conclusions. Also take note it is more or less identical to commercial versions of the same camera with a few minor exceptions that do not effect it's ability to shield radiation or radiant heat. it is essentially a high grade camera:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

I disagree with that characterization of the presented document. It takes but a moment to find where it clearly states:

The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes.

And this is far from the only mention of how the camera and magazine were modified for the lunar surface.

What affect does a silver finish have on x radiation ? If it is none then you're off topic and getting into factors (I presume radiant heat/electromagnetic radiation) that haven't even been mentioned yet.

Bolding mine.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 12:26:27 AM
Until you provide an analysis that uses correct data, you haven't proven anything.

While arguing that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation in many bands, including x-rays, he tried to resolve his inability to determine the flux distribution by wavelength by insinuating the sun emits in all x-ray wavelengths equally.  But his own data doesn't show that.  He gives us a graph that shows two overlapping wavelength bands, with clearly different deposition energies.  And the higher energy x-rays have the lowest deposition.  He can't even read his own graphs properly.

And when asked to show whether Groves' whopping 8 million electron volts had any relevance to actual measured solar radiation, he waves his hands about "interpolation" without showing what he interpolated or why that was a valid method.  The highest energy photon those spacecraft measures is just under 25 keV; the lowest is 1.5 keV.  How either of those values is supposed to relate to an "interpolation" involving 8 MeV is something I'd love to see him show his work on.

At 25 keV (hard solar x-rays, such as during a solar flare), the attenuation coefficient for aluminum is just over 0.3 mm-1.  That means each successively inner millimeter of aluminum attenuates roughly a third of the hard x-rays that are passed on to it by the preceding millimeter.  For a quiescent sun, typically around 15 keV prevalent, the attenuation coefficient is around 0.85.  So a solitary millimeter of aluminum stops 9 out of every 10 x-ray photons that hit it.  Romulus' graph is somewhat misleading in that it gives the values as the attenuation coefficient μ normalized by the material's mass density, ρ.  That captures the notion that thickness has to take into account whether the material is compressed or expanded in any way.

We sometimes use very thin layers of aluminum as attenuators in x-ray applications.  For diagnostic x-rays, ca. 80 keV, attenuation coefficients are small enough that you can use aluminum filters to slightly reduce the x-ray strength.  And thicknesses of aluminum are used over high-energy x-ray detectors to weed out the slower photons and keep them from saturating the detector.  That way we can get accurate measurements of specific narrow bands of hard solar x-rays.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:32:56 AM
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.

I am not nearly done with this thread topic. We have a long  ways to go. What I have proved is three things, x rays cloud film, x rays exist in the regions of space the astronauts used their cameras, and the camera bodies and magazines did little to attenuate it. I will add to this several other factors that would have degraded and damage the film and show evidence film is  and has been damaged by radiation in space at levels far less than Apollo encountered. be patient. This is a lot of material to cover and I am begin continuously distracted. I will return later.Keep in mind this degradation issue is only one of several disqualifying the NASA photographic record.  The evidence is staggering in scope.

No Sorry, you haven't proved that to me at all. (The bold sentence).

You cannot prove anything to someone who is motivated as you are to claim to believe otherwise. I think we all understand that here, and the reasons for it. Obviously one of my goals is to prove this willful disregard for facts.

. The fact is you haven't heard the entire film degradation disqualification as of yet and it includes several other factors not yet mentioned or briefly touched up, chiefly infra red and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy. The purpose of establishing the fact that x radiation damages film will become evident to you if it hasn't already. The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less  with the protections it had. It is not nearly a valid comparison to low earth orbit. And what we see instead is zero evidence of radiation fogging. this is an impossibility.                                                     


I am following this thread to learn, if that is from you great, but unfortunately you really are just like all the other conspiracy theorists I have encountered so I don't hold much faith in that.

Every piece of information that Jay et al present can be independently verified with a little research, I know which ones I trust.

[/quote]
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:37:01 AM
Until you provide an analysis that uses correct data, you haven't proven anything.

While arguing that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation in many bands, including x-rays, he tried to resolve his inability to determine the flux distribution by wavelength by insinuating the sun emits in all x-ray wavelengths equally

I  know you are baiting me to call you a liar because you wish to prevent me from presenting evidence, so I won't allow you to manipulate me in that manner.What I will say is this: Show your evidence of this bolded claim . this is                  consistent pattern with you to misrepresent what your opponent says, and it is indicative of your lack of character                                 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 12:38:03 AM
Romulus, in your reply #4 on this thread, you wrote:
Quote
And yet we see no evidence of radiation fogging in the Apollo Hasslebad/Ectachrome photography:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5860.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5861.jpg

{Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.)...
Why do you say the photographs cited were "totally undeveloped" in large parts?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 04, 2015, 12:39:48 AM
Hmm - let me look at the thread title....

Well, it's pretty simple. The answer is no.

Our special new friend has spent a lot of time sniping at Jay, whining about how horrible we are to him, and trying to make someone else's mangled claims about x-rays. This is off topic. The topic is about evidence of fabrication - where is the evidence? So far all we have is the case of the dog in the night without giving us any proof that is either night or that there was a dog.

If the topic were to be about the damage radiation in space does to camera film, then I always like to cite Lunar Orbiter, which also managed to take many hundreds of photographs and develop them in space without the problems the OP claims should be there.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 12:40:30 AM
The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less...

Groves tested only x-rays.  Why then is not film in low Earth orbit destroyed merely from x-rays?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:42:02 AM
Romulus, in your reply #4 on this thread, you wrote:
Quote
And yet we see no evidence of radiation fogging in the Apollo Hasslebad/Ectachrome photography:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5860.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5861.jpg

{Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.)...
Why do you say the photographs cited were "totally undeveloped" in large parts?

If you look a the photos  I referenced you will see they have very large areas with no light exposure at all (hard shade shadows), or very low light exposure if it is there. the purpose of using these examples is that if even a very minor degree of x radiation fogging existed, it would be evident in theses examples.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 12:46:39 AM
... and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy.

Wrong.  Bremsstrahlung radiation is quite soft.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 12:47:38 AM

. The fact is you haven't heard the entire film degradation disqualification as of yet and it includes several other factors not yet mentioned or briefly touched up, chiefly infra red and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy. The purpose of establishing the fact that x radiation damages film will become evident to you if it hasn't already. The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less  with the protections it had. It is not nearly a valid comparison to low earth orbit. And what we see instead is zero evidence of radiation fogging. this is an impossibility.                                                     


I am following this thread to learn, if that is from you great, but unfortunately you really are just like all the other conspiracy theorists I have encountered so I don't hold much faith in that.

Every piece of information that Jay et al present can be independently verified with a little research, I know which ones I trust.


Italics mine. It is not necessary to muddy the waters by bringing in these other sources and/or qualifications. You've already characterized the solar output by itself -- the x-ray output of the quiet sun alone -- is of the same magnitude as therapeutic x-ray machines. You've done this in three ways; by pointing at what you believe are accurate and complete pictures of the solar energies in the x-ray band, by asserting unavoidable fogging of film, and further asserting the quick death of astronauts (although the last may have been intended to implicate the charged particles of the proton belt, not just solar x-rays).

It seems to me you have no need to wander off into discussing neutron emission of lunar soils, thermal transfer, bremsstrahlung or anything else. You've claimed the Sun is a deadly x-ray source. I see no point in quibbling about the thickness of the Hassie magazines until you've defended that assertion.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:49:53 AM
The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less...

Groves tested only x-rays.  Why then is not film in low Earth orbit destroyed merely from x-rays?

To answer this question first we would have to know several different things. What kind of camera was being used for instance and how was the film protected. I think what you will find is that film has been and is damaged in low earth orbit, though obviously the challenges involved in protecting it are miniscule compared to with Apollo due to particle radiation. Remember, all I have tried to prove up to this point is three things, Apollos film shows no evidence of x radiation damage,  x radiation damages film, and camera bodies made of aluminum not only provide little protection but actually make the  problem worst due to conversion of particle radiation. You're assuming I am stupid  enough to believe that solar x radiation alone would have badly damaged the film. In certain situations like the 1600 or more  measurable x ray flares during he Apollo missions, it would have to some degree. But this isn't my argument at all.  You have consistently underestimated me, perhaps by design. i really hope for your sake you are not actually as stupid as you appear to be.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 12:51:40 AM
What I will say is this: Show your evidence of this bolded claim.

Sure, after my second attempt to get you to characterize the flux distribution, you wrote:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

Since that still wasn't an answer, I asked:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

At the same flux for all energies?  Show your work.

...which you never answered.  Then you went on to handwave about interpolation.  Since you never answered the questions I asked you in order to clarify your position, I used "insinuate" when I described them.  That word conveys, "I'm not sure whether this is what me meant."
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:54:12 AM

. The fact is you haven't heard the entire film degradation disqualification as of yet and it includes several other factors not yet mentioned or briefly touched up, chiefly infra red and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy. The purpose of establishing the fact that x radiation damages film will become evident to you if it hasn't already. The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less  with the protections it had. It is not nearly a valid comparison to low earth orbit. And what we see instead is zero evidence of radiation fogging. this is an impossibility.                                                     


I am following this thread to learn, if that is from you great, but unfortunately you really are just like all the other conspiracy theorists I have encountered so I don't hold much faith in that.

Every piece of information that Jay et al present can be independently verified with a little research, I know which ones I trust.


Italics mine. It is not necessary to muddy the waters by bringing in these other sources and/or qualifications. You've already characterized the solar output by itself -- the x-ray output of the quiet sun alone -- is of the same magnitude as therapeutic x-ray machines. You've done this in three ways; by pointing at what you believe are accurate and complete pictures of the solar energies in the x-ray band, by asserting unavoidable fogging of film, and further asserting the quick death of astronauts (although the last may have been intended to implicate the charged particles of the proton belt, not just solar x-rays).

It seems to me you have no need to wander off into discussing neutron emission of lunar soils, thermal transfer, bremsstrahlung or anything else. You've claimed the Sun is a deadly x-ray source. I see no point in quibbling about the thickness of the Hassie magazines until you've defended that assertion.
You're confused, naturally I assume. I do not believe x ray emissions from the Sun are deadly unless there is a solar flare (like was occurring a few hours ago). The baseline average we have had for the last few days would be dangerous, but not  deadly. It would take a week or more to kill.

All of the radiation sources you mentioned  figure heavily into why the film would be clouded. You cannot be this stupid.Are you pretending?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 12:58:54 AM
What I will say is this: Show your evidence of this bolded claim.

Sure, after my second attempt to get you to characterize the flux distribution, you wrote:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

Since that still wasn't an answer, I asked:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

At the same flux for all energies?  Show your work.

...which you never answered.  Then you went on to handwave about interpolation.  Since you never answered the questions I asked you in order to clarify your position, I used "insinuate" when I described them.  That word conveys, "I'm not sure whether this is what me meant."

The general pattern is that x rays taper off gradually toward the higher frequencies. But this is totally irrelevant. The fact is the Sun produces x rays across the spectrum and they can and do penetrate mass and expose film. To quantify a precise amount of exposure is totally impossible, but what is easy to prove is the film would be totally exposed by all of the sources to the point where it was useless. You are attempting to create the illusion I have made claims that I haven't.STOP IT
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 01:00:53 AM
The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.

You won't convince many readers of your supposed photographic expertise if you can't even spell the name of the film correctly.

You're off to a rocky start.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 01:01:28 AM

You cannot prove anything to someone who is motivated as you are to claim to believe otherwise. I think we all understand that here, and the reasons for it. Obviously one of my goals is to prove this willful disregard for facts.

. The fact is you haven't heard the entire film degradation disqualification as of yet and it includes several other factors not yet mentioned or briefly touched up, chiefly infra red and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy. The purpose of establishing the fact that x radiation damages film will become evident to you if it hasn't already. The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less  with the protections it had. It is not nearly a valid comparison to low earth orbit. And what we see instead is zero evidence of radiation fogging. this is an impossibility.                                                     



Wrong, I started as many have done, with an email many years ago highlighting some shadow flag anomalies. The internet was not as full of CT's then and 9/11 hadn't happened. Instead of blindly believing what was presented, as many do, I decided to do some research. I have looked into many aspects of the hoax accusations and found them lacking in the extreme. I personally don't have knowledge for all aspects of the missions but I knew enough to make an educated decision.

You use absolutes as do many CT's - impossibility, obvious, clearly etc. But in reality there are many shades of grey. You are in actual fact the one who is blinded by your need to prove, a) The missions were hoaxed and, b) anyone who believes to be shills or liars, another typical CT trait.

You start with a premise, fake missions, and you work your way through looking for anything that you think supports your theory. This is a most unscientific approach. You may think you have great knowledge but my guess is you have tried to gain what you can for the singular purpose of proving a hoax. But knowing a bit is more dangerous than knowing nothing.

You accuse those who have no doubt the Apollo missions went ahead of blindly believing what they are told by NASA.

This could not be further from the truth. I have said this before, it is because they understand, really understand the technology behind the missions and because many of them do this on a daily basis for a living that they have demonstrated and have seen things demonstrated that prove the missions to be true and the hoax theories wrong.

Much of the data they would use on a daily basis was collected so many years ago during the missions, certain things just would not work without this data.

You say you doubt the credentials of some here, Google Jay and see what he does and what experience and knowledge he has.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:02:33 AM
The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.

You won't convince many readers of your supposed photographic expertise if you can't even spell the name of the film correctly.

You're off to a rocky start.

I am not a photographic expert, but I an and do know the effects of radiation on photographic film. The grammar nazi bullshit is the fall back of the idiot
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:02:59 AM
What kind of camera was being used for instance and how was the film protected.

Agreed.  Pick a representative handful of film cameras used in space and show how they were protected.

Quote
I think what you will find is that film has been and is damaged in low earth orbit...

All of the film in Groves' study was damaged.  Why isn't all film in low Earth orbit damaged as Groves' findings suggest?

Quote
...though obviously the challenges involved in protecting it are miniscule compared to with Apollo due to particle radiation.

Irrelevant.  Groves applied only x-rays, and the results -- according to you -- show that x-rays alone would destroy the film in space.  In order to check Groves' results, we need to see whether film in low Earth orbit has been destroyed only by x-rays.

Quote
You're assuming I am stupid enough to believe that solar x radiation alone would have badly damaged the film.

No, that's not the argument.  You argue that Groves' results are probative as they stand, without needing to add the effects of energetic particles.  Groves didn't test energetic particles and drew his conclusion on the x-ray component alone.  I've proposed a way that you can prove Groves' results are as probative as you say they are.  That way it so show that film is damaged in space to the same degree Groves demonstrated, in a space environment that includes only the x-rays you say Groves tested.

Quote
In certain situations like the 1600 or more measurable x ray flares during he Apollo missions, it would have to some degree.

To what degree, exactly?  Show your work.  Is an x-ray flare that is merely "measurable" automatically a hazard to space missions?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:03:58 AM
I am not a photographic expert, but I an and do know the effects of radiation on photographic film.

Both can't be true.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:08:21 AM

You cannot prove anything to someone who is motivated as you are to claim to believe otherwise. I think we all understand that here, and the reasons for it. Obviously one of my goals is to prove this willful disregard for facts.

. The fact is you haven't heard the entire film degradation disqualification as of yet and it includes several other factors not yet mentioned or briefly touched up, chiefly infra red and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy. The purpose of establishing the fact that x radiation damages film will become evident to you if it hasn't already. The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less  with the protections it had. It is not nearly a valid comparison to low earth orbit. And what we see instead is zero evidence of radiation fogging. this is an impossibility.                                                     



Wrong, I started as many have done, with an email many years ago highlighting some shadow flag anomalies. The internet was not as full of CT's then and 9/11 hadn't happened. Instead of blindly believing what was presented, as many do, I decided to do some research. I have looked into many aspects of the hoax accusations and found them lacking in the extreme. I personally don't have knowledge for all aspects of the missions but I knew enough to make an educated decision.

You use absolutes as do many CT's - impossibility, obvious, clearly etc. But in reality there are many shades of grey. You are in actual fact the one who is blinded by your need to prove, a) The missions were hoaxed and, b) anyone who believes to be shills or liars, another typical CT trait.

You start with a premise, fake missions, and you work your way through looking for anything that you think supports your theory. This is a most unscientific approach. You may think you have great knowledge but my guess is you have tried to gain what you can for the singular purpose of proving a hoax. But knowing a bit is more dangerous than knowing nothing.

You accuse those who have no doubt the Apollo missions went ahead of blindly believing what they are told by NASA.

This could not be further from the truth. I have said this before, it is because they understand, really understand the technology behind the missions and because many of them do this on a daily basis for a living that they have demonstrated and have seen things demonstrated that prove the missions to be true and the hoax theories wrong.

Much of the data they would use on a daily basis was collected so many years ago during the missions, certain things just would not work without this data.

You say you doubt the credentials of some here, Google Jay and see what he does and what experience and knowledge he has.

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES APOLLO WAS NOT A HOAX IS A NASA SHILL.What I do believe is those who defend it are ,for the most part. Most people do not have the skills to decide for themselves, so they believe those claiming to be  "authority" AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ELECT CRETINS FOR LEADERS AND BELIEVE OUR ENEMIES ARE THOSE POINTED OUT TO US BY OUR REAL ENEMIES.
I understand what you say about shades of grey, and it is intelligent. HOWEVER, some things are absolutes and one of these absolutes is that the Apollo manned moon landings had to be and therefor were a hoax.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:10:14 AM

You're confused, naturally I assume. I do not believe x ray emissions from the Sun are deadly unless there is a solar flare (like was occurring a few hours ago). The baseline average we have had for the last few days would be dangerous, but not  deadly. It would take a week or more to kill.

All of the radiation sources you mentioned  figure heavily into why the film would be clouded. You cannot be this stupid.Are you pretending?

As I noted, it isn't clear if you asserted there was human danger. It isn't necessary to the point at hand. Groves, if he really conducted the experiment he claimed, would have had to be using a source typical of radiation therapy. By accepting the demonstration you have accepted his characterization of solar output.

In addition, you presented a diagram you have claimed represents significant solar EM at mega-electron volt energies. Which, unless a whole bunch of people going back to Planck at least are wrong, would also make the typical output and the actual measured peak of solar output at a different energy range than anyone studying space weather thinks it is.

This is not subtle. This does not require extraneous factors. You've basically created a sun with a black-body curve more suitable to, I don't know, Rigel.

You've made a strong, simple, clear statement. Whether other radiation sources might fog the film is pure obfuscation, and leads one to believe you don't trust your own claim.

This would be a great moment for Andromeda to show up, I think.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:11:28 AM
Mr.Windley, I am simply not going to respond to you until you develop a more honest approach. Your last post is over the top with the innuendos  and nonsense. I already know you are a skilled BS artist. Show me something else.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:13:22 AM
The general pattern is that x rays taper off gradually toward the higher frequencies.

How gradually?  Give me some actual numbers.  Specifically, what is the quiescent solar x-ray flux at 8 MeV -- the actual number?

Quote
But this is totally irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant?  The more likely an x-ray photon is to penetrate a given thickness of aluminum, the less likely it is to be encountered during a space mission.  You are trying to downplay this relationship as if it doesn't matter.  Prove that it doesn't matter.

Quote
The fact is the Sun produces x rays across the spectrum and they can and do penetrate mass and expose film.

You're sidestepping the quantitative factor and once again trying to make it a yes-or-no question.  You don't get to beg the question that the numbers just somehow work out to be what you need them to be.

Quote
To quantify a precise amount of exposure is totally impossible...

Why?

Quote
...but what is easy to prove is the film would be totally exposed by all of the sources to the point where it was useless.  You are attempting to create the illusion I have made claims that I haven't.STOP IT

No, you're trying to move the goalposts.

Your original post didn't refer to "all of the sources."  It referred only to David Groves and his experiment with 25-100 rem of 8 MeV x-rays using a completely different kind of camera.  You claimed this alone was probative.  On the subject of other sources of radiation such as energetic electrons or protons you have provided absolutely no experiment or data of any kind.  You have simply begged the question that it would be disastrous.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:14:31 AM

You're confused, naturally I assume. I do not believe x ray emissions from the Sun are deadly unless there is a solar flare (like was occurring a few hours ago). The baseline average we have had for the last few days would be dangerous, but not  deadly. It would take a week or more to kill.

All of the radiation sources you mentioned  figure heavily into why the film would be clouded. You cannot be this stupid.Are you pretending?

As I noted, it isn't clear if you asserted there was human danger. It isn't necessary to the point at hand. Groves, if he really conducted the experiment he claimed, would have had to be using a source typical of radiation therapy. By accepting the demonstration you have accepted his characterization of solar output.

In addition, you presented a diagram you have claimed represents significant solar EM at mega-electron volt energies. Which, unless a whole bunch of people going back to Planck at least are wrong, would also make the typical output and the actual measured peak of solar output at a different energy range than anyone studying space weather thinks it is.

This is not subtle. This does not require extraneous factors. You've basically created a sun with a black-body curve more suitable to, I don't know, Rigel.

You've made a strong, simple, clear statement. Whether other radiation sources might fog the film is pure obfuscation, and leads one to believe you don't trust your own claim.

This would be a great moment for Andromeda to show up, I think.

I have done NO SUCH THING. I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film. i think we all should already know that, but it is one of the steps in the proof. Precise quantitative measurements are impossible, but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:17:06 AM
Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 01:17:14 AM

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES APOLLO WAS NOT A HOAX IS A NASA SHILL.What I do believe is those who defend it are ,for the most part. Most people do not have the skills to decide for themselves, so they believe those claiming to be  "authority" AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ELECT CRETINS FOR LEADERS AND BELIEVE OUR ENEMIES ARE THOSE POINTED OUT TO US BY OUR REAL ENEMIES.
I understand what you say about shades of grey, and it is intelligent. HOWEVER, some things are absolutes and one of these absolutes is that the Apollo manned moon landings had to be and therefor were a hoax.


And there is one of your problems, I rest my case on that fact. Now your problem is that those who defend it do have the skills to decide for themselves.

Scientists and Engineers are not politicians, they don't get elected, they are employed on the merits of their knowledge because their is a need. If I was Boeing, I wouldn't want to employ a senator to design my next aircraft and I wouldn't employ a self taught 'student of science' to build a satellite. I would employ qualified professionals such as the ones who are members here.



Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:17:57 AM
Mr.Windley, I am simply not going to respond to you until you develop a more honest approach.

Sooner or later most hoax claimants have had to invent some excuse for not needing to respond to me.  I don't recognize you as the arbiter of what constitutes honesty, so for the purposes of posting to this forum I'll stick with the moderator's judgment on that point.  If you feel my approach is dishonest enough to warrant absolving you of your responsibility to answer, make your case to him.  I'm not interested in your incessant posturing and insults.

Quote
Your last post is over the top with the innuendos  and nonsense.

Then either rebut it or report it.  But quit whining.

Quote
I already know you are a skilled BS artist. Show me something else.

You mean like the actual attenuation factors in aluminum for the radiation measured by the satellites that produced your data?  Odd how you didn't address that, after claiming that solar radiation would go through aluminum "like it wasn't there."
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:19:05 AM
Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.

So in other words you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to anything that is an inconvenient truth.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:19:47 AM
Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.

I'm not going to stop responding to you.  That means all those readers whom you apparently hope to impress with your much-vaunted intellectual superiority will get to read only my side of whatever dispute or discussion exists between us.  Suit yourself.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:20:05 AM

The general pattern is that x rays taper off gradually toward the higher frequencies. But this is totally irrelevant. The fact is the Sun produces x rays across the spectrum and they can and do penetrate mass and expose film. To quantify a precise amount of exposure is totally impossible, but what is easy to prove is the film would be totally exposed by all of the sources to the point where it was useless. You are attempting to create the illusion I have made claims that I haven't.STOP IT

Ridiculous.

Even the "No safe level" myth wouldn't produce this. I've eaten potassium 40 and inhaled radon daughters and had pions fly through my body and no-one is the least bit surprised I am still alive.

The fact that some x-rays of some energy may have breached a film magazine is not a fact that the film is instantly and totally destroyed. You need sufficient events of sufficient energy to reach a detection threshold. And people who aren't functionally innumerate can and do work out those numbers.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:21:09 AM
... but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

You haven't shown that yet.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:24:22 AM

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES APOLLO WAS NOT A HOAX IS A NASA SHILL.What I do believe is those who defend it are ,for the most part. Most people do not have the skills to decide for themselves, so they believe those claiming to be  "authority" AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ELECT CRETINS FOR LEADERS AND BELIEVE OUR ENEMIES ARE THOSE POINTED OUT TO US BY OUR REAL ENEMIES.
I understand what you say about shades of grey, and it is intelligent. HOWEVER, some things are absolutes and one of these absolutes is that the Apollo manned moon landings had to be and therefor were a hoax.


And there is one of your problems, I rest my case on that fact. Now your problem is that those who defend it do have the skills to decide for themselves.



I believe for the most part they do realize they are defending a lie. If they didn't have that ability themselves to decide, after doing this for years they would be thoroughly convinced. I have seen how they discount the evidence, and it is simply dishonest. Sometimes they seem like religious fanatics defending their faith.

  With people like Windley I am certain of it. Whether they have the skills an ability to know they are lying or not is not the issue, really. When I see them try to claim some lame excuse why the shadows of two objects are at greatly differing angles and I KNOW it is because the source of light is  much closer to both than the Sun,                                            I know they must see the same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:27:50 AM
I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film.

That's too simplistic a characterization.  Groves proved that x-rays of a certain photon energy and flux would damage film in a different container.  But you're trying to apply that to x-rays of a different photon energy, a different flux, and applied to a different camera.  This is science; numbers matter.  You are utterly unwilling to consider the ways in which Groves' experiment says nothing about Apollo film.

Quote
I think we all should already know that...

Once again you're trying to foist a simplistic answer.  Dumbing down the problem to where you don't have to actually calculate anything doesn't mean you automatically get a quantitative vindication.  That's just putting your head in the sand.

Quote
...but it is one of the steps in the proof.

And all the steps have to function.  You don't get to abandon this one and move on to the next one just because you don't like how this one is going.

Quote
Precise quantitative measurements are impossible...

Why?

Quote
...but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

No, you can't show it.  For the x-ray component of the radiation environment you have only Groves.  For the particle component of the radiation environment you have nothing.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:28:31 AM

I have done NO SUCH THING. I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film. i think we all should already know that, but it is one of the steps in the proof. Precise quantitative measurements are impossible, but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

Groves would disagree with you. He knew he had an 8 mEV machine and he knew how long he left it running. Any half-way competent radio-therapist could tell you how much energy that would deposit in soft tissue, and how much a thin sheet of aluminium (which is used in therapy for precise control of the depth of penetration in said tissues) will attenuate it.

And Groves knows his film fogged. It would be trivial for Groves to design a standard for "fogged beyond usefulness" and then to experiment until he found the average exposure time necessary to achieve that goal.

Once again, it isn't necessary to describe the actual cislunar radiation environment in detail, or the actual camera and magazine in any way, to test if your claim of a death sun stands up to any widely accepted description of solar activity.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:30:49 AM
I've eaten potassium 40 and inhaled radon daughters and had pions fly through my body and no-one is the least bit surprised I am still alive.

The fact that some x-rays of some energy may have breached a film magazine is not a fact that the film is instantly and totally destroyed. You need sufficient events of sufficient energy to reach a detection threshold. And people who aren't functionally innumerate can and do work out those numbers.

Let me see YOUR work. The fact is you cannot. You do not have the skills neccessary to do anything close to that level of  competence.  Your soliloquy  about being exposed to low level radiation has nothing to  do with the subject, either. You add very little to the conversation besides distractions and nonsense. If you had even a moderate degree of knowledge you would realize the fact that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers in the enviroment they claimed they did so is a LIE
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:32:42 AM
With people like Windley I am certain of it.

Of course you're not.  You just make up whatever you need to about me.

Quote
...I know they must see the same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I do.  You cannot conceive that there could be a rational alternative to your belief.  You apparently cannot distinguish belief from fact.  Anyone who doesn't agree with what you is ipso facto lying.  Yes, I really mean that last sentence.  Your definition of whether someone is lying or not is whether they have agreed with you or not.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:34:17 AM

I have done NO SUCH THING. I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film. i think we all should already know that, but it is one of the steps in the proof. Precise quantitative measurements are impossible, but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

Groves would disagree with you. He knew he had an 8 mEV machine and he knew how long he left it running. Any half-way competent radio-therapist could tell you how much energy that would deposit in soft tissue, and how much a thin sheet of aluminium (which is used in therapy for precise control of the depth of penetration in said tissues) will attenuate it.

And Groves knows his film fogged. It would be trivial for Groves to design a standard for "fogged beyond usefulness" and then to experiment until he found the average exposure time necessary to achieve that goal.

Once again, it isn't necessary to describe the actual cislunar radiation environment in detail, or the actual camera and magazine in any way, to test if your claim of a death sun stands up to any widely accepted description of solar activity.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 01:34:27 AM

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES APOLLO WAS NOT A HOAX IS A NASA SHILL.What I do believe is those who defend it are ,for the most part. Most people do not have the skills to decide for themselves, so they believe those claiming to be  "authority" AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ELECT CRETINS FOR LEADERS AND BELIEVE OUR ENEMIES ARE THOSE POINTED OUT TO US BY OUR REAL ENEMIES.
I understand what you say about shades of grey, and it is intelligent. HOWEVER, some things are absolutes and one of these absolutes is that the Apollo manned moon landings had to be and therefor were a hoax.


And there is one of your problems, I rest my case on that fact. Now your problem is that those who defend it do have the skills to decide for themselves.



I believe for the most part they do realize they are defending a lie. If they didn't have that ability themselves to decide, after doing this for years they would be thoroughly convinced. I have seen how they discount the evidence, and it is simply dishonest. Sometimes they seem like religious fanatics defending their faith.

  With people like Windley I am certain of it. Whether they have the skills an ability to know they are lying or not is not the issue, really. When I see them try to claim some lame excuse why the shadows of two objects are at greatly differing angles and I KNOW it is because the source of light is  much closer to both than the Sun,                                            I know they must see the same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

What you must realise is there is no lie. They defend it because it is the truth.

Shadows at greatly differing angles can be demonstrated here on earth, it is easily debunked and demonstrable. If I showed you a picture of shadows at different angles right now taken on earth and created by the sun, what would your response be? 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:36:26 AM
... that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers

Actually most of the photos are poorly framed and many are under or over exposed.  The vast majority of them would be pretty boring to most people as they are just photos of rocks in situ.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:37:03 AM
It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to.

Why?

Quote
And it isn't neccessary.

Of course it is.  If you want to prove that the amount of radiation the film received would have damaged it, you have to know how much that is.

Quote
At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

No.  You have shown that Groves subjected the film to a huge quantity of radiation.  You have not proved that the same quantity of radiation exists in space.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:37:50 AM
It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

And you call yourself a scientist. ::)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:40:33 AM

Yes, I do.  You cannot conceive that there could be a rational alternative to your belief. 

Mr.Windley, I have seen what you call a rational explanation for many things.

 The fact is when you have two objects in the distance in a photograph and a angle between the shadows of  45 degrees the reason is because the source of light illuminating  them is 93 million miles closer to them than the Sun. There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:41:00 AM

Let me see YOUR work. The fact is you cannot. You do not have the skills neccessary to do anything close to that level of  competence.  Your soliloquy  about being exposed to low level radiation has nothing to  do with the subject, either. You add very little to the conversation besides distractions and nonsense. If you had even a moderate degree of knowledge you would realize the fact that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers in the enviroment they claimed they did so is a LIE

I cheerfully agree I can't, practically speaking, do the work. Oh, I could take a pretty good crack at it, but it would take time I can't afford this week, and my results would be amateur.

It takes more than a moderate degree of knowledge before you begin to understand the size and shape of the mountain that is the existing human knowledge on a subject. I have achieved that minimum; I know enough more than you do -- by a comfortable margin, even -- to be painfully aware of how much more there is to learn.

And I'm sorry you can't understand the point. That is the difficulty with arguing in multiple directions at once. It does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it easier to confuse yourself (and your readers even more so.)

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:41:39 AM
There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

...to you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:42:17 AM
It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

And you call yourself a scientist. ::)

If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:44:39 AM
If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley

I understand the problem far better than you do.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:44:46 AM
There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

...to you.

If you can come up with an explanation for a 45 degree divergence of shadows in objects illuminated by 'The Sun" at nearly the same distance from the camera that makes sense to you, you're retarded. Not just scientifically illiterate, but RETARDED
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:45:01 AM

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

Then it isn't necessary to give a precise quantitative analysis. Duh. Do you even know what an zeroth order approximation is?  If you shoot a man with a naval cannon, it isn't necessary to measure if it was a 15" shell or a 16" shell to determine whether he is deceased.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:45:48 AM
If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley

I understand the problem far better than you do.

No sir. YOU DO NOT Claims are hollow and you have displayed absolutely zero aptitude for the subject matter.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:46:48 AM

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

Then it isn't necessary to give a precise quantitative analysis. Duh. Do you even know what an zeroth order approximation is?  If you shoot a man with a naval cannon, it isn't necessary to measure if it was a 15" shell or a 16" shell to determine whether he is deceased.

I believe that is what I said. But then I don't have your "skills", do I?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:47:26 AM
If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data...

Actually he does, and he has demonstrated his knowledge of them many times in this forum.  The question is whether you have any such idea, or whether instead you're just claiming it's intractable to get yourself off the hook for providing a quantitative argument to your claim.

The problem still remains.  You claim it's an impossible problem to solve, yet you claim the answer unequivocally supports your belief.  Explain how you know the answer.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:48:11 AM
If you can come up with an explanation for a 45 degree divergence of shadow illuminated by 'The Sun" at nearly that makes sense to you, you're retarded. Not just scientifically illiterate, but RETARDED

So you're claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto retarded?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 01:49:20 AM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data...

Actually he does, and he has demonstrated his knowledge of them many times in this forum.  The question is whether you have any such idea, or whether instead you're just claiming it's intractable to get yourself off the hook for providing a quantitative argument to your claim.

The problem still remains.  You claim it's an impossible problem to solve, yet you claim the answer unequivocally supports your belief.  Explain how you know the answer.

I believe the fellow Nomuse's metaphor is fitting. If  you're shot with a naval cannon how badly you were blown to bits doesn't really enter into the debate of whether or not you are dead.And what you will find is that if you honestly evaluate the enviroment the astronauts and film were exposed to, that metaphor is very fitting.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 01:51:27 AM
No sir. YOU DO NOT Claims are hollow and you have displayed absolutely zero aptitude for the subject matter.

My aptitude for the subject is far superior to yours.  I just haven't demonstrated to you yet because Jay has been handling this topic just fine by himself.  I'm waiting for us to get to the discussion about the Van Allen Belts before I decide to mop the floor with you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:52:06 AM
Again I have to underline this. You haven't argued that taking all things into consideration, there is a strong possibility that some of the film may have shown signs of fogging. You have characterized it, repeatedly, as a home run, a shoe-in, that the film would absolutely be fogged, totally fogged, that there is no chance that any kind of camera could protect it.

Furthermore, you have held up an experiment using only x-rays as proof, and argued in such a way as to appear to be claiming that solar x-rays alone could and would fog the film in this manner.

Which means you have, inescapably, described a sun much more violently active in x-rays than is supported by the literature. The onus would be on you to either show that contrary to other people's understanding the sun is indeed thought to be that active in that way, or that everything space scientists think they know about solar activity is wrong.

These are not subtle points. They don't require finely grained calculation.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:53:49 AM
If you're shot with a naval cannon how badly you were blown to bits doesn't really enter into the debate...

But you're presuming the naval cannon.  The quantitative argument is necessary to know whether you have a naval cannon or a water pistol aimed at you.

Quote
And what you will find is that if you honestly evaluate the enviroment the astronauts and film were exposed to, that metaphor is very fitting.

Then present the evaulation.  Stop begging the question.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:56:26 AM
Meh. I'll bow to that qualification. Aside from pointing at Grove's experiment and posting a link to a gif of solar activity, he doesn't appear to have made a quantitative statement about solar activity. So no reason for Andromeda to enlighten us about magnetars just yet.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 01:58:20 AM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:00:12 AM
...EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING.

First, the word you're looking for is "perspective."  Parallax means something else.

Second, are you sure?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 02:03:36 AM
As a first and simplest question -- what reason have you to believe that the wide-angle lens used on the lunar surface doesn't behave similarly?

(Related to that -- are you honestly proposing that there are special lenses manufactured entirely for NASA apologists to make trick photographs with? I would think a more reasonable supposition is that, whatever the behavior you ascribe to the lens, it is otherwise a stock and commonly available item.)

Please note I'm using your misapprehensions about geometry here just for the purpose of discussion; to allow your logic to be examined on its own merits. In no way should this be taken as a statement that I ascribe to your conceptions or terminology or accept them as either ordinary or correct.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:03:52 AM
lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.

Your response is that the lenses used in these photos have been purposely doctored solely to make you look wrong?

Wide-angle lenses indeed exaggerate perspective.  It is a necessary consequence of the way they work; it is not an effect contrived just to make conspiracy theorists seem foolish.  The Zeiss Biogon lenses used for most of the lunar surface photography were wide-angle lenses.  Why is that not a suitable explanation for some of the effects you say you see?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 02:04:33 AM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Funny, it looks a lot like shadows on uneven terrain to me. Woah, kinda like the surface of the moon, huh?

Go figure...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 02:08:19 AM
Nice bit of heiligenschein, too.

Is it even necessary to describe lens shape at this level of error? Seems to me that treating the film as a point and the lens as a clear window into the view angle produces exactly the effects seen and disputed.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:11:19 AM
Nice bit of heiligenschein, too.

Is it even necessary to describe lens shape at this level of error? Seems to me that treating the film as a point and the lens as a clear window into the view angle produces exactly the effects seen and disputed.

You treat the focal point as a point.  That's, well, the point of the focal point.  The image seen through the "window" of the lens, as focused through the focus point, is reflected (in the geometric sense, not the optical sense) onto the film.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 02:12:02 AM
Shadows can do some funny things.

(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/shadow04.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 04, 2015, 02:16:33 AM
Sorry Jay, but Romulus is right. Those lenses used on Apollo did indeed bend light and did strange things like focus it on the undeveloped film. Get with it man!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:18:26 AM
Shadows can do some funny things.

Indeed, it's not at all difficult to show how the simplistic expectations of conspiracy theorists fail to describe reality.

Nor are any of the conspiracy theorists I've encountered familiar with the proper method of detecting illumination coherence, the "shadow vanishing point" technique.  Tracing shadows along the ground, allegedly to show their direction away from the light source, suffers from several problems not the least of which is terrain.  Hence it is not reliable.  The SVP technique is impervious to factors such as terrain.

The make-it-up-as-you-go methods used by most conspiracy theorists to purport to detect real photos from fake ones have no validity in the field of photographic analysis.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:19:25 AM
I see that others have asked the same questions about x-rays.

Romulus: can you describe how x-rays are produced by our sun and how their energies are comparable to the x-ray energies used by David Groves? How is solar flare activity classed, and if any what relationship does this have to x-ray energy and x-ray flux?

What other aspects of the radiation environment would have been problematic for astronauts on the lunar surface and what evidence do you have for their occurrence when the Apollo astronauts were on the moon?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 04, 2015, 02:19:46 AM
Oh and sorry for the outburst your majesty, saviour of our people and leader of all propogandists or something.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:23:31 AM
Sorry Jay, but Romulus is right. Those lenses used on Apollo did indeed bend light and did strange things like focus it on the undeveloped film. Get with it man!

You're half right.  The spatial distortion curves for the Biogon show that, to a slight but measurable extent, the lens tended to accumulate that distortion away from the optical axis.  Basically the goal of the lens -- pseudonymously "lifelike" -- was to keep the spatial relationships as real as possible in the center of the frame, then to have everything to go pot at the edges.  Combined with the normal focal-plane distortion of any wide-angle lens, the Biogon could produce some interesting distortion effects in the corners of the frame.  But for the most part it's quite a good lens, still available today.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 03:07:32 AM
Well, time to start a list, I guess...

Things Romulus does not understand.
1. Radiation
2. Perspective

User 74444 over at GLP did this before. IDW did not much like it there. He won't much like it here either.

Contributions welcome.

Nevertheless, you all must admit he is amusing.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 04, 2015, 03:10:46 AM
Romulus:  When you write "x-ray", "x-rays", and "x-radiation" PLEASE write them in the correct way, as most others in this thread have done: with the dash.

When you write "x rays" you could be talking about an unknown, unspecified or variable number of rays other than x-rays.

Writing terms correctly is part of that thing you seem rather fond of but are sometimes careless with:-- The scientific way.

Do you realise that many of the defenders of Apollo at this forum are, like me, citizens of countries other than the United States?  Some of us have never been to the USA or dealt directly with NASA, but you seem to claim we are all NASA shills. I defend Apollo because I followed the space race ever since I watch Sputnik 1 pass over my area in October 1957, and the mainstream information stacks up, for me. Hoax claims don't.

Also, some of the members are unlike me -- they are female, which you seem to have missed, although you've already met Gillianren. They are respected for their knowledge and their valuable input to the discussions here.

[Waits for a reply saying how stupid I must be to not know what Romulus means when he writes "x rays". Which would be wrong. I've  just find his habit confusing at times.]
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 03:11:29 AM
I am not a photographic expert

There are members here who are.  Do you therefore concede that there are others more qualified than you to examine photographic evidence?

The grammar nazi bullshit is the fall back of the idiot

Ordinarily I'd ignore it, but in your threads you've brayed so loudly and frequently about your intellectual/experiential superiority that the error stood out.  From the perspective of someone familiar with film photography, a simple error like that one committed multiple times betrays you as someone with little or no similar experience.

Have you ever taken a photograph with Ektachrome, or used a Hasselblad camera?  You're presenting specific arguments which presume some level of expertise on behalf of the claimant.  Therefore I believe my question is relevant.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 03:26:16 AM
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

I wasn't going to post again, but the level of stupid in this one post got my attention.

You claim to be a "scientist", yet you don't know the difference between parallax and perspective.

You claim to be a "scientist", yet you don't understand that that a photograph displays a three dimensional world on a two dimensional medium, and that as a result, parallel lines will always appear non-parallel when they are oriented in any direction other than transverse. This is something that any 13 year old secondary school pupil would know.

If you don't agree, would you care to explain why the parallel lines this photograph of a parking lot do not appear parallel.

(http://www.joellesedlmeyer.com/img/s4/v69/p1149586620-3.jpg)

If you think this has been faked or some special camera & lens has been used, try going to a parking lot and looking for yourself.

Finally, the Hoaxtard assertion that nonparallel shadows on a photograph means that multiple light sources shining from different directions have been used overlooks a very important consideration...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/imageGen.jpg)
 
....multiple light sources MUST result in multiple shadows

BTW; I AM a photographic expert of sorts. When I was still in the Air Force, one of my areas of experience was the repair and maintenance of Perkin-Elmer Minipan and Agiflite Surveillance Cameras. As a part of that maintenance expertise, we needed to have deep understanding of photographic analysis techniques so that we could calibrate the cameras correctly. After retiring in 1993, I have spent most of the last 22 years in the photographic trade.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 03:45:41 AM
The fact is when you have two objects in the distance in a photograph and a angle between the shadows of  45 degrees the reason is because the source of light illuminating  them is 93 million miles closer to them than the Sun.

And we have changing horses in the G row.  Is the bingomaster keeping score?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 04, 2015, 04:12:48 AM
Also, some of the members are unlike me -- they are female, which you seem to have missed, although you've already met Gillianren. They are respected for their knowledge and their valuable input to the discussions here.

Cheers and thank you.  I'd note that I'm hardly a scientific expert of any sort, but I am, as I've said, aware enough to know that, if you don't present your numbers, you're not using science properly.  I don't consider it scientific evidence if there aren't numbers involved.  I consider it pointless handwaving.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 04, 2015, 04:22:50 AM
Romulus: You might be interested in this photo in a 10-year-old post at the old BAUT forum -- the one that was originally run by Phil Plait, who never had anything to do with running this forum. Or maybe it was his earlier forum -- the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. Anyway, he turned up in post No. 7.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?9059-For-those-who-claim-shadows-must-be-parallel&highlight=those+who+claim+shadows+must+parallel

See post No. 9 for a bigger copy, and ensure you study all eight visible post-shadows.

While we're on links, you might have avoided some of your problems with radiation and film by visiting this web page, which has been there for years:
http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

There's also a radiation primer:
http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html

Both pages are written very clearly by a knowledgeable person.

Here's another good page about the "hoax" by another person who knows his stuff and uses things like maths and science to back up what he says:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/index.htm
Click on "Moon Landing Hoax" -- I can't paste the actual link here.

And some interesting experiments carried out by someone who definitely says he is no photographic expert, yet makes many excellent points about Apollo photographs:
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

As he says on his home page:

Quote
I read Dark Moon. I studied its "photo anomalies." And after I stopped laughing, I duplicated them with a digital camera and some well-known natural laws that apply on earth and the moon. And I did it with no photographic training or awards. My conclusion: The Apollo images were taken on the moon without benefit of clumsy props or hidden light towers. My second conclusion: Some of those Apollo deniers need to learn more about photography.

By the way, please don't think that so far you've actually convinced most of us in this thread. IMHO you've been losing all the way and made yourself look rather foolish.

Is there any chance of you dropping this "Mr. Windley" stuff and using the person's normal username, JayUtah? We know you're not being respectful, and you did say you would, but you seem to be averse to your arguments being demolished. Why?  That's the scientific way. I personally find that being corrected is an excellent thing, because it means I can go from being wrong to being right.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 05:30:17 AM
Romulus, in your reply #4 on this thread, you wrote:
Quote
And yet we see no evidence of radiation fogging in the Apollo Hasslebad/Ectachrome photography:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5860.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5861.jpg

{Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.)...
Why do you say the photographs cited were "totally undeveloped" in large parts?

If you look a the photos  I referenced you will see they have very large areas with no light exposure at all (hard shade shadows), or very low light exposure if it is there. the purpose of using these examples is that if even a very minor degree of x radiation fogging existed, it would be evident in theses examples.
I looked at the photographs before asking you the question... But I'm afraid you haven't answered it.  Why do you claim the photographs are in large part "undeveloped"?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 04, 2015, 05:48:02 AM
...If you had even a moderate degree of knowledge you would realize the fact that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers in the enviroment they claimed they did so is a LIE

Really?

I don't think the following 17 shots on the first roll taken on the lunar surface look particularly professional, do you? But I certainly don't expect many of them to be excellent because I appreciate they were merely record shots taken under very difficult and unusual circumstances without the advantage of a viewfinder.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5871HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5876HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5879HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5894HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5895HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5896HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5897HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5898HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5900HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5901HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5965.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5966.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5967HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5968HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5969HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5970.jpg

Note the effect of radiation in the last one, and remove the HR in the link if it doesn't work -- not all of the roughies have been presented in high resolution.

I'm assuming that as an Apollo researcher you know how to go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and read the captions, but do ask if you need help.

How about all the dozens of boring record shots taken by the Lunar Module Pilots every few seconds from the rovers as they were driven out to distant sites?  Some of them make fascinating "movies" of a kind when viewed in IrfanView (just press the space bar to instantly see the next photo), but most of them are definitely not "professional." How about the many record shots of rocks – many of them being one of a pair for viewing in stereo?

Have you viewed the shots taken by Gene Cernan of North Massif with the 500mm lens? Most of them exhibit camera shake, and you can see, in the video taken from the rover, the movement of the front of the lens as he presses the shutter. Have you viewed that?

And Charlie Duke took a fair few disastrous shots at some of Apollo 16's stations. He took an entire batch of shots of one crater that are all out of focus. Seen them?

I'd guess that there are probably hundreds if not a few thousand examples of poor-quality photos taken on the moon, and that you simply haven't seen them. They were spoilt by poor focus, wrong exposure, lens flare, camera shake, poor composition – all the normal faults.

Naturally most laypeople have only seen the very best photos that were selected by the media for publication, and many of those have been enhanced for public viewing, such as the ones taken of Buzz Aldrin descending the LM's ladder. The originals were underexposed, so very dark.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 07:44:34 AM

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5970.jpg

Note the effect of radiation in the last one
Actually, that's just a partly fogged frame because it was the last one on the magazine when it was removed from the camera. Yeah, technically it was fogged by "radiation" because visible light is also radiation.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: raven on February 04, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
I am not a photographic expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor am I a radiation expert, but I think it is worthwhile to point out that Soviet probes Zond 5 through 8 (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) (scroll down) sent photographic film literally to the moon and back, and the only one that shows fogging is one that crashed and cracked open on landing, exposing the film to EM radiation, sure, but in this case it was just ordinary visible spectrum light.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 08:00:18 AM
Deposited energy is measured in watts, such as the solar influx for the purposes of computing solar heating.
Deposited energy is measured in joules. Watts are units of power, not energy.

Deposited energy from ionizing radiation is often normalized to the mass of the object doing the absorbing, in which case the units become joules per kilogram. 1 J/kg is defined as one Gray. 1 gray of whole-body X-radiation (e.g., 100 joules absorbed by a 100 kg human) is roughly the amount needed to cause acute radiation sickness.

You are of course entirely correct that the distribution of individual photon energies is critically important in determining the energy they deposit in some protected target (film, human tissue) behind some sort of shielding material (such as aluminum of a given thickness).

At about 5800 K the sun's photosphere is much too cold to be a significant source of X-radiation. This is easily seen in space observatory pictures (STEREO, SDO) that show the sun to be mostly dark in far UV and soft X-ray wavelengths. The sun releases significant X-rays only in brief bursts associated with solar flares. The ejected material is somehow heated in the corona to extremely high temperatures (millions of kelvins) by mechanisms that are still not fully understood. Only these temperatures are high enough to produce significant X-rays by black body (thermal) radiation.

These X-ray bursts, when severe, can cause HF radio blackouts on the day side of the earth. The easily observable fact that HF radio works is proof the sun is not a continuous strong X-ray source.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: RAF on February 04, 2015, 08:24:24 AM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Look at you...al shout-y with the cap lock.

You must finally realize how "out of your depth" you are.


So, when will you be abandoning this thread?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 11:52:34 AM
I am not a photographic expert, nor do I play one on TV, nor am I a radiation expert, but I think it is worthwhile to point out that Soviet probes Zond 5 through 8 (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) (scroll down) sent photographic film literally to the moon and back, and the only one that shows fogging is one that crashed and cracked open on landing, exposing the film to EM radiation, sure, but in this case it was just ordinary visible spectrum light.

Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.  The film was automatically processed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and then the scanned images were transmitted back to Earth.  The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 12:17:43 PM
Deposited energy is measured in joules. Watts are units of power, not energy.

Yeah, I was trying to find a way to convey the notion of the Romulus' measurement being an undifferentiated aggregation of dissimilar photon values.  Flux in watts per unit area wasn't getting the idea across.  But in retrospect I shouldn't have tried to introduce another concept without explaining integrating the rate etc.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

Quote
These X-ray bursts, when severe, can cause HF radio blackouts on the day side of the earth. The easily observable fact that HF radio works is proof the sun is not a continuous strong X-ray source.

During last night's debate with Romulus, the sunnier side of the Earth had just finished up a "measurable x-ray event" in the 1.5-12 keV band which peaked at C2.2.  It didn't show on his graph because that data had already fallen off.  Total fluence of 0.000551 J m-2.  The initial spike was a thousand-fold increase in flux over the quiescent value.

ETA:  10 keV x-rays are much less energetic than medical diagnostic x-rays.  They don't even penetrate beyond the the outer layer of human skin, and don't even propagate substantially in air.  Thus for biological effects from solar x-rays, it doesn't even make sense to talk about whole-body or blood-forming-organ dosage because there simply isn't any.  Since the attenuation coefficient for skin at this energy level is practically total, the biological dosage for the 5 kg and 0.8 m2 of bare-naked human skin facing the sun for the whole duration of the event would be 0.000441 J in 5 kg, or 0.0000882 Gy @ Q = 1, or 0.0882 millisieverts -- about 1/100 the dose you'd get from a chest x-ray.

I asked Romulus several questions about the solar x-ray spectrum.  David Groves says he used 8 MeV photon energies, which are so energetic that they used to be considered gamma rays under the old classification!  The composite x-ray/gamma fluence spectrum for a solar flare lasting a couple minutes accumulates something like 105 photons at 10 keV and may 5 photons total at 8 MeV.  So if you consider the average flux, that's a 104 difference in solar x-ray flux at those energies.  That's the "gradual" decrease Romulus described.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:39:58 PM
Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.

And all the Corona satellites, which operated only in an x-ray environment and used the same film base as for Apollo, although a different emulsion.  Originally fast emulsions had to be used in order to account for speed-over-ground effects.  Shutter speeds had to be particularly short.  Fast emulsions are more sensitive to x-rays.

Romulus started to allude to factors such as this, when he said the success would depend on the design of the camera, etc.  But he was unable to cite any examples or work through any quantitative comparisons -- just fell back to his black-or-white "x-rays fog film!" assertion.

Quote
The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

And long before it.  Sounding rockets from the 1940s onward photographed Earth from space using ordinary photographic film.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2015, 01:40:47 PM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this
Thank you for proving you know nothing about perspective and have likely never even looked at shadows while outside.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2015, 01:44:56 PM
Well, time to start a list, I guess...

Things Romulus does not understand.
1. Radiation
2. Perspective

User 74444 over at GLP did this before. IDW did not much like it there. He won't much like it here either.

Contributions welcome.

Nevertheless, you all must admit he is amusing.
Ah yes, IDW.  What an amusing example of pompous bluster.  I've got a word copy of that list saved for humor value.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:46:13 PM
Actually, that's just a partly fogged frame because it was the last one on the magazine when it was removed from the camera.

Correct; that's a sunstruck frame.  When I worked with Discovery and National Geographic on their documentary, I introduced some deliberate sunstrikes (well, moonstrikes because this was done at night) into the roll to demonstrate what they might look like.  The results were mixed since the magazine I used for this was a normal Hasselblad mag, not the longroll without the darkslide.  I did get to inspect the hardened longroll mag though.  It was heavy.  The 500/EL body weighs only a couple pounds.  The longroll mag seemed like it weighed maybe twice that.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 01:49:14 PM
Please note that I chose these two specific examples because they have large areas that were totally undeveloped or exposed that would and should show evidence of  low level/moderate level radiation degradation.

Still waiting on the explanation for how those frames were "undeveloped."  Do you know what "develop" means in the context of Ektachrome transparency emulsion?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 01:54:05 PM
Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series. 
Lunar orbiter did use a very slow speed film specifically to avoid fogging from radiation. However, each spacecraft would be in orbit for months, unprotected from any solar coronal mass ejections (X-radiation simply wasn't a problem). That made LO much more vulnerable than a pair of Apollo astronauts visiting the surface for only a couple of days, and who were well protected inside the CSM in transit and in lunar orbit. The CSM hull was much more massive than the Lunar Orbiter spacecraft.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:10:57 PM
The sun releases significant Crays only in brief bursts associated with solar flares. The ejected material is somehow heated in the corona to extremely high temperatures (millions of kelvins) by mechanisms that are still not fully understood. Only these temperatures are high enough to produce significant Crays by black body (thermal) radiation.

You are correct, the mechanism is not fully understood. It is believed that magnetic loops extend out into the corona from active regions on the sun's surface and these loops blossom over time. This allows transport of plasma into the corona along magnetic field lines. The thermal energies of particles on the sun's surface are not substantial to reach into the corona as they will pulled back by the sun's huge gravitational force. The outward magnetic flux density increases as the loops blossom and this causes them to snap back. There is a point known as a Y connection point where there is a connection of opposing field lines. Above this you get a pocket of plasma caught in fields line. When the loops snap back the trapped plasma is accelerated back to the sun and produces x-rays by bremstrahlung. These are soft x-rays. There are essentially four phases to flare formation and the x-ray production phase is very short. This is the point where Jay and others pulled Jarrah apart at the IMDb where Jarrah was multiplying the time of H-alpha prominences by proton flux.

Firstly there is no correlation between H-alpha flares and SPEs and secondly the duration of the prominence is just that, the time duration of the developing fields lines and outward movement of the plasma. The radiation produced during the prominence does not endure for the length of the prominence.

I am now waiting for Andromeda to correct me on this :(
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 02:14:47 PM
Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.  The film was automatically processed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and then the scanned images were transmitted back to Earth.  The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

Now there you go, see? This is why I love this forum. I never knew that; despite being in the photographic trade in one way or another over over a quarter of a century, and a space enthusiast since my teens.

I have learned something new today.

And this is why hoax believing and conspiracy theorist nutjobs will always be just that. They have no ability to learn. In fact, they reject learning, in favour of the BS they make up themselves out of whole cloth.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:17:59 PM
David Groves says he used 8 MeV photon energies, which are so energetic that they used to be considered gamma rays under the old classification!

Glad you made this comment as I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I didn't give it much thought this morning through my conjunctivitis infected eyes, but 8 MeV is associated with gamma. What was his photon source, a synchrotron?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:28:12 PM
...produces crays by bremstrahlung. These are soft x-rays.

This is what I cannot seem to lead Romulus to research and see for himself -- Even during a flare, the sun does not produce x-rays in the energy band around 8 MeV in any significant amount.  Thus Groves' 8 MeV test source is absurdly too energetic as a stand-in for natural x-rays.

Quote
There are essentially four phases to flare formation and the x-ray production phase is very short.

Last I checked, we normalized x-ray measurements for this type of event to 100 seconds.  Is that the case?  Groves based his test on a nominal 4-hour EVA, not the short amount of time the sun produces x-rays from a flare.  And as we saw from yesterday's C2.2 event, the quiescent flux in the soft x-ray band is approximately 1/1,000 the value of the flux from an event, and would be the prevailing flux over that 4-hour period.  Thus Groves exposes his film to x-rays for far too long.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 02:29:49 PM
Well, time to start a list, I guess...

Things Romulus does not understand.
1. Radiation
2. Perspective

User 74444 over at GLP did this before. IDW did not much like it there. He won't much like it here either.

Contributions welcome.

Nevertheless, you all must admit he is amusing.

Yes, he is. Not as amusing as Adrian, but that's only my taste of humor  ;)

But this thread (or better to say these threads) has another important effect. I've learned more things about radiation in some hours only by reading the responses then my entire life.

By the way, thank you Jay, Bob, Luke and all the others.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:36:32 PM
Glad you made this comment as I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I didn't give it much thought this morning through my conjunctivitis infected eyes, but 8 MeV is associated with gamma. What was his photon source, a synchrotron?

A "linear accelerator" (Dark Moon, p. 540).  No further information given.  In the spectral classification based on wavelength/energy, 8 MeV is well into the gamma band.  I.e., the sort of thing where you want to think about substantial thicknesses of steel and concrete to protect yourself while working around it.  A 25-rad absorbed dose of this is what Romulus characterizes as, "relatively low levels of radiation," and which he insinuates is the lunar surface environment.  Some devices classified as x-ray machines can generate energies above 100 keV, but those are for applications like looking for bombs in shipping containers.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 04, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
Many of the early Soviet and American space probes used photographic film, such as Luna 3 and the Lunar Orbiter series.  The film was automatically processed on board the spacecraft, scanned, and then the scanned images were transmitted back to Earth.  The successful use of photographic film in space has a long history that goes well beyond Apollo.

Now there you go, see? This is why I love this forum. I never knew that; despite being in the photographic trade in one way or another over over a quarter of a century, and a space enthusiast since my teens.

I have learned something new today.

And this is why hoax believing and conspiracy theorist nutjobs will always be just that. They have no ability to learn. In fact, they reject learning, in favour of the BS they make up themselves out of whole cloth.

I have the entire collection in the form of an original 'Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moonm' (at a very good price I might add!), as well as another smaller book 'The moon as viewed by lunar orbiter', which has Farouk El Baz as co-author, is easy to find second hand and not too expensive. I'd recommend the latter as a budget purchase for any enthusiast of Apollo era space exploration :)

The images are remarkably free of defect, the only issues seemingly from problems in developing the film rather than radiation damage of any kind. The detail in some of the high resolution ones is extremely good (in some cases comparable with the LRO).
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:44:19 PM
Last I checked, we normalized x-ray measurements for this type of event to 100 seconds.  Is that the case?

They can be shorter, it all depends, but short durations of minutes is where the prominence becomes active in the x-ray spectrum, whereas the H-alpha emission can endure over hours due to filament heating of plasma in the magnetic field - the maths is horrible but is described by Vlasov's equation. I have some lecture notes in the attic, and they must be over 20 years old now.

As you know there is a leading spike on x-rays flare fluxes too, so the x-ray flux rise and falls as the plasma snaps back. The intensity of x-ray emission resembles a sawtooth.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 02:48:05 PM
The images are remarkably free of defect, the only issues seemingly from problems in developing the film rather than radiation damage of any kind.

Thanks for reminding me; I was going to mention that earlier.  The automated developer sometimes left streaks and droplets on the film, which have been interpreted by some as actual structures or anomalies on the lunar surface.  The Luna 3 system worked almost exactly the same way.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 02:52:24 PM
A "linear accelerator" (Dark Moon, p. 540).  No further information given.

I can't think of a radionuclide that emits at 8 MeV. Na24 is high at 2.76 MeV. So Groves used a LINAC to simulate the moon's radiation environment? Words fail me.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 02:56:57 PM
I have the entire collection in the form of an original 'Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moonm' (at a very good price I might add!), as well as another smaller book 'The moon as viewed by lunar orbiter', which has Farouk El Baz as co-author, is easy to find second hand and not too expensive. I'd recommend the latter as a budget purchase for any enthusiast of Apollo era space exploration :)

here is a nice online gallery of lunar orbiter photos:  http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 03:01:23 PM
They can be shorter, it all depends, but short durations of minutes is where the prominence becomes active in the x-ray spectrum...

Right, no question there.  But I recall that for comparison purposes among flares, the x-ray and gamma fluxes were integrated over 100 seconds in each band or channel so that flares of different strengths and durations could be compared according to spectrum.  I just wondered whether I was recalling this method correctly.

Quote
I have some lecture notes in the attic, and they must be over 20 years old now.

Ditto and ditto.

Quote
As you know there is a leading spike on x-rays flare fluxes too, so the x-ray flux rise and falls as the plasma snaps back. The x-ray emission resembles a sawtooth.

And not just any sawtooth -- big bang, sloping decay, big bang, sloping decay.  The higher the energy, the sawtoothier the graphs look.  In the 2-10 keV band, it's pretty flat until you hit a B- or C-class tantrum.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 03:05:40 PM
Another one for Romulus.
Does he really believe in special cameras to fool people about shadows? Or did I understand something wrong?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 03:10:57 PM
I can't think of a radionuclide that emits at 8 MeV. Na24 is high at 2.76 MeV.

Well, yeah.  When I said 8 MeV was "well into the gamma band," I was being a tad droll -- the scale fundamentally stops at about 4 MeV.  The division of the spectrum into "discrete" bands by wavelength is a bit artificial.  For engineering purposes -- and I suppose for physics purposes too -- a qualitative reckoning works better.  X-rays are classified by how they're produced, and so are gamma rays -- produced by different processes.  So you can technically have an 8 MeV x-ray as long as it's produced by the same physical processes that produce other energies of x-ray.  But...

Quote
So Groves used a LINAC to simulate the moon's radiation environment? Words fail me.

...as well they should.  But then Groves is the kind of "scientist" who puts film in his oven to simulate the Moon's thermal environment.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:17:14 PM
Right, no question there.  But I recall that for comparison purposes among flares, the x-ray and gamma fluxes were integrated over 100 seconds in each band or channel so that flares of different strengths and durations could be compared according to spectrum.  I just wondered whether I was recalling this method correctly.

I misunderstood your first question and see the point you are making now. I'd have to go and dig to find this out.

Quote
And not just any sawtooth -- big bang, sloping decay, big bang, sloping decay.  The higher the energy, the sawtoothier the graphs look.  In the 2-10 keV band, it's pretty flat until you hit a B- or C-class tantrum.

Yes, and the X-class looks like El Capitan.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 03:28:17 PM
Glad you made this comment as I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. I didn't give it much thought this morning through my conjunctivitis infected eyes, but 8 MeV is associated with gamma. What was his photon source, a synchrotron?

A "linear accelerator" (Dark Moon, p. 540).  No further information given.  In the spectral classification based on wavelength/energy, 8 MeV is well into the gamma band.  I.e., the sort of thing where you want to think about substantial thicknesses of steel and concrete to protect yourself while working around it.  A 25-rad absorbed dose of this is what Romulus characterizes as, "relatively low levels of radiation," and which he insinuates is the lunar surface environment.  Some devices classified as x-ray machines can generate energies above 100 keV, but those are for applications like looking for bombs in shipping containers.

I did a wee bit of poking around after he first mentioned the Groves thing to try to get a handle on the scale of the thing. The first strong hit I got was the Therac series. So, yes -- we are talking a machine capable of killing a human being in a matter of minutes under the right (wrong) conditions.

Its an order of magnitude problem again. If we assume film in a camera on the Moon is getting hit with this kind of insult, then you can wave your hands as hard as you like about the tenuous wisps of atmosphere up where the ISS orbits -- we're still talking LD50 well before the average astronaut stay there ends.

To go back to the naval cannon example our warrior liked, astronauts up there right now might be benefitting from the equivalent of a few sheets of cardboard. It makes no difference whether it is "a couple sheets" or "up to a dozen sheets" when you are facing a 16" shell.

And, yeah, I was seeing papers on "short liniacs" as the bleeding edge but it didn't quite intrigue me enough to face the paywalls.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:36:05 PM
Well, yeah.  When I said 8 MeV was "well into the gamma band," I was being a tad droll

Quite, my Na24 was my own reality check in that the moon has it's own natural radiation environment, I was rather concurring with you in droll and headshaking manner that Groves has a PhD and believes that 8 MeV is a commonly occurring natural photon energy.

Quote
The division of the spectrum into "discrete" bands by wavelength is a bit artificial.

Absolutely, at MeV energies it all becomes quite academic, literally and metaphorically speaking. :)

Quote
For engineering purposes -- and I suppose for physics purposes too -- a qualitative reckoning works better.  X-rays are classified by how they're produced, and so are gamma rays -- produced by different processes.

Yes, and then there are those photons that are produced in supernova. Huge energies but extremely low flux.

Quote
So you can technically have an 8 MeV x-ray as long as it's produced by the same physical processes that produce other energies of x-ray.  But...

Absolutely, and high energy photons produced in synchrotrons are usually classed as x-ray as they are not produced in nuclear transitions.

Quote
But then Groves is the kind of "scientist" who puts film in his oven to simulate the Moon's thermal environment.

I recall this from a previous discussion (and Clavius?). I take it the film melted due to convection and conduction heating ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 03:36:56 PM
I misunderstood your first question and see the point you are making now. I'd have to go and dig to find this out.

Don't go to any trouble; I was idly curious.  The point we're making together is that a solar flare emits x-rays for only a few minutes, not the four hours Groves assumes.

Quote
Yes, and the X-class looks like El Capitan.

I was going to say Mt. Doom, but yes.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:43:30 PM
Its an order of magnitude problem again. If we assume film in a camera on the Moon is getting hit with this kind of insult, then you can wave your hands as hard as you like about the tenuous wisps of atmosphere up where the ISS orbits -- we're still talking LD50 well before the average astronaut stay there ends.

A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed. I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1, but he often reels lists of radiation types as being deadly. My favourite was his inclusion of neutrinos. I caught Jarrah with this one once when he casually made a list of dangerous radiation and included neutrinos. He avoided my follow on question :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 03:48:37 PM
A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed.

A point I was trying very hard to get Romulus to see, but instead he tried to change the subject to particle radiation.  On that subject he presented no quantitative data, assured us that procuring such data was impossible, and asserted nevertheless that there could be no question that there was too much radiation for photography.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 03:51:49 PM

A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed. I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1, but he often reels lists of radiation types as being deadly. My favourite was his inclusion of neutrinos. I caught Jarrah with this one once when he casually made a list of dangerous radiation and included neutrinos. He avoided my follow on question :)

I remember this guy un4g1v3n1 from YT. There are several of these guys with this deadly-radiation-topic. I remember another one, something with Dad in the nick (no, not deadly  :))

Seems to be the last straw to grasp for them.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:52:42 PM
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.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:56:19 PM
I remember this guy un4g1v3n1 from YT. There are several of these guys with this deadly-radiation-topic.

He accused me of being a paedophile within about 3 comments of exchanging views with him. Wrap your head around that logic. He has thrown that accusation at others too, it is his default insult. I learned to ignore him a long time ago.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 04:02:43 PM
On that subject he presented no quantitative data, assured us that procuring such data was impossible, and asserted nevertheless that there could be no question that there was too much radiation for photography.

Serial spammer Cosmored used a similar line: radiation data could not be trusted to prove Apollo's authenticity but then invoked the same data to assert evidence of a hoax. He never answered my question regarding the contradiction in his position.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 04:06:22 PM

He accused me of being a paedophile within about 3 comments of exchanging views with him. Wrap your head around that logic. He has thrown that accusation at others too, it is his default insult. I learned to ignore him a long time ago.

I've given up to look for logic. But hey, I know why they think so. Remember, I was one of them, but these tactics and manouvers (spelled right?) pissed me off.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Andromeda on February 04, 2015, 04:29:19 PM
Thanks for the namechecks, guys - I'm honoured  :D

I have been reading but unable to contribute for now (I'll explain later, more privately if appropriate).  Suffice to say I agree with the explanations/analyses of the solar x-ray data by Jay, nomuse, Luke etc.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 04, 2015, 04:45:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 04:49:42 PM
Consensus around here is that, if any of us ever start a heavy metal band, it will be called Searing Radiation Hell.

Yup, heavy metal will create a Searing Radiation Hell. Lead would be a good choice.  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 05:09:23 PM
Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 05:23:55 PM
A Gish saunter?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
He could be in a part of the world which was sleeping, I am, good morning everybody.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:36:25 PM
A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed.

A point I was trying very hard to get Romulus to see, but instead he tried to change the subject to particle radiation.  On that subject he presented no quantitative data, assured us that procuring such data was impossible, and asserted nevertheless that there could be no question that there was too much radiation for photography.

As usual everything you have said I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have actually said, it is you putting words into my mouth. This seems to be a very consistent pattern with you Mr.Windley, and typical of NASA propagandists in general. I never said anything remotely resembling what you said.

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, and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories. They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.....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.

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.

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.

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.

In fact, we have discovered an entirely new  band of radiation that was previously unknown, and the dynamic nature of the space weather enviroment is now much better understood than in 1969.

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.

If you will concede all of the above is totally accurate, i believe we can continue. What has been said in my absence does not require a response, as far as I can see. It is just the usual propaganda, personal attacks and BS.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:37:36 PM
Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:42:16 PM
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.

I recall  many years back reading something about a group called "the Lying BAB maggots" on a fringe board. Do you?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 05:46:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 05:48:01 PM
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?

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

Apollo By the Numbers.

Quote
...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.

Quote
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?

Quote
...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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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

Asked and answered.

Quote
...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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 05:50:39 PM
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:52:37 PM
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.  ;D ;D ;D
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:53:32 PM
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
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 05:54:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 05:55:44 PM
Post your proof or shut up

Are you familiar with the publication Apollo By the Numbers?  Yes or no.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 05:56:17 PM
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.

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

That is evident.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 05:59:51 PM


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. 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 06:03:41 PM
Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 04, 2015, 06:04:08 PM
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...

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:04:12 PM
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                         
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:04:37 PM
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.

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

I made no such claim.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:05:31 PM
I have heard of it.

Does it affect your claim that NASA has not published the trajectory information for Apollo missions?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 06:05:54 PM
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!!!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 06:06:47 PM
...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, and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories.
No, the translunar injection parameters are publicly available.

They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.....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.
What quantitative data do you have that shows the space radiation environment, in or out of the Van Allen belts, is comparable to a "thermonuclear blast"?  Even allowing for hyperbole?

There's another problem with your claim.  You've said the crews would die quickly if they went through the belts.  But all sorts of spacecraft transit and operate inside the belts, using the same radiation models originally developed in the run-up to Apollo, and used for Apollo mission planning.  If what you claim was true, these many spacecraft would be failing not just prematurely, but rapidly.  We observe the opposite.  In other words, everyday operational experience refutes your claim.

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.
Bob Braeunig did exactly that, using the trajectory information you said NASA was "totally unwilling to publish".  The numbers are sufficiently precise to provide an acceptably-bounded estimate.  Would you care to reconsider your claim?

...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.
What energies of X-rays find aluminum "practically transparent"?  What have you done to determine these X-rays occur in the space environment in any significant amount?

If you will concede all of the above is totally accurate, i believe we can continue.
I cannot concede what is observed to be incorrect, nor what is unsubstantiated.  Sorry.

What has been said in my absence does not require a response, as far as I can see. It is just the usual propaganda, personal attacks and BS.

All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:07:41 PM
Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?
Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:08:44 PM
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

It's much too long to post here, but I compute the trajectories here:

Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm)

And I compute the radiation doses here:

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts

It is probably way over your head, but I'd be happy to try explain to you any parts that you don't understand.

(ETA) It's probably too so to delve into the radiation analysis.  At this point in time we seem to be focusing on the trajectory part.  We'll get to the Van Allen Belts later.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:11:56 PM
Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

You were not asked to speculate on where and how others obtained their knowledge.  You were asked to describe the sources by which you  informed yourself.  Please be specific.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:14:25 PM
...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, and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories.
No, the translunar injection parameters are publicly available.

They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.....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.
What quantitative data do you have that shows the space radiation environment, in or out of the Van Allen belts, is comparable to a "thermonuclear blast"?  Even allowing for hyperbole?

There's another problem with your claim.  You've said the crews would die quickly if they went through the belts.  But all sorts of spacecraft transit and operate inside the belts, using the same radiation models originally developed in the run-up to Apollo, and used for Apollo mission planning.  If what you claim was true, these many spacecraft would be failing not just prematurely, but rapidly.  We observe the opposite.  In other words, everyday operational experience refutes your claim.

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.
Bob Braeunig did exactly that, using the trajectory information you said NASA was "totally unwilling to publish".  The numbers are sufficiently precise to provide an acceptably-bounded estimate.  Would you care to reconsider your claim?

Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.



All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.

Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 06:15:00 PM
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

Now why doesn't this condition apply to you, Bub?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:15:59 PM
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.

All that is needed to compute the trajectory is a single position and velocity, which "Apollo by the Numbers" gives us.  I wouldn't expect you to know how to do it, but qualified people such as myself can certainly do so.  I don't believe "Apollo by the Numbers" gives us anything about radiation, so other sources are needed for that.  For the Van Allen Belts, for example, this data is contained in the AE8/AP8 models.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:16:58 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

You've been rumbled Bob.  ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:17:27 PM
Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

You were not asked to speculate on where and how others obtained their knowledge.  You were asked to describe the sources by which you  informed yourself.  Please be specific.

Am I to understand you want me to go through every book I have ever read, every paper , every lecture, every  professor, every source of knowledge?

Get real Mr.Windley. That would take me the rest of the night and it still wouldn't be but a small fraction.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 06:18:20 PM
Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?
Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

Actually, and with respect, I was genuinely interested. I wasn't alluding to Google.

Secondly, I have never pretended to have any proficiency in anything I am unfamiliar with, I am intimately familiar with aircraft systems and structures and the physics involved with flight and flight loads and for that matter accident investigation, I am not proficient in radiation in space. I am very interested and would like to learn and understand.

I would like to know the background of your knowledge. We can't all be like Isaac Newton and bugger off to Cambridge in our early twenties and invent calculus. You must have gained your knowledge from somewhere.

I just wanted to know.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:19:36 PM
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.

All that is needed to compute the trajectory is a single position and velocity, which "Apollo by the Numbers" gives us.  I wouldn't expect you to know how to do it, but qualified people such as myself can certainly do so.  I don't believe "Apollo by the Numbers" gives us anything about radiation, so other sources are needed for that.  For the Van Allen Belts, for example, this data is contained in the AE8/AP8 models.
[/quote}
This is not entirely true.  But We already actually know two points that had to be on it , obviously.  THE SEA OF TRANQUILITY AND CAPE CANAVERAL
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:20:03 PM
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?

GET: 002:50:13.03
KSC Date: 16-Jul-1969
GMT Date: 16-Jul-1969
KSC Time: 12:22:13 PM
Time Zone: EDT
GMT Time: 16:22:13

Altitude (ft): 1,097,229
Altitude (n mi): 180.581
Earth-Fixed Velocity (ft/sec): 34,195.6
Space-Fixed Velocity (ft/sec): 35,545.6
Geocentric Latitude (deg N): 9.9204
Geodetic Latitude (deg N): 9.983
Longitude (deg E): -164.8373

Flight Path Angle (deg): 7.367
Heading Angle (deg E of N): 60.073
Inclination (deg): 31.383
Descending Node (deg): 121.847
Eccentricity: 0.97696

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:20:12 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist.

According to whom and what evidence?

Quote
HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

Then you should have no problem showing where his analysis is in error.  Please do so.

Quote
Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

Is that what "developed" and "undeveloped" mean in photography?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:21:01 PM
Am I to understand you want me to go through every book I have ever read, every paper , every lecture, every  professor, every source of knowledge?

No.  But something more specific than simply, "I'm smarter than you," would be appreciated.  Thank you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:21:33 PM
Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow.

Quote
In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo.

Does it appear to be shadow or is it shadow? Scientists don't write like this. Can you see why we don't believe you have any form of knowledge.

Quote
If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

Flux and photon energy, what is the difference?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:23:30 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

Those comments would hurt if they came from somebody had the tiniest respect for.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:25:06 PM
GET: 002:50:13.03...


The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 06:25:51 PM
My very first job was a lithographic technician making printing plates.

The negatives were pure black and transparent. Underexposed for me then was when the black was not solid. Over exposed was when the fine detail was lost to the black.

Simplistic, I know but I wasn't working with colour and that was the extent of my photographic knowledge.

Close or completely irrelevant?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 04, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

Note that those are survivors from within a few kilometers (alas, nothing more specific is given) of the blast who were in point of fact not vaporized.  The radius of total destruction at Nagasaki was only about a mile.

Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
Close or completely irrelevant?

Relevant, but not quite correct.  Is "exposed" the same thing as "developed?"  What does an undeveloped Ektachrome transparency look like?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:31:30 PM
Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?
Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

Actually, and with respect, I was genuinely interested. I wasn't alluding to Google.

Secondly, I have never pretended to have any proficiency in anything I am unfamiliar with, I am intimately familiar with aircraft systems and structures and the physics involved with flight and flight loads and for that matter accident investigation, I am not proficient in radiation in space. I am very interested and would like to learn and understand.

I would like to know the background of your knowledge. We can't all be like Isaac Newton and bugger off to Cambridge in our early twenties and invent calculus. You must have gained your knowledge from somewhere.

I just wanted to know.

I believe you. and I have respect for a man  THAT CAN, and does, and doesn't pretend. But face it, an aircraft engineer is not necessarily educated in the fields required to understand the  radiation enviroment in space and it's effects. I have been doing it for close to 40 years  now and I learn something totally new on a regular basis. As I said before, Mr Windley seems to believe education is a destination he has reached and I have never journeyed to. He is wrong. The difference between myself and  Mr Windley (or Bob) is that I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination where one can claim victory because he is at the "finish line" and you haven't reached it yet. To be blunt, Mr.WIndley is aware he is lying.



I have been schooled by people who have no education at all when they brought up details I had never noticed, an dI've noticed some of the most educated turn out to be dull ,boring windbags..                       

I think relative intelligence is difficult to conceal. People like Mr.Windley and Bob have very narrow ranges of expertise, but when they step out of them their ignorance and inadequacies become readily apparent and they feel the need to begin the ad hominem attacks side stepping and handwaving.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 06:31:58 PM
...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  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?...
No need.  Like so much other Apollo technical, scientific, and historical documentation, it is freely available:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

However, no one stated it provides "continuous measurements of radiation".  Nor is such needed to compute a quantitative estimate, as Bob recently did.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:33:24 PM
Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?

I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.  The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion, while the World War II bombs use nuclear fission.  Thermonuclear devices are generally an order of magnitude or two more powerful than nuclear devices.

The pat is that it's absolutely true here that numbers matter.  Neither here nor at Bad Astronomy has Romulus been able to mount any sort of quantitative argument, especially when the quantities matter.  He relies on categorical assertions such as (hypothetically), "Nuclear weapons are unsurvivable."  Romulus has yet to show any quantitative figures that prove the environment in space would have made photography impossible.  He has shown other figures trumped up by other people, and he has show benign figures from which he has "interpolated" his gloom-and-doom conclusion.  I think the first step would be to document a natural source of 8 MeV x-rays.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:36:30 PM
GET: 002:50:13.03...


The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible because of  personal involvement creates a conflict of interest with relating the truth,  and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence. You don't  ask a murderer if he committed the crime and then take his word for it.Anyone can write a book. I have seen it referenced from time to time. If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.
Title: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 04, 2015, 06:39:16 PM
Quote

All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.

Quote
Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

I've shot and processed a fair amount of Ektachrome (btw, the spelling really does matter, since it's indicative of how well you've researched a subject) in my life.  I've shot formats ranging from 70mm in a borrowed Hasselblad to 120/220 in a variety of TLR cameras, to what seem like miles of the stuff in 35mm, mostly Canons.  I can also tell you that the range of the film was kind of narrow and unforgiving, unlike a negative film such as Kodacolor II or the pro-series films, such as EKTAR 100.  You had to be sure to use fill lighting with the Ektachrome series when shooting in a studio setting.

With that, I am wholly unfamiliar as to how one would "partially develop" (process) roll film in either a manual film tank or automated processing machine.  Further, I'm not sure how one could partially process even sheet film, except, perhaps something like Kodalith (monochrome product insensitive to red light) where one could see the image forming.

Finally, if film is fogged, it's generally fogged all over.  In the images selected, if they were fogged by radiation, I would expect to see streaks of light gray or a gray haze over the entire scene, not just the shadowed areas.

Please respond specifically to these points, Romulus.

edit I made a mistake on a multi-level quote.  The original was from Romulus and sts60
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:39:32 PM
Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?

I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.  The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion, while the World War II bombs use nuclear fission.  Thermonuclear devices are generally an order of magnitude or two more powerful than nuclear devices.

The pat is that it's absolutely true here that numbers matter.  Neither here nor at Bad Astronomy has Romulus been able to mount any sort of quantitative argument, especially when the quantities matter.  He relies on categorical assertions such as (hypothetically), "Nuclear weapons are unsurvivable."  Romulus has yet to show any quantitative figures that prove the environment in space would have made photography impossible.  He has shown other figures trumped up by other people, and he has show benign figures from which he has "interpolated" his gloom-and-doom conclusion.  I think the first step would be to document a natural source of 8 MeV x-rays.

Mr.Windley, I really wish you would cease and desist from this tactic of misrepresenting what I have said continuously.I do not believe photography in space is impossible and I never said anything remotely resembling that.Did I?

What I did say is that I can prove to anyone who is not  willfully denying what has been proved is that in the specific circumstances of Apollo, the photographs claimed to have been taken on the moon were not.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:40:37 PM
I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.

I'm going to nitpick you for nitpicking.

Quote
The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion.

Thermonuclear weapons employ a combination of nuclear fission and fusion.   :P
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 06:41:32 PM
GET: 002:50:13.03...


The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?



Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible because of  personal involvement creates a conflict of interest with relating the truth,  and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence. You don't  ask a murderer if he committed the crime and then take his word for it.Anyone can write a book. I have seen it referenced from time to time. If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.

So basically you refuse to read the data that you claim NASA doesn't want to publish, even though they in fact did publish it? You then base your claim that NASA is concealing pertinent data on the fact that you've never seen it?

Definitely the mark of a keen intellect right there...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 06:41:57 PM
A Gish saunter?
Perhaps a Gish AmbleTM
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:42:41 PM
I have been doing it for close to 40 years now...

Doing what exactly?

Quote
As I said before, Mr Windley seems to believe education is a destination he has reached and I have never journeyed to.

Where did I express any such belief?  You claimed to be a scientist.  When I asked for credentials normally expected of a scientist, you balked and redefined what you meant by "scientist."  I simply noted that you were unwilling to substantiate your first claim to expertise and in lieu of it made a different claim.  The precise nature of that claim is becoming more and more relevant.

Your proficiency in science is revealed here.  Or rather, unrevealed.  You simply ignore any discussion that involves actual scientific knowledge.  There are many possible explanations for that reluctance.

You are being asked to describe your journey such that other readers here can judge for themselves whether the claims you might make on the basis of expertise are properly founded.

Quote
The difference between myself and  Mr Windley (or Bob) is that I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination...

No one here disputes that, and no one is claiming to know it all.  But you have claimed intellectual superiority, which in your new idiom seems to mean you are farther along in the journey than the rest of us.  We would like to see a demonstration of that advanced progress, please, not just boasting.

Quote
To be blunt, Mr.WIndley is aware he is lying.

Prove that I am lying and that I know I am.

Quote
People like Mr.Windley and Bob have very narrow ranges of expertise...

According to whom?

Quote
...but when they step out of them their ignorance and inadequacies become readily apparent and they feel the need to begin the ad hominem attacks side stepping and handwaving.

If you believe you are being subject to ad hominem attacks, report them for moderation.  Do not simply keep alleging it for rhetorical effect.  As to side-stepping and handwaving, you're the one who declared the entire day's discussion something you didn't have to deal with.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:42:51 PM
I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination

Education is a very fun and rewarding journey.  I am constantly investigating new things just for the sake of learning.  It is one of my favorite pastimes.  I've been teaching myself about space technology and space science as a hobby for 20 years and it's been a blast.  It probably won't stop until I drop dead (hopefully not for a very long time). 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:43:32 PM
What I did say is that I can prove to anyone who is not  willfully denying what has been proved is that in the specific circumstances of Apollo, the photographs claimed to have been taken on the moon were not.

You claimed that the photographs would be fogged, yet are unable to explain why. Why should the film be fogged?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:44:00 PM



All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.

Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

I've shot and processed a fair amount of Ektachrome (btw, the spelling really does matter, since it's indicative of how well you've researched a subject) in my life.  I've shot formats ranging from 70mm in a borrowed Hasselblad to 120/220 in a variety of TLR cameras, to what seem like miles of the stuff in 35mm, mostly Canons.  I can also tell you that the range of the film was kind of narrow and unforgiving, unlike a negative film such as Kodacolor II or the pro-series films, such as EKTAR 100.  You had to be sure to use fill lighting with the Ektachrome series when shooting in a studio setting.

With that, I am wholly unfamiliar as to how one would "partially develop" (process) roll film in either a manual film tank or automated processing machine.  Further, I'm not sure how one could partially process even sheet film, except, perhaps something like Kodalith (monochrome product insensitive to red light) where one could see the image forming.

Finally, if film is fogged, it's generally fogged all over.  In the images selected, if they were fogged by radiation, I would expect to see streaks of light gray or a gray haze over the entire scene, not just the shadowed areas.

Please respond specifically to these points, Romulus.
[/quote]

I have many demands to respond but you ask, so I'll try. My underlying "theory" here is that radiation fogging woudl be easiest to detect in portions of the film negative that were unexposed to light, or only exposed to very low levels, as opposed other areas of the negative. this is true, isn't  it ?  (I already know the answer BTW)                         
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 06:46:21 PM
I have the entire collection in the form of an original 'Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moonm' (at a very good price I might add!), as well as another smaller book 'The moon as viewed by lunar orbiter', which has Farouk El Baz as co-author, is easy to find second hand and not too expensive. I'd recommend the latter as a budget purchase for any enthusiast of Apollo era space exploration :)

The images are remarkably free of defect, the only issues seemingly from problems in developing the film rather than radiation damage of any kind. The detail in some of the high resolution ones is extremely good (in some cases comparable with the LRO).

If you like Lunar Orbiter, you'll love the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP). Several years ago, a guy named Dennis Wingo learned that NASA still had the tapes of the raw receiver output signals from the Lunar Orbiters as they scanned their films. Dennis realized that he could make much higher quality images by directly digitizing these tapes.

Digital imagery wasn't around in the 1960s, so all the Lunar Orbiter pictures you see in books are multi-generation copies of photographic prints generated from the received signals. At the time, the tapes were only useful as backups should an optical printer fail in real time. Very similar backup tapes were made during the Apollo 11 EVA, but unfortunately those tapes were recycled in the early 1980s so we can't do for them what Dennis has done for Lunar Orbiter.

He convinced NASA to give him all the LO tapes plus some funding to set up shop in an abandoned McDonalds' at NASA Ames. He finished digitizing them all a while ago. Their quality is indeed dramatically better than the older versions made from photographic prints. Go to www.moonviews.com to see some of their work; it's also been incorporated into the regular NASA planetary databases.

Dennis and his organization also conceived the ICE/ISEE-3 Reboot Project last year. I was involved in that project so I visited their site in August. Big piles of videotape cans were still stacked up around their McDonalds' building, and several heavily rebuilt 2" quad videotape recorders were still operating. 2" quad was the first type of videotape invented and the broadcast standard through the 1970s. The LO recorders didn't actually record standard video; they were modified to operate as wideband instrumentation recorders.

The LOIRP was quite successful and a real bargain for NASA. They supported the project because lunar cratering rates are a topic of scientific interest, and by comparing today's LRO images to high quality LO images from 50 years ago those rates can be easily determined.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:46:41 PM
I do not believe photography in space is impossible and I never said anything remotely resembling that.Did I?

You say the photography purported by the Apollo astronauts is impossible for radiation and thermal reasons.  You deferred the thermal argument for later.  You attempted a quantitative argument with respect to the x-ray component of radiation by citing David Groves, but your followup to the rebuttals against it are mired in questions you refuse to acknowledge.  You have attempted no quantitative argument with respect to the particle nature of radiation.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 06:46:47 PM
My very first job was a lithographic technician making printing plates.

The negatives were pure black and transparent. Underexposed for me then was when the black was not solid. Over exposed was when the fine detail was lost to the black.

Simplistic, I know but I wasn't working with colour and that was the extent of my photographic knowledge.

Close or completely irrelevant?
There is little or nothing which will give you a finer appreciation for colour than operating in a print environment. I bear the scars on my back from years ago.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:48:07 PM
What I did say is that I can prove to anyone who is not  willfully denying what has been proved is that in the specific circumstances of Apollo, the photographs claimed to have been taken on the moon were not.

You claimed that the photographs would be fogged, yet are unable to explain why. Why should the film be fogged?

It's really simple. It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film. It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging, and yet there is zero evidence of it in the places where it would be easiest to detect even if it were very very minor.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 04, 2015, 06:50:01 PM
Since I jazzed a quote, bear with me.  I'll grant that "light (as in "not severe") fogging might be easier to detect in a dark area, I would contend that it would be evident elsewhere, such as contrasting areas of the Mylar, etc.

I am still curious as to how one would under develop portions of an Ektachrome transparency, and know, in advance where to do it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 06:50:30 PM

I believe you. and I have respect for a man  THAT CAN, and does, and doesn't pretend. But face it, an aircraft engineer is not necessarily educated in the fields required to understand the  radiation enviroment in space and it's effects. I have been doing it for close to 40 years  now and I learn something totally new on a regular basis. As I said before, Mr Windley seems to believe education is a destination he has reached and I have never journeyed to. He is wrong. The difference between myself and  Mr Windley (or Bob) is that I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination where one can claim victory because he is at the "finish line" and you haven't reached it yet. To be blunt, Mr.WIndley is aware he is lying.



I have been schooled by people who have no education at all when they brought up details I had never noticed, an dI've noticed some of the most educated turn out to be dull ,boring windbags..                       

I think relative intelligence is difficult to conceal. People like Mr.Windley and Bob have very narrow ranges of expertise, but when they step out of them their ignorance and inadequacies become readily apparent and they feel the need to begin the ad hominem attacks side stepping and handwaving.

Actually an Aircraft Engineer has no need to know about radiation in space at all. That's a bit of a wasted statement. For my personal interest I would like to know more.

I afraid to say that, even if Jay and Bob have narrow ranges of expertise, which I cannot comment on, I don't get the impression that either of them consider themselves 'completely educated'.

Considering they are specialists in their fields, and again, have put the theory to the test. They may know more than you on this subject.

If you see a red car but you decide it might not be red, but experts in the field say it is red because of their experience and knowledge, it does not mean that they have to keep learning more about it to be sure. The car is red. It is a fact and it was theie knowledge and experience which lead them to that conclusion.

Now if you still insist that the car is not red, you need to prove it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:50:47 PM
Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

Quote
...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:52:08 PM
It's really simple. It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

How much?  Give me a number and show how you derived that number.

Quote
It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging...

You haven't shown this.  You've only shown that you read Groves and believed him without question, and that you do not know the flux densities of solar emissions across the spectrum.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:53:11 PM
It's really simple.

Then explain it to us if it so simple, but please offer quantification as that is how radiation sciences are measured, according to well defined parameters.

Quote
It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

How much is minute? Do you account for the photon energies?

Quote
It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging, and yet there is zero evidence of it in the places where it would be easiest to detect even if it were very very minor.

Why is it impossible?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:53:41 PM
I do not believe photography in space is impossible and I never said anything remotely resembling that.Did I?

You say the photography purported by the Apollo astronauts is impossible for radiation and thermal reasons.  You deferred the thermal argument for later.  You attempted a quantitative argument with respect to the x-ray component of radiation by citing David Groves, but your followup to the rebuttals against it are mired in questions you refuse to acknowledge.  You have attempted no quantitative argument with respect to the particle nature of radiation.

I am not using David Groves for anything but to establish something as fact that we should all already know, that very tiny amounts of x ray radiation exposure can be detected by film and will be evident in developed photographs from negatives exposed to radiation. You are carefully skirting admitting this. The effects of x radiation on chemical emulsion film is how it was discovered in the first place. Many dosimeters work on this principal. Admit it, X radiation fogs photographic film in detectable ways in very tiny amounts and there is not a single example of radiation fogging in the photographs from Apollo where it should be most evident.Putting aside personal interests, this seems a bit suspicious to you, doesn't it Mr.Windley?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 06:55:19 PM
It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging

You keep saying that but we're still waiting for you to provide some quantitative poof.  So far you've presented nothing that supports your ascertain.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 06:56:02 PM
It's really simple.

Then explain it to us if it so simple, but please offer quantification as that is how radiation sciences are measured, according to well defined parameters.

Quote
It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

How much is minute? Do you account for the photon energies?

Quote
It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging, and yet there is zero evidence of it in the places where it would be easiest to detect even if it were very very minor.

Why is it impossible?
X radiation of any wavelength is very damaging to film in minute quantities. X rays were discovered with their effects on  photographic film .
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 04, 2015, 06:56:50 PM



All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.

Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

I've shot and processed a fair amount of Ektachrome (btw, the spelling really does matter, since it's indicative of how well you've researched a subject) in my life.  I've shot formats ranging from 70mm in a borrowed Hasselblad to 120/220 in a variety of TLR cameras, to what seem like miles of the stuff in 35mm, mostly Canons.  I can also tell you that the range of the film was kind of narrow and unforgiving, unlike a negative film such as Kodacolor II or the pro-series films, such as EKTAR 100.  You had to be sure to use fill lighting with the Ektachrome series when shooting in a studio setting.

With that, I am wholly unfamiliar as to how one would "partially develop" (process) roll film in either a manual film tank or automated processing machine.  Further, I'm not sure how one could partially process even sheet film, except, perhaps something like Kodalith (monochrome product insensitive to red light) where one could see the image forming.

Finally, if film is fogged, it's generally fogged all over.  In the images selected, if they were fogged by radiation, I would expect to see streaks of light gray or a gray haze over the entire scene, not just the shadowed areas.

Please respond specifically to these points, Romulus.

I have many demands to respond but you ask, so I'll try. My underlying "theory" here is that radiation fogging woudl be easiest to detect in portions of the film negative that were unexposed to light, or only exposed to very low levels, as opposed other areas of the negative. this is true, isn't  it ?  (I already know the answer BTW)                         
[/quote]


Ektachrome? Negative?

I guess that we can add photographic film to the list of things you don't know about.
Anyone who's ever developed Ektachrome  (like I have) would never make that mistake.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 06:57:59 PM
It's really simple. It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.
No, only someone as utterly naïve as you are could say that this is "simple". It's not.

The time it takes to expose film depends on several factors:

1. The inherent sensitivity of the film to the radiation in question.
2. How the film is packaged, protected or shielded.
3. The photon energy distribution and intensity to which the packaged film is exposed.

These are all quantitative issues. Indeed, your use of the phrase "minute quantities' is an inherently quantitative claim. "Quantitative" means that numbers are involved. (Note: numbers and math are vital in every aspect of science.) Yet you have given NO numbers at all despite repeated requests. Your claim fails.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:58:23 PM
The effects of x radiation on chemical emulsion film is how it was discovered in the first place.

Whoops!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 06:59:12 PM
I am not using David Groves for anything but to establish something as fact that we should all already know...

The errors in Groves' analysis have been presented.  You are unwilling to address them.

"We all" don't somehow secretly know that you're correct.  In fact you're being unanimously disputed along with evidence to support those disputations.  Do not beg the question.

Quote
...that very tiny amounts of x ray radiation exposure can be detected by film and will be evident in developed photographs from negatives exposed to radiation.

25-100 rads at 8 MeV is a "tiny amount of x-ray radiation exposure" by whose standard?

Quote
You are carefully skirting admitting this.

Constantly begging your critics to admit you're right is not an argument.

Quote
The effects of x radiation on chemical emulsion film is how it was discovered in the first place. Many dosimeters work on this principal.

List the number of ways a dosimeter is different than a camera.

Quote
Putting aside personal interests, this seems a bit suspicious to you, doesn't it Mr.Windley?

No, it doesn't.  Do not beg the question.  If you believe it is suspicious, it is your burden to prove your suspicions.  You are being asked a number of questions designed to test your proof.  Answer them.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:00:46 PM
Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

Quote
...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 07:04:25 PM
Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

Quote
...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You should probably read NASA's data then.

I hardly think Mr. Windley's politics are relevant to the discussion. Practice what you preach, sir.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 07:05:13 PM
I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You want NASA's data for the moon missions that you claim they faked while claiming they lie about everything, so you can prove they lied. Wow! Do you realise the absuridty of your position? I'm sorry, but for someone with self proclaimed uber intelligence, that really does burn.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 04, 2015, 07:05:23 PM
Thanks for the correction[ s], guys.  I'll note Romulus has started ignoring me, either because I'm a girl or because I'm not one of his bêtes noires; I'm not sure.  But that's okay; until he starts producing numbers instead of bluster, nothing he says is worth listening to anyway.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 07:06:50 PM
Thanks for the correction[ s], guys.  I'll note Romulus has started ignoring me, either because I'm a girl or because I'm not one of his bêtes noires; I'm not sure.  But that's okay; until he starts producing numbers instead of bluster, nothing he says is worth listening to anyway.

I had to google bêtes noires.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:10:24 PM
Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

Quote
...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You should probably read NASA's data then.

I hardly think Mr. Windley's politics are relevant to the discussion. Practice what you preach, sir.

I think his politics are reflective of his character.I think he's a liberal cretin with zero integrity.
He has already lied dozens of times about things I have supposedly said. I can see this forum operates exactly like all of the others dedicated to this subject. I could go on any one of the many anti-NASA/Apollo hoax forums and post with no opposition but that isn't my style. What I would like to see is just one unbiased and fairly moderated forum where this subject can be discussed without the same people using the same worn out propaganda tactics. Science isn't propaganda, at least not from my perspective. We all need a neutral battleground and I think the time has come to create it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 07:12:06 PM
A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed.
Indeed, but the hoaxers are so utterly ignorant of the relevant physics that I doubt they're even aware of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has absolutely no effect on ionizing photon radiation. The solar X-ray (and UV, and optical, and infrared) flux is exactly the same in low earth orbit as on Luna (assuming daytime in both places, of course).

Quote
I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1,
All too familiar, actually...
Quote
but he often reels lists of radiation types as being deadly. My favourite was his inclusion of neutrinos. I caught Jarrah with this one once when he casually made a list of dangerous radiation and included neutrinos. He avoided my follow on question :)
Neutrinos, despite interacting only by the weak nuclear force, actually are quite deadly if you happen to be near a star collapsing into a supernova. Something like 10% of the star's mass is converted into a 10-second burst of neutrinos so intense that it blows off the outer layers of the star.

Given that neutrinos can usually pass through light-years of lead without stopping, I find it extremely hard to wrap my brain around such concepts. But that's what science is all about -- teaching us about things that are real, particularly when they run completely counter to our experience, intuition and so-called "common sense".
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:12:24 PM
I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You want NASA's data for the moon missions that you claim they faked while claiming they lie about everything, so you can prove they lied. Wow! Do you realise the absuridty of your position? I'm sorry, but for someone with self proclaimed uber intelligence, that really does burn.

There is nothing absurd about it.NASA  doesn't publish translunar injection trajectories for a reason,  because to do what they claimed they did is simply impossible and it can be proved.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 04, 2015, 07:14:51 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.
Yes, of course I know Bob Braeunig posts here as Bob B.

But you said
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.
However, the TLI injection parameters (which you said NASA was unwilling to provide) were in fact publicly and freely available.  And Bob did a definite quantitative analysis with sufficient precision to test Apollo's reported numbers.  Both of your claims are factually incorrect, since the trajectory data is known and a quantitative analysis was done.

Now, if you wish to challenge Bob's analysis, he has linked to it for you.  It doesn't matter whether he is a saint or a sinner; the numbers are provided to you, and the sources are provided to you.  If he is lying or wrong in this case, here is your opportunity to show it. 

There is also still the problem that your claim of an immediately-lethal environment is flatly contradicted by the long lives of belt-dwelling spacecraft that are designed using the same environmental data originally developed during and used by the Apollo mission planning.  If your characterization were correct, these spacecraft would fail prematurely - spectacularly so.  They do not.

All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped". You haven't answered that question. Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.
Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.
Thank you again, but you still haven't answered the question.  Why do you characterize them as "totally undeveloped" (emphasis mine)?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 07:15:12 PM
It's really simple.

Then explain it to us if it so simple, but please offer quantification as that is how radiation sciences are measured, according to well defined parameters.

Quote
It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

How much is minute? Do you account for the photon energies?

Quote
It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging, and yet there is zero evidence of it in the places where it would be easiest to detect even if it were very very minor.

Why is it impossible?
X radiation of any wavelength is very damaging to film in minute quantities. X rays were discovered with their effects on  photographic film .
That is so horribly wrong that everyone now knows that not only are you not a scientist, you wouldn't know science if it jumped up and poked you in the eye. You have, with this one post, irrevocably painted yourself into the corner labelled as "crank". Now you cannot get out of that corner, ever.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:15:49 PM
What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists.

Apollo By the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2015, 07:16:22 PM
Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.
So now you're claiming someone here has somehow remotely disabled your computer?  Paranoid much?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:16:34 PM

Indeed, but the hoaxers are so utterly ignorant of the relevant physics that I doubt they're even aware of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has absolutely no effect on ionizing photon radiation. The solar X-ray (and UV, and optical, and infrared) flux is exactly the same in low earth orbit as on Luna (assuming daytime in both places, of course).



First of all, as I have already established, I am the debunker. You are the hoaxer. You have reassigned roles.

If you've got in in your mind that I do not know magnetic fields do not measurable effect electromagnetic radiation, you are badly underestimating your opponent. I know more about this particular subject than anyone here, and your misrepresentations about what you believe I have said prove it. That is unless you are willing to concede you are intentionally lying.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:17:53 PM

Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.

So now you're claiming someone here has somehow remotely disabled your computer? 
YES
Paranoid much?

Perhaps. Probably not.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 07:18:18 PM
You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

"Apollo by the Numbers" is just a compilation of NASA data that is readily available from other NASA documents.  For example, the following:

Document No. D5-15560-6, Apollo/Saturn V Postflight Trajectory - AS-509, October 6, 1969 (http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/SaturnV1969.pdf)

The translunar trajectory data can be found in Table 4-IV, page 4-9 (page 63 of the PDF).

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: carpediem on February 04, 2015, 07:18:51 PM
If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.

You're saying you haven't read Dark Moon now?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:19:25 PM
There is nothing absurd about it.NASA  doesn't publish translunar injection trajectories for a reason,  because to do what they claimed they did is simply impossible and it can be proved.

NASA does publish translunar trajectory information, whether you think they do or not.  And anyone with a suitably developed skill at orbital mechanics can use that data to derive the actual orbits and show that they have the properties required for a manned lunar mission in all respect.  An example of that computation has been put to you, but you simply refuse to look at it.

Your posts are turning into nothing but sheer denial.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:20:18 PM
I know more about this particular subject than anyone here...

I require a demonstration of that knowledge.  Start by answering the various questions put to you regarding your claims on that topic.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:21:56 PM
What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists.

Apollo By the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.

OH REALLY!

This is the very first time I have seen that particular claim. I see it on Amazon and I see it has a library of congress number.WASN'T AWARE NASA CLAIMS CREDIT!
Very interesting, thank you
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 07:22:23 PM
Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

Quote
...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You should probably read NASA's data then.

I hardly think Mr. Windley's politics are relevant to the discussion. Practice what you preach, sir.

I think his politics are reflective of his character.I think he's a liberal cretin with zero integrity.
He has already lied dozens of times about things I have supposedly said. I can see this forum operates exactly like all of the others dedicated to this subject. I could go on any one of the many anti-NASA/Apollo hoax forums and post with no opposition but that isn't my style. What I would like to see is just one unbiased and fairly moderated forum where this subject can be discussed without the same people using the same worn out propaganda tactics. Science isn't propaganda, at least not from my perspective. We all need a neutral battleground and I think the time has come to create it.

As a conservative, do the rest of us a favor and keep quiet about YOUR politics. People like you give conservatism a bad name.

If you are unhappy with the way you have been treated here, by all means create your own forum that conforms to your sensibilities. Personally, I think you've been treated far better than you deserve. You would have been banned long ago at the music forum I moderate.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:23:08 PM
If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.

You're saying you haven't read Dark Moon now?

I have never read any propaganda pieces from either side.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:24:00 PM
I see it has a library of congress number.

Do you even know what the Library of Congress does?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 07:24:12 PM
There is nothing absurd about it.NASA  doesn't publish translunar injection trajectories for a reason,  because to do what they claimed they did is simply impossible and it can be proved.

You have missed a subtle point. You said you want NASA's data to prove they lied, but you say they lie about everything. If they lie what point is there in having their data to prove anything? You already claim the data to be false. No good scientist would use data they don't trust. Your demands are not commensurate with your position.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 04, 2015, 07:24:21 PM

Indeed, but the hoaxers are so utterly ignorant of the relevant physics that I doubt they're even aware of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has absolutely no effect on ionizing photon radiation. The solar X-ray (and UV, and optical, and infrared) flux is exactly the same in low earth orbit as on Luna (assuming daytime in both places, of course).



First of all, as I have already established, I am the debunker. You are the hoaxer. You have reassigned roles
.

If you've got in in your mind that I do not know magnetic fields do not measurable effect electromagnetic radiation, you are badly underestimating your opponent. I know more about this particular subject than anyone here, and your misrepresentations about what you believe I have said prove it. That is unless you are willing to concede you are intentionally lying.

LMAO, no you aren't. Not by half.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 07:24:34 PM
Why is it that every hoaxer that ever was always resorts to calling their opponents liars?

I seriously don't get that. No one has lied here Romulus, If someone misquotes you or has a different understanding of what you are trying to say it does not mean they are liars nor that it was done deliberately.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
I have never read any propaganda pieces from either side.

So your quote of Groves from it was just cherry-picked, without knowing whether it was a good, reliable source or not?  You are citing a conspiracy theorist's book and telling us it's to establish a "fact we all should know."

And the Armstrong's remorse bit.  You came up with that all by yourself?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:26:25 PM
I know more about this particular subject than anyone here...

I require a demonstration of that knowledge.  Start by answering the various questions put to you regarding your claims on that topic.
The problem is Mr'Windley is that  whether or not you get it or not , it is not going to effect your 'opinion'.

You are one of the most dishonest persons I have ever encountered on the internet while discussing this subject, and that is some kind of accomplishment that sets you apart from the rest.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:30:13 PM
The problem is Mr'Windley is that  whether or not you get it or not , it is not going to effect your 'opinion'.

I didn't mention anything about affecting my opinion.  What you said was that you "know more about this particular subject than anyone here."  Will you demonstrate that you do?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 07:30:41 PM
The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.
Here is the description of an experiment describing the effects of specific forms of radiation on that film, after exposure:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&pg=PA540&lpg=PA540&dq=Ektachrome++temperature+range&source=bl&ots=xxdqsa0TkI&sig=Z7axlu9fewkYKsaDlJdFwKn0370&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5nLRVPm2IYmmyQSZsYKgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ

Ahem! You gave this link to Dark Moon, are you now saying you never read it? How do you know what's in it then?

One might deduce you are not telling the truth.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 07:30:55 PM
What a person enjoys doing reveals a lot about his personality and character.What this forum is in essence is a gang lying in wait to waylay an adversary by piling on, it is more or less an pseudo-intellectual bushwhacking. Have fun, I've already gotten what I came for Mr.WIndley, I think what you have revealed about your character and that of those who work with you is probably more than you intended.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 07:32:41 PM
Have fun, I've already gotten what I came for Mr.WIndley

A butt kicking?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 07:34:59 PM
Can someone persuade Adrian to make a return?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 07:35:29 PM


You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?
Who cares? This is all about facts, not partisan politics. It beggars belief that you would invoke politics as opposition to facts. In fact it is telling that you think politics trumps reality.



You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.
What a load. I have interacted with Jay for years, and you would be hard pressed to find a more upstanding professional anywhere. Never have I seen JU tell an untruth ever in any topic.
What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists.
Having accused unjustifiably Jay of lying, you then proceed to lying yourself. It is difficult to understand that level of dishonesty.
I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.
Yet another lie. You can obtain the trajectory data since it is publicly available from NASA. Your incompetence at finding it is no excuse for your abject ignorance for the facts. In fact, the trajectory data has been posted on this very site many times. You are simply too lazy to look it up, and no, I am not going to look it up for you, look it up yourself.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 07:36:18 PM
What a person enjoys doing reveals a lot about his personality and character.What this forum is in essence is a gang lying in wait to waylay an adversary by piling on, it is more or less an pseudo-intellectual bushwhacking. Have fun, I've already gotten what I came for Mr.WIndley, I think what you have revealed about your character and that of those who work with you is probably more than you intended.

No you're wrong what you have here is a group of like minded people who share a love of knowledge, science and truth. The reason you appear to be so ganged up on is because you are the only one here who is crying hoax. You must have known this when you first posted.

If you want a more 'balanced' debate I suggest you move over to the David Icke forums. Then you can discuss how the lizard people are the true rulers of the world and how the moon is actually a hollow spacecraft. You know, things you are more likely to believe.

You'll feel at home and fit right in.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 07:37:08 PM
Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!)
Found this 142-page document in only 30 seconds of searching on the NTRS:

Apollo mission 11, trajectory reconstruction and postflight analysis, volume 1
NASA-CR-108349

The pdf document is available here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&DocumentID=19700014995

In other words, "Romulus", you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 07:41:55 PM
Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!)
Found this 142-page document in only 30 seconds of searching on the NTRS:

Apollo mission 11, trajectory reconstruction and postflight analysis, volume 1
NASA-CR-108349

The pdf document is available here:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&DocumentID=19700014995

In other words, "Romulus", you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Surely not. Romulus tells us that there is no such public record.

He couldn't possibly be wrong. Surely not. Say it ain't so.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:42:23 PM
...it is more or less an pseudo-intellectual bushwhacking. Have fun...

Leaving so soon?

So a average joe walks into the gym.  Says he can bench-press 400 lbs.  Starts poking all the regular gymrats there, taunting them about how he's gonna wipe the mats with them -- talks a big game.  Goes over to the bench and tries to figure out how to put standard weight plates onto the Olympic bar.  A guy comes over and says, "Those don't go on that bar," and the average joe cusses him up one side and down the other about what a dishonest low-life he is, and how he's gonna regret it.  Finally figures out how to get two 10-lb. plates onto the bar, does a couple reps, and then goes back to boasting.  Finally when all the gymrats crowd around him and compel him to lift 400 lbs., he scoffs at them and walks out of the gym.

What are the chances that guy really could lift 400 pounds?

Quote
I think what you have revealed about your character and that of those who work with you is probably more than you intended.

Am I supposed to cry now?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:44:00 PM
In other words, "Romulus", you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Careful.  He might call you a liberal.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 04, 2015, 07:44:19 PM
Is "my computer was hacked" on the bingo card?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 07:47:47 PM
neutrinos can usually pass through light-years of lead without stopping

I know, it's just difficult to comprehend. Writing this I have been bathed in billions of neutrinos. It is quite interesting that the neutrino burst from a supernova is detected in advance of of the visible light burst, where photons from the latter can take several days to pass through the collapsing core. Here is an interesting article on photon journeys from the centre of the sun.

http://www.astronoo.com/en/articles/journey-of-the-photon.html
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 07:48:20 PM
Am I supposed to cry now?

Why yes! And retract all of your qualifications, and any papers you may have written, and any patents you may hold, and any experience you may have, and any videos you may have been involved in, and any jobs you may have held, and any companies you may have started, or even hold shares in.

Or you could say "Oh look, another crank"

I leave the choice to you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 07:49:00 PM
Is "my computer was hacked" on the bingo card?

I don't think so, but it is another IDW tell.  That and the "you edited my posts" thing.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 07:54:31 PM
Well he certainly convinced me, what with his incredibly large intellect an debating prowess.

Sorry Gentleman and lady, but I have turned. It is so obviously, clearly apparent that the missions were all a fake.

His evidence was so overwhelming, so articulate, wow, where to begin.

Jay, sorry, it has to be said, you're a liar and a Republican most likely.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:57:12 PM
Is "my computer was hacked" on the bingo card?

I don't know that it should be.  To my knowledge it has been used only twice, once against me by Jarrah White back in around 2004.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 07:57:56 PM
...you're a liar and a Republican most likely.

I'm a Bibertarian.  Join me in a drink?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 08:01:35 PM
As usual everything you have said I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have actually said, it is you putting words into my mouth. This seems to be a very consistent pattern with you Mr.Windley

You should stop the armchair psychoanalysis of Jay, and start posting data to support your claims.  Unless you think putting your creepy obsession on full display somehow strengthens your standing in the forum. 

I'm hard pressed to recall one of your posts which doesn't mention him.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 08:03:11 PM
...you're a liar and a Republican most likely.

I'm a Bibertarian.  Join me in a drink?

I'm not familiar with that term. Do you mean libertarian. Or have I missed the joke?

I haven't been to the States for a few years but I would love to go back. My shout and an open invitation to all.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2015, 08:03:41 PM

Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.

So now you're claiming someone here has somehow remotely disabled your computer? 
YES
Paranoid much?

Perhaps. Probably not.

Any proof for your accusation?  Come on, IDW, put up or shut up.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 08:06:14 PM
Join me in a drink?

It is at times like this that I wish we could all sit around a table, have a few rounds of drinks, and shares some laughs.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 08:10:48 PM
It is at times like this that I wish we could all sit around a table, have a few rounds of drinks, and shares some laughs.

Only if we can go for a curry afterwards.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 08:12:51 PM
It is at times like this that I wish we could all sit around a table, have a few rounds of drinks, and shares some laughs.

Only if we can go for a curry afterwards.

Works for me.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 08:14:19 PM
I'm not familiar with that term. Do you mean libertarian. Or have I missed the joke?

Sorry, yes, you missed the joke.  Biber is the Latin verb for "drink."
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 08:19:52 PM
I'm not familiar with that term. Do you mean libertarian. Or have I missed the joke?

Sorry, yes, you missed the joke.  Biber is the Latin verb for "drink."

 :-[, I still have so much to learn!
But drinking I do understand. Single Malt man through and through. And I would gladly share my finest with all you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 04, 2015, 08:40:06 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

I told you last night that if you continued to call people liars I'd place you under moderation. And yet here you are calling someone a liar. You are now being moderated. Your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum until I decide you have the maturity to hold a discussion with others without resorting to insults and baseless accusations.

If you follow the rules I will allow your posts, and eventually I will remove the posting restrictions. If you continue to insult people your posts will be blocked. If you attempt to get around this restriction by registering a new account you will be banned permanently.

Bob has repeatedly demonstrated his knowledge here and on his own website. He has shown that he is not just repeating what he has been told, he fully understands what he is talking about. You accuse him of lying because it's all you can do. You don't have the skill to actually prove him wrong.

Maybe someday you will understand that just because you can make a claim doesn't mean it's true. Simply accusing someone of being a liar doesn't make them a liar. You have to actually prove that they lied.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 08:44:54 PM
Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

I told you last night that if you continued to call people liars I'd place you under moderation. And yet here you are calling someone a liar. You are now being moderated. Your posts will require my approval before appearing in the forum until I decide you have the maturity to hold a discussion with others without resorting to insults and baseless accusations.

If you follow the rules I will allow your posts, and eventually I will remove the posting restrictions. If you continue to insult people your posts will be blocked. If you attempt to get around this restriction by registering a new account you will be banned permanently.

Bob has repeatedly demonstrated his knowledge here and on his own website. He has shown that he is not just repeating what he has been told, he fully understands what he is talking about. You accuse him of lying because it's all you can do. You don't have the skill to actually prove him wrong.

Maybe someday you will understand that just because you can make a claim doesn't mean it's true. Simply accusing someone of being a liar doesn't make them a liar. You have to actually prove that they lied.

Here, here.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 04, 2015, 08:58:43 PM
Why is it that every hoaxer that ever was always resorts to calling their opponents liars?

Because that is the only tool in their toolbox. They can't beat us with evidence or facts, so they resort to trying to damage our credibility with baseless accusations. It's pretty pathetic.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 09:02:48 PM
Great Website, by the way.

It's a really good gateway to so much information. I am going to get pinged by my IT guy soon for spending too much time here whilst I'm in my office!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 04, 2015, 09:10:01 PM
Great Website, by the way.

It's a really good gateway to so much information.

Thank you. :)

Quote
I am going to get pinged by my IT guy soon for spending too much time here whilst I'm in my office!

I am the IT guy in my office, but I still can't get away with spending too much time here while at work (which is why I'm only just getting around to moderating Romulus now).
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 09:31:23 PM
First of all, as I have already established, I am the debunker. You are the hoaxer. You have reassigned roles.
Wrong, but I'll let this one slide. You won't win any arguments by redefining words.
Quote
If you've got in in your mind that I do not know magnetic fields do not measurable effect electromagnetic radiation, you are badly underestimating your opponent. I know more about this particular subject than anyone here, and your misrepresentations about what you believe I have said prove it. That is unless you are willing to concede you are intentionally lying.
How am I lying?

You asserted that the solar X-ray environment on the moon would have fogged the film of the Apollo astronauts. By invoking Groves' results, you are endorsing his claim that the accumulated dose was as high as 100 rads. This is enough to cause radiation sickness in humans, so presumably you are claiming that the Apollo lunar astronauts would have gotten sick had they actually gone to the moon.

X-rays are photons. Photons do not carry electrical charge. Therefore, photons are not measurably affected by magnetic fields. On this, we actually agree.

Therefore, a necessary and inescapable implication of your statements is that film would be equally fogged by X-rays even in low earth orbit, and astronaut travel even to low earth orbit is impossible because of the radiation hazard.

Is that your position? If not, why not?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
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.


The more I read of Romulus/IDW's pompous and arrogant self-aggrandising, the more he reminds me of a Mac Davis song (with slight paraphrasing from me)

"Oh Lord its hard to be humble
When I'm perfect in every way
I can't wait to see what I've posted
'Cause my postings get better each day"
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 04, 2015, 09:38:47 PM
Romulus:  I'm still trying to figure out how to selectively develop 70mm transparency film (essentially positive motion picture stock), specifically Ektachrome.

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 09:52:32 PM
BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.
The specific film type was Kodak SO-368. It was an Ektachrome emulsion on an Estar (polyester) thin base stock.

Here's a report on its properties:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750013526.pdf

This was not the only kind of film carried on Apollo missions, but it was by far the most heavily used color film type.

Edited to add: The cited report describes a version of SO-368 with a built-in filter produced for the ASTP mission. I don't know if it also applies to earlier Apollo flights. I note that the film speed varied with the processing machine speed, but ASA 64 is midway in the speed range so I assume that's its nominal speed. ASA 64 was a common speed for retail Ektachrome; I used a lot of it.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 09:59:30 PM
BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?

E-3, but the lab technicians altered it in some cases by ad hoc methods to correct exposure or achieve other desired effects.  Photo historian Michael Light has noted that camera originals subjected to the modified E-3 process have been more susceptible to dye shift.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 09:59:47 PM
Just so it is clear Romulus,

This is the notice on the Hoax Theory index:


"Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them. Discussions unrelated to Apollo are not allowed in this section."

You are yet to provide a defence.

Or much of anything else for that matter, except for calling everyone liars.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 10:05:55 PM
Why is it that every hoaxer that ever was always resorts to calling their opponents liars?

When that's the only ammunition you have, you use it.  Remember when the goofy, arrogant aliens used their laser weapons against the Enterprise? 

 :P
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 10:10:09 PM
Yeah, and some of them use cloaking devices............
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 10:36:18 PM
Romulus:  I'm still trying to figure out how to selectively develop 70mm transparency film (essentially positive motion picture stock), specifically Ektachrome.

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.

A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome film used by NASA was processed  E2 or E3.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 10:38:34 PM
A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome 120 medium format film used by NASA was E2 or E3.
K14 was the late, great Kodachrome as I recall. Completely different stuff from Ektachrome.

That SO-368 report I cited refers to Kodak processes ME-4 and EA-5.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Count Zero on February 04, 2015, 10:44:31 PM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

I'm getting a kick out of the discussion of this photo.  I took it early on a lovely morning on Molokai in late December of 2009.  Note that my brother Sam is carrying Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark".

I took it with an ordinary Canon Powershot SD1100IS purchased (iirc) at Walmart.  The zoomed-out field-of-view is ~60 degrees from side-to-side, which is only slightly more than the ~53 degree field-of-view on the Apollo surface cameras.

I took it to illustrate the effect of perspective and uneven terrain on parallel shadows, heiligenschein, and zero-angle effect and posted it on ATS, where I go by "Saint Exupery".

I find it hilarious that Romulus' description is egregiously wrong on nearly every point.  :D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 10:57:55 PM
A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome 120 medium format film used by NASA was E2 or E3.
K14 was the late, great Kodachrome as I recall. Completely different stuff from Ektachrome.


Yep. I hated the stuff. It was really toxic, it stank (in multiple ways) and it was notoriously unreliable. The slightest mistiming or error could produce unacceptable colour shifts 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 10:58:10 PM

A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed. I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1, but he often reels lists of radiation types as being deadly. My favourite was his inclusion of neutrinos. I caught Jarrah with this one once when he casually made a list of dangerous radiation and included neutrinos. He avoided my follow on question :)

That actually showed up once back when I had time for role-playing games. Some super-batteries were brought in from a different campaign and the DM declared that they would lose most of their charge over the next week until they agreed better with the listed Traveller energy densities. As an additional hand-wave, the excess energy was said to be carried away by neutrinos. Not a smart thing to do when you have several physics geeks playing. They did the math, and it turns out people standing near those batteries were getting radiation burns. Yes; from neutrinos. Same campaign had a giant laser so energetic it could actually pull about an eighth of a G.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 11:02:02 PM
Yep. I hated the stuff. It was really toxic, it stank (in multiple ways) and it was notoriously unreliable. The slightest mistiming or error could produce unacceptable colour shifts

Yep, I shot my last roll of Kodachrome sometime around 2008.  Had to tweak the tint in Photoshop.

The E-3 process was chosen because although it required greater skill from the photographer in the field to get the exposure right, it offered greater latitude in the darkroom to fix errors.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 11:05:41 PM
Is film still preferred for some applications or has everything gone digital now?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 11:10:06 PM

As usual everything you have said I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have actually said, it is you putting words into my mouth. This seems to be a very consistent pattern with you Mr.Windley, and typical of NASA propagandists in general. I never said anything remotely resembling what you said.

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, and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories. They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.....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.

And has nothing to do with the price of fish. As long as you support Grove's experiment as being representative, only the sun needs to be considered. And it doesn't shine any brighter on the Moon than it does in Earth orbit.

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.

Correct, but:

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.

Horseshoes and hand grenades -- and searing radiation hells. It is the order of magnitude problem again. EITHER it is close enough there is a range of doubt (and more better calculations are necessary) OR it is dangerous enough there is no chance the astronauts survived. You can't have it both ways.

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.

In fact, we have discovered an entirely new  band of radiation that was previously unknown, and the dynamic nature of the space weather enviroment is now much better understood than in 1969.

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.

If you will concede all of the above is totally accurate, i believe we can continue. What has been said in my absence does not require a response, as far as I can see. It is just the usual propaganda, personal attacks and BS.

The only thing I will concede is what is easy to conclude; you can't stick to a story, and you can't quantify.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 11:10:55 PM
Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.

Stop! My bingo card filled up already!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 04, 2015, 11:12:11 PM
K14 was the late, great Kodachrome as I recall. Completely different stuff from Ektachrome.

And K-11 and K-12 before that.  The processes were extremely complex and multi-staged, with so much specialized hardware and technical knowledge required that outside of Kodak Rochester & Palo Alto, I think there were only ever a handful of independent labs equipped to handle it.  By contrast, Ektachrome could be processed in your bathtub, with results that some still argue are superior to Kodachrome.  I always found it to be a bit cold though, and my photography tends to feature a lot of natural earth tones, so I favored Kodachrome's warmth, and used a ton of it back in the day.

The Ektachrome I did shoot was largely infrared, when a particular mood hit me. 

(http://i.imgur.com/Uo9KpVs.jpg)

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 11:23:40 PM
Yep. I hated the stuff. It was really toxic, it stank (in multiple ways) and it was notoriously unreliable. The slightest mistiming or error could produce unacceptable colour shifts
But you have to admit it was a technical tour de force of physics and chemistry. Looking at the K-14 process it's hard to remember that it was developed (heh) 80 years ago, and that it worked as well as it did. Back in my film days I preferred Kodachrome because of its dye stability. I'd generally shoot Ektachrome only when I needed the speed.

Despite having done a lot of my own (B&W only) film and print processing I've never been satisfied by the usual layman's descriptions of a "latent image". How exactly does a silver halide crystal 'remember' that it has been exposed to light so it'll decompose to metallic silver later in the developer?

My own reasoning is that a latent image is produced when the light from a brief exposure decomposes a tiny fraction of the halide in each crystal in the emulsion. This tiny amount of metallic silver then catalyzes the further reduction of halide to metallic silver by the developer. This explains why faster films generally have larger grain sizes; if metallic silver anywhere in the grain catalyzes the reduction of the entire grain (but not adjacent grains), then a larger grain would be a bigger and more sensitive target for light.

Am I close?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 11:28:09 PM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

I'm getting a kick out of the discussion of this photo.  I took it early on a lovely morning on Molokai in late December of 2009.  Note that my brother Sam is carrying Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark".

I took it with an ordinary Canon Powershot SD1100IS purchased (iirc) at Walmart.  The zoomed-out field-of-view is ~60 degrees from side-to-side, which is only slightly more than the ~53 degree field-of-view on the Apollo surface cameras.

I took it to illustrate the effect of perspective and uneven terrain on parallel shadows, heiligenschein, and zero-angle effect and posted it on ATS, where I go by "Saint Exupery".

I find it hilarious that Romulus' description is egregiously wrong on nearly every point.  :D

I think the problem with hoaxies (and Romulus is no exception) is they struggle understand that a photograph is a two-dimensional depiction of a three dimensional space, and they simply do not understand the implications of that
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 11:28:45 PM


I have never read any propaganda pieces from either side.

That must have made it extremely difficult to cite Groves.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 11:30:35 PM
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/964ea7f0c2f6.jpg)

Comments?
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

I'm getting a kick out of the discussion of this photo.  I took it early on a lovely morning on Molokai in late December of 2009.  Note that my brother Sam is carrying Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark".

I took it with an ordinary Canon Powershot SD1100IS purchased (iirc) at Walmart.  The zoomed-out field-of-view is ~60 degrees from side-to-side, which is only slightly more than the ~53 degree field-of-view on the Apollo surface cameras.

I took it to illustrate the effect of perspective and uneven terrain on parallel shadows, heiligenschein, and zero-angle effect and posted it on ATS, where I go by "Saint Exupery".

I find it hilarious that Romulus' description is egregiously wrong on nearly every point.  :D
Your photograph proves nothing and neither does your handwaving.


Physicist Oleg Oleynik's detailed experiments involving parralax proving backgrounds in Apollo photographs is projected onto a screen using frontscreen projection:
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.390
[notice:Handwaving not allowed. If you can debunk this mans work, do so.Your say-so is not evidence, it is not appreciated,  and it is not desired here]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light  because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be,  and in this case on is an another is not. The only explanation is that the light source is coming from the opposite direction that the shadow is projected. In this example is is very easy to see where the artifical light source is positioned. Notice the difference in my analysis and the "multiple light source" theories. I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 11:42:08 PM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 11:45:33 PM
THE SAME DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE......ALWAYS SHOW UP LIKE FILES ON A FRESHLY LAID TURD.....
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 11:45:33 PM
Is film still preferred for some applications or has everything gone digital now?

The only people I know who still use film use it for artistic purposes and for very good reason.  There is prestige in the fine-art photography world for using only traditional equipment and processes.

However commercial and editorial photography has gone digital simply for production reasons.  Making money on a volume of work as opposed to its unique quality is a matter of maximizing workload and minimizing deadlines.  An end-to-end digital process speeds that up greatly.  In my studio I shoot exclusively on digital with immediate wifi upload to the server where it can begin its digital post-processing.  I still have a store of film equipment and stock, but I haven't found anything yet to use it for.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 11:46:21 PM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Your delusion is not proof.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 11:50:33 PM
Is there such a thing as a Gish Drunkard's Walk?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 11:51:35 PM
In my opinion you all belong in jail.

OK, that's nice to know.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 04, 2015, 11:56:01 PM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Return to your recliner in your smoking jacket and stroke your long haired cat then. Your plans for world domination may not succeed, but I wait with baited breath for this whistle blowing publication you a going to present to the world.

You are a phoney, you have no clue what you are talking about and you lost. To coin a phrase "Suffer in your jocks".
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 04, 2015, 11:56:13 PM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Your delusion is not proof.

I can prove every word I said about you. You are among the most dishonest and unethical people I have ever met. You haven't made a single post that did not include a provable lie. You do NOT answer to the evidence honestly, you misrepresent your opponents words, attack his character and ability and ooze of contempt for the American people that do not believe NASA. Not believing the governemnt is not unpatriotic or a character flaw, Mr Windley and you are a good example of exactly why. 45 years later NASA is still employing people to lie about something that should have been admitted to long ago. It is destroying our country to have our children seeing things like this and wondering.
THIS WILL NOT BE ONE OF THEM THINGS THAT EVER GETS ACCEPTED AS HISTORICAL FACT BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TOO MUCH EVIDENCE THAT IT DID NOT IN FACT HAPPEN,AND IT WILL NEVER BE PROVED THAT IT DID
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 11:56:28 PM
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light
Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:04:28 AM
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light
Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

The "mythbusters" experiment is not valid because it used an artificial light source 93 million miles closer to the objects than the sun. The shadows were skewed  the same for the same reason and they didn't illuminate from an angle per perpendicular to the cameras direction, IT IS RIDICULOUS TO CITE TWO HOLLYWOOD  SPECIAL EFFECTS EXPERTS TRAINED TO CREATE ILLUSIONS AS EVIDENCE. TYPICAL NASA BULLSHIT

There is enough evidence to prove you are all conspiring to conceal a multibillion dollar fraud and hoax.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:10:48 AM


You are a phoney, you have no clue what you are talking about and you lost.

ROTFLMFAO!

Look at this thread and the other I posted here.  There is only one thing any of you actually discuss and that is me! This pattern is repeated over many years with many different people that are extremely qualified and have a high degree of integrity ,credibility and honesty. Have you noticed that none of you have this reputation with anyone? Just wondering.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 05, 2015, 12:11:24 AM
I will not be posting here any longer using this ID

Fixed it for you.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:17:44 AM
Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

I actually gave them two possible scenarios to test for that particular photo.  The one they chose to replicate is not the one I believe is the strongest explanation.  (I didn't tell them that, though.)  However, it's the one they felt they could most effectively implement.  And they reproduced the observation without cheating, which is the goal.

Conspiracy theorists don't understand how that works.  They think we have to pick one explanation and stick with it.  That's not the case.  When their affirmative claim is that it's impossible to produce the observations without elements of fakery, the rebuttal is not that there is exactly one way to produce it.  The rebuttal is that there may in fact be several ways in which they could be wrong.  We may never be able to determine which of all possible ways was the one in force, but the mere existence of at least one way to do it falsifies their claim.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 12:20:03 AM
Well, that seems to be the end of him.

Coffee anyone?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:23:17 AM
I will not be posting here any longer using this ID

Fixed it for you.

I assure you, when I am finished kicking you in the nuts, i won't be back here. there is nothing to be proved beyond what I already have.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 05, 2015, 12:23:36 AM
I will not be posting here any longer,

Excellent. Your pomposity was as annoying as your arrogance.

Quote

 I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did),

You came to forum full of people who defend the Apollo landings and people who defend the Apollo landings replied to your nonsense. Your powers are incredible.

Quote
if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint)

I described my methodology, you never bothered to dispute it.

Quote
and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint).

You were expected to produce the same old hoaxtard crap - you didn't disappoint - or surprise.

Quote
Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Once again: learn the difference between defending Apollo and supporting NASA.

In my opinion you've done nothing but post garbage from websites run by liars and fruadsters, You have trotted out the same party line as all the other hoaxtards out there. You have claimed expertise but not provided any support for it, so we can only assume that you lied about that - your superpowers extend only to copying, pasting, and swallowing whole.

I have nothing but loathing and contempt for people claiming Apollo was a lie behind the safety of their keyboard. Back to the swamp with you, you coward.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:28:01 AM
Well, that seems to be the end of him.

Coffee anyone?

I wouldn't bet on THAT, cretin. This is"your house" as you put it, and I DON'T BELONG HERE for the same reason I don't belong at a gay pride parade . But I'll be around. And I will be there when NASA is exposed. And you will all be doing the same things you are now in the meantime, losing ground with every day that goes by .
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 05, 2015, 12:28:38 AM

Physicist Oleg Oleynik's detailed experiments involving parralax proving backgrounds in Apollo photographs is projected onto a screen using frontscreen projection:
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.390
[notice:Handwaving not allowed. If you can debunk this mans work, do so.Your say-so is not evidence, it is not appreciated,  and it is not desired here]

If you can prove his work, do so. Copying and pasting and simple "Because I say so" is not desired here.

In fact, if you can prove he is a physicist, do so. Once you've done that, you can prove how expertise in physics somehow qualifies him to discuss photography. His "work" has been discussed here, go forth and read it for opinions on how bad his research is. Clue: it mostly consists of made up numbers.

Quote
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light  because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be,  and in this case on is an another is not. The only explanation is that the light source is coming from the opposite direction that the shadow is projected. In this example is is very easy to see where the artifical light source is positioned. Notice the difference in my analysis and the "multiple light source" theories. I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 05, 2015, 12:28:59 AM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you hdidn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.
I was hoping you would explain why you claimed those photographs on the first page were "totally undeveloped", but I guess that won't happen now.

Well, goodbye and good luck, then, but should you choose to come back and learn something, I would be happy to help.

BTW, I'm not Jay, Bob, or Phil, and although I am a NASA contractor, there is nothing in our Statement of Work about "representing NASA".  There's lots of stuff about systems and software engineering, performance measurement, quality management, design reviews, reporting, etc.  But nothing at all about arguing with people.  Sorry.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:34:29 AM


You were expected to produce the same old hoaxtard crap - you didn't disappoint - or surprise.



In my opinion you've done nothing but post garbage from websites run by liars and fruadsters, You have trotted out the same party line as all the other hoaxtards out there. You have claimed expertise but not provided any support for it, so we can only assume that you lied about that - your superpowers extend only to copying, pasting, and swallowing whole.

I have nothing but loathing and contempt for people claiming Apollo was a lie behind the safety of their keyboard. Back to the swamp with you, you coward.

There are disqualifications of the NASA moonlandings and yes, they are repeated and refined.And the reason for that is because they are valid.

You admit that you have contempt for those who want NASA to admit they hoaxed the moonlandings and then you call them hoaxters. YOU ARE THE HOAXTER, it is YOU defending this hoax.

This is just exactly why you have no credibility. You lie as a matter of course and reverse the truth, putting the onus of proof on your opponent claiming Apollo stands as proved. It DOES NOT, and it never will be.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 12:38:21 AM
should you choose to come back and learn something, I would be happy to help.



You know, out of tens of thousands of words posted here not a one of you has said a single thing that was truly informative. This is because when you are defending a lie, informing is not you mission description.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:42:00 AM
If you can debunk this mans work, do so.

I did.  I pointed out where his method was incorrect.

Quote
NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light...

Already done.

Quote
...because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be...

Counterexamples on my web site.  What you're proposing is not any "rule" of perspective.

Quote
I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

Your burden of proof.  You say duplication is the only standard you will accept.  Therefore duplicate it with the apparatus you say was used.  Prove it can do what you say it can.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 12:44:38 AM

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.

He used the little used word perpindicular instead. Sometimes it makes it easier to understand a word if we break it down.

So we have:  Perp as in perpetrator in dic as in phallus and ular as in the Indonesian island.

Where does that lead us? The perpetrator - Romulus the "colloquial word for phallus" lives on the Indonesian island of Ular.

Anyone have any issues with my theory?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:50:09 AM
If you can prove his work, do so. Copying and pasting and simple "Because I say so" is not desired here.

Indeed.  Scientific investigation is not simply a license agreement where you scroll to the bottom and click Agree.

Quote
In fact, if you can prove he is a physicist, do so.

Or, in fact, that he even exists outside of Aulis.  There is a growing trend these days among all conspiracy theories where key work that allegedly proves the theory is being done by "a Russian physicist."  The work is generally abysmal on its face.  But the notion of an unverifiable foreign authority seems to carry some mystique among conspiracy believers this year.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 01:00:05 AM
You know, a reasonably intelligent person can construct a defense against practically any kind of obvious truth. Why are there no tracks from a wheeled vehicle where astronauts  footprints can clearly be seen right where the wheels would have had to roll? Well, they picked it up, it was light on the moon.....Ok, it's possible, yeah.  But we both no he real reason is because it was carried there and placed. No dust displaced under the ascent stage engine? Well, it only had the force of a leave blower...(LMAO)....Astronauts exposed to essentially exactly the same rate of radiation exposure on LEO missions as where they traversed the van allen belts and walked on the lunar surface outside the protection of the magnetosphere, surviving 1600 x ray flares and many hundreds of par tile events...THEY GOT REAL LUCKY, they "won the lottery" so to speak..45 years later it cannot be done, a no government claims it is near ready ebcause they don't have the means to get beyond the magnetosphere and protect astronauts from radiator in space, but these 6 missions all succeeded in the past century nearly half a century ago and not a single man was lost on any lunar mission, not even a broken finger or scraped knee....And a man filmed dropping off a ladder supposedly on the moon can be experimentally proved to have been accelerating at a speed 2.5 times what he would on the moon, and NASA claims our videos are not e idence because they're not first generation, while claiming to have lost the originals. DO you see my point?
NO INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL AFTER SEEING THESE THINGS AND MANY MANY MORE EXPLAINED AWAY IN THE MANNER YOU HAVE IS GOING TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING MUCH DIFFERENT THAT WHAT I HAVE.











IT'S A BIG HOAX, A LIE, PSY OP, IT"S DAVY CROCKETT WINNING THE BATTLE OF THE ALAMO WHILE HIDING IN THE BASEMENT OF  A STOLEN MISSION AND BEING CUT TO PIECES BY SANTA ANA'S ARMY. REMEMBER THE ALAMO! REMEMBER APOLLO!
Not just bragging of a false accomplishment, but claiming the most amazing thing in human history, and it is a goddamned lie.


I AM THE KILLER OF ANCIENT GODS
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 01:00:20 AM
He claimed that he had not read any 'propaganda' from either side yet came up with some strikingly similar (read identical) arguments, made by the most notorious hoaxers ever, all by himself. 

Great minds think alike or was he the stereotypical, dime a dozen,  hoaxer who thought he could actually go head to head with professionals.

I actually feel there must be some sort of mental imbalance or they have smoked to much funny stuff. The paranoia is very telling.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 01:02:59 AM

You have never taken a photograph, and may well never have been outside. You can not spell perpendicular. A genius would be able to.

He used the little used word perpindicular instead. Sometimes it makes it easier to understand a word if we break it down.

So we have:  Perp as in perpetrator in dic as in phallus and ular as in the Indonesian island.

Where does that lead us? The perpetrator - Romulus the "colloquial word for phallus" lives on the Indonesian island of Ular.

Anyone have any issues with my theory?

I think you might be well advised to lay off of the psychotropics, to be honest. Misspelling perpendicular with an "i" in the place of an "e" isn't really THAT big a deal, that is unless you're a propagandist trained to exploit any minor mistake.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Romulus on February 05, 2015, 01:06:29 AM
He claimed that he had not read any 'propaganda' from either side yet came up with some strikingly similar (read identical) arguments, made by the most notorious hoaxers ever, all by himself. 

Great minds think alike or was he the stereotypical, dime a dozen,  hoaxer who thought he could actually go head to head with professionals.

I actually feel there must be some sort of mental imbalance or they have smoked to much funny stuff. The paranoia is very telling.

The fact that you are professional liars does not equate with any competence in the fields required to understand this subject, which you and your comrades have proved this over an over again, and consistency across the board.

Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can do what you are doing here.It's easy  .What isn't easy is actually proving anything, and if any of you could, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE STILL TRYING TO 48 YEARS LATER
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 01:08:09 AM
Quote from: The Warrior
I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 01:17:18 AM
I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did)

This is the only forum in which I discuss the Apollo hoax theory.  (I use to be active elsewhere but that hasn't been the case for years.)

if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims

Just like you didn't.  We'll use the scientific method when it is applicable.

Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA

I don't represent anybody but myself.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 01:18:14 AM
Quote from: The Warrior
I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?

I think the idea is that it is some sort of diffuser to soften the contrast and reduce the secondary shadow. That's my guess anyhow.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 01:24:07 AM
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees.

The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 01:37:20 AM
Hey Bob,

Do you have any issue with me printing your website so I can read it at my leisure?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 01:37:48 AM
Quote from: The Warrior
I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

I'm sorry I didn't see this one earlier. "Compound" lights. What compound? Some baking powder to go with the flour?

I think the idea is that it is some sort of diffuser to soften the contrast and reduce the secondary shadow. That's my guess anyhow.

Well, except the problem is sunlight is hard-edged shadows. From the Earth to the Moon had a lot of fun pushing sufficient lumens downrange. As I recall they pointed a half-dozen HMI fixtures at a single reflector and used that as the "sun" source. You are quite right, there's a typical diffuse source used a lot in television that's a bunch of lamps in an egg-crate arrangement. I hadn't heard them called "compound" but then I don't work film or TV -- strictly stage.

And in the theater, "Compound stage light" is about as close to the terminology we use as would be, say, "relic ornamental clothing" for a period costume or "actor-used replica" for a hand prop.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 01:39:01 AM
The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.

That's the other interpretation I pitched to Mythbusters.  I believe the shadow of the LM falls farther toward the viewer than is at first apparent.  Whether by the natural effect of distance (which tends to render all marginally transverse shadows closer to apparent horizontal the farther away they are), or by the combined effect of distance and terrain, I believe the shadow of the foreground rocks more closely represents the true illumination azimuth.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 01:44:33 AM
Hey Bob,

Do you have any issue with me printing your website so I can read it at my leisure?

No problem at all.  I put the information out there for you to use in anyway you'd like.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 01:45:02 AM
Well, except the problem is sunlight is hard-edged shadows.

Meaning the light source has to be as small as possible and undiffused.  Diffusion creates soft-edged shadows.

Quote
From the Earth to the Moon had a lot of fun pushing sufficient lumens downrange. As I recall they pointed a half-dozen HMI fixtures at a single reflector and used that as the "sun" source.

Correct; the same grip crew lit our documentary in the desert.  The limitation of this method is that it's essentially a spot.  It will light only a small area.

Quote
I hadn't heard them called "compound" but then I don't work film or TV -- strictly stage.

There is no such thing as a "compound light" in film or television either.  Romulus may have a specific thing in mind, and that thing may in fact exist, but that name refers to nothing the industry currently defines.  The rig you refer to is called a "bank light" or a "bank rig" in TV/film.  It's very commonly used on newsroom sets.  And it has exactly the opposite effect Romulus needs.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Count Zero on February 05, 2015, 01:48:58 AM
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light
Funny you should say that, because the Mythbusters did in fact duplicate the supposedly impossible shadow angles in that very same photograph in their 2009 episode debunking moon hoax myths. They only had to recreate the appropriate surface shape.

The moon is by no means flat, even in the maria (the so-called 'seas' where five of the six Apollo missions landed). This is often not readily apparent unless you look at some of the many stereo pairs also taken by the lunar astronauts. And guess what? A highly uneven surface is exactly what you'd expect to find on a small, low gravity airless world without the effects of erosion by wind or water.

Significantly, the Mythbusters first set-up the LM and the rocks on a level surface and showed that, from that camera angle, the shadows were indeed parallel.  Then they put the rocks on a slight rise and - sure enough - with the lighting angle and camera set-up unchanged, the shadows now diverged exactly as shown in AS14-68-9486.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 01:57:14 AM
The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.

How many examples would you like? Remember NO HANDWAVING!

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Shadow1.jpg)
The shadows of stumps "A" and "B" are parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of stump "C" is at an angle
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

Stumped? OK, try this one

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Shadow2.jpg)
The shadow of the furthest fencepost is parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of the nearest  fencepost is at an angle of 45° (as per your requirements)
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

Still not happy, then try this

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Shadow3.jpg)
The shadow of the tree is parallel to the horizon (as per your requirements)
The shadow of  the nearest fencepost is at an angle
The only light source is the sun (as per your requirements)

And if you are actually prepared to LEARN something (which I doubt, because you appear to be so arrogant and self- absorbed that you are, IMO, incapable of accepting that there is anything that anyone can teach you) then you might like to look at the next photo. If you are as clever as you think you are, it will help you to understand that the Apollo Lunar surface photo that you think is faked, isn't

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Shadow99.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 05, 2015, 02:13:56 AM
Would I be out of line if I labelled this thread as "Cyclone Psycho"?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 02:18:33 AM
You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 02:43:25 AM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.


Ladies and Gentlemen, it is my great pleasure to announce that the Golden Flounce award goes to....
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/golden_flounce.jpg)

I'd HATE to roadie for any band that Jay Windley was in. I mean the groupies would be plain nasty..... :-[
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 02:45:24 AM
Drat, we never got to the Van Allen Belts.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 05, 2015, 02:53:33 AM
Did anyone count the actual number of "Jays" and "Mr Windleys" he posted in total. Or which post contained the most of said terms?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 03:02:43 AM
Did anyone count the actual number of "Jays" and "Mr Windleys" he posted in total. Or which post contained the most of said terms?

I didn't care for that at all.  He hides behind an alias, even stating that he wanted to stay anonymous, yet he doesn't hesitate to post the last names of others.  I have no problem with people knowing who I am, but he shouldn't be the decider of that.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 03:29:24 AM
I wouldn't worry about it too much. He came here with an obnoxious attitude, insulted as many people as possible whilst whining about ad hom attacks, had a hard-on for Jay and then flounced to disappear back into the ooze.

The hoaxtards really are looking increasingly like a spent force. With apologies to gillianren, but the remainders of that community are increasingly looking to consist of a few stragglers that display some pretty significant emotional (possibly mental) instabilities. Look at the last few on here...Romulus, AwE130, Allan Weisbecker and Neil Burns. All displayed the same characteristics- bounce in all puffed up, rapidly revert to name-calling and whining about being prosecuted (someone hacked my computer! Sheesh ::) ) and then flounced out in a fit of spittle-flecked hatred. All without the slightest intention of looking at the evidence that's been thrust under their snouts.

More to be pitied than laughed at.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 03:57:53 AM
I have to tell you, aside from the dislike I have for armchair diagnoses, I really don't like the term "hoaxtard."  The clinical term "retarded" is getting phased out in favour of several wordy variations because "retarded" is such an insult now.  Further, I honestly don't believe these people are stupid, necessarily.  (I grant you there have been exceptions!)  Certainly they don't have any sort of developmental disability.  I could write a paper about the psychology of these people, but stupidity would (almost) never enter into it.

And besides, it just gives them ammunition if we go for petty insults.  Trust me--the one time we had an actual "appeal to the lurkers," it became readily apparent that we didn't have to in order to convince anyone, and not a single lurker posted to say they'd been convinced by the conspiracist.  I do, however, agree that the die-hard conspiracists are to be pitied, if for no other reason than that they cannot see the wonder and beauty of one of the most outstanding accomplishments in human history.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 04:02:27 AM
You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

They love to talk meta-argument, but as with so many things, they are bad at it. So bad they not only can't understand them when others make them, they can't even grasp that one is being made.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 05:16:11 AM
And I mean, I understand why I don't have the same obsessive pull for these people that Jay and Bob and Phil do.  The most precise I would get would be correcting their spelling and grammar (and why is it usually so awful?).  However, it really does seem that, as soon as they work out that Andromeda and I are (gasp!) women, they just stop responding to us altogether.  I've even had one or two people make it explicit and tell me to let the menfolk talk. 

I would also say, honestly, that as precise and technical as the arguments get--and I do appreciate the knowledge base it takes to get them that technical--my own main request, every time, is a pretty decent example of why they'll never convince anyone who actually understands how science works.  Because my primary request is always for the numbers, and they never respond to it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 05:33:32 AM
I wouldn't worry about it too much. He came here with an obnoxious attitude, insulted as many people as possible whilst whining about ad hom attacks, had a hard-on for Jay and then flounced to disappear back into the ooze.

The hoaxtards really are looking increasingly like a spent force. With apologies to gillianren, but the remainders of that community are increasingly looking to consist of a few stragglers that display some pretty significant emotional (possibly mental) instabilities. Look at the last few on here...Romulus, Adrian AwE130, Allan Weisbecker and Neil Burns. All displayed the same characteristics- bounce in all puffed up, rapidly revert to name-calling and whining about being prosecuted (someone hacked my computer! Sheesh ::) ) and then flounced out in a fit of spittle-flecked hatred. All without the slightest intention of looking at the evidence that's been thrust under their snouts.

More to be pitied than laughed at.

Yep, and every one of them that comes here and acts in that fashion creates an indelible record to be viewed by those who might be on the fence and lurking here. When we take up their challenge and expose their dishonesty, their arrogance and their stupidity, it is the undecided who benefit the most.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 06:02:28 AM
aside from the dislike I have for armchair diagnoses
.
.
.
.
Certainly they don't have any sort of developmental disability.  I could write a paper about the psychology of these people, but stupidity would (almost) never enter into it.

Unless you have met them and carried out a clinical diagnoses then you have just done an armchair diagnoses. :o

Stupidity is defined (albeit by Wikipedia) as "a lack of...    ...understanding, reason, wit or sense". That seems to sum up some of the recent hoax believers that we have seen on here. Indeed, many of them would do well to learn Cipollas Laws of Stupidity



I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings. I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 06:33:21 AM
I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

I like to think of "conspiracy theory" as a term rather than as a description. Its a bit like "Video Tape Operator" (VTO) in a news studio. Few studios use tape any more, most use digital recording, but the person who does the setting up and cueing is still called a VTO, its a legacy term 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Peter B on February 05, 2015, 07:02:54 AM
I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Ah. That's a shame.

I take it then that you won't be responding to my post: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg26085#msg26085

Thanks.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 05, 2015, 07:08:57 AM
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 07:18:01 AM
Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

Further evidence of Rommy's keen intellect....   :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 05, 2015, 07:20:37 AM
LO it wouldn't be a proper flounce if there wasn't some post flounce stairway wit thrown in for good measure.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 05, 2015, 07:23:54 AM
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.

(http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bill-Hader-Popcorn-reaction-Gif-On-The-Daily-Show.gif)

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 05, 2015, 07:26:36 AM
Flounce #2. Will it stick or  will it slide it's slimey way into the bit bucket?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 05, 2015, 07:57:11 AM
@Jay::  Just struck me this morning - if a Hasselblad lens can be characterized as "good", justwhatinthehell would you call "great"!?

BTW, if you consider the intersection of art, science, and technology, I think a candidate for the single greatest photographic lens was the one-off that Panavision built for Sir David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia.  Used only for the "mirage" shot of Omar Sharif, it really stretched the state of the art at the time.  I'm sure more technically perfect lenses have been made since, given digital grinding techniques, etc., but it's the sum of the circumstances I'm considering. [/derail]
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 05, 2015, 10:04:34 AM
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.
Wait, are you saying Romulus said he wouldn't post here any more, then made 11 more posts after that?

I hope you release his posts; maybe one of them will discuss why he said the photographs he posted were "totally undeveloped".  Or maybe he'll decide to rejoin the conversation.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 05, 2015, 11:33:38 AM
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.

I wonder if any of those posts is an apology to the black members of this board?

Nah.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 11:42:33 AM
@Jay::  Just struck me this morning - if a Hasselblad lens can be characterized as "good", justwhatinthehell would you call "great"!?

Maybe the optical systems in the Keyhole spacecraft.  ;D

The Biogon was actually a Zeiss lens, although I understand Hasselblad licenses the design now and brands it a Hassy lens.  Zeiss had a history of building great lenses for aerospace.  They knew how to build a lens that would stand up to the rigors of space.  The Apollo Biogon is a good lens, but it's not a great one.  Where it stands out is obviously in the spatial fidelity that's hard to achieve in a wide-angle lens.  I did use it sans viewfinder, just as the Apollo astronauts did, with zone focusing and the Apollo exposure recommendations.  And it worked quite well.  Where I find fault with it is in the f/5.6 maximum aperture and (in the Apollo version) the susceptibility to catadioptrics.  Nowadays we have lens antiglare coatings that don't outgas in space, but back then there were only a limited number of ways they could reduce interreflection among lens elements.  So when you get that lens pointed anywhere near a bright light source, you're guaranteed some sort of intrusive artifact.

Quote
BTW, if you consider the intersection of art, science, and technology, I think a candidate for the single greatest photographic lens was the one-off that Panavision built for Sir David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia.

No argument there.  That lens is a legend.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Wait, are you saying Romulus said he wouldn't post here any more, then made 11 more posts after that?

I hope you release his posts; maybe one of them will discuss why he said the photographs he posted were "totally undeveloped".  Or maybe he'll decide to rejoin the conversation.

Romulus is a specialist in contradiction.

For example, he first provided a link to David Groves' experiment (Reply #4). A day later he babbled about NASA being unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories (Reply #267). Jay pointed him to "Apollo by the Numbers" (Reply #271), which he didn't know, because it's propaganda. (Reply #278)

And now Reply #308, where he told us he has never read any Apollo critics books either. He made it clear in Reply #354.

If this isn't amusing, I don't know  :D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:13:07 PM
I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings.

I do too, but name-calling ought to be beneath us.

Quote
I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

That's quite correct.  But that problem transcends conspiracies.  Science uses the term "theory" to mean a specific kind of thing.  But the broader usage among the general public is closer to what science calls a hypothesis.  You can't make that usage go away.  You can only resolve the individual amphibolies as they arise.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:26:32 PM
You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

Every once in a while I wonder if they can even read anyone else's posts.  As I recall, at Bad Astronomy he even demanded that the moderators keep everyone else but me from posting, so that he could have free reign to play out his obsession.  While I don't dispute the likely sexist overtones in his disregard for you and Andromeda, and the general trend of sexism (for which you should feel genuinely offended) in these debates, I really think he's ignoring you mostly because you're not me.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 12:35:42 PM
Unless you have met them and carried out a clinical diagnoses then you have just done an armchair diagnoses. :o

Um, no.  Because it would not be a diagnosis of anything, just an observation of behaviour.  (Actually, I have met several conspiracists of various stripes, and while I'd say one is an alcoholic, few of them to my understanding have anything that's been diagnosed by a professional.)  It would be a description of behaviour and how that behaviour does and does not fit with the various diagnoses I've heard thrown around.  Also why extreme conspiracy belief has made it into the DSM.

Quote
Stupidity is defined (albeit by Wikipedia) as "a lack of...    ...understanding, reason, wit or sense". That seems to sum up some of the recent hoax believers that we have seen on here. Indeed, many of them would do well to learn Cipollas Laws of Stupidity

  • Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
  • The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
  • A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
  • Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
  • A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

That's an extremely broad definition of stupidity; by my thinking, literally everyone fits into it at one point or another.  To me, a stupid person must be incapable of understanding, reasoning, wit, or sense.  I seldom believe that conspiracists are incapable of thinking.  In fact, we've seen that most of them are actually capable of attaining degrees, holding decent jobs, and so forth.  They aren't stupid.  (Most of them.)  And, by my definition, I've known a stupid Apollo supporter or two over the years, the ones who literally are just parroting what they've heard--the ones who claim that you can see the flag with a backyard telescope.  There are points I don't agree with about your laws, too.

Quote
I get your point about "hoaxtards", but I don't necessarily agree with it as I consider wilful ignorance as the most cowardly of intellectual failings. I do dislike the phrases "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" immensely, as 99.999% of the garbage that they spout would never fit the description of a theory. Heck, most of it barely fits the definition of a hypothesis.

Willful ignorance is pretty vile.  But for one thing, it isn't the same as stupidity; some quite intelligent people are willfully ignorant in one field or another, often for reasons that have nothing to do with their intelligence level.  For another, if they are genuinely stupid, they aren't willfully ignorant.  They are incapable of losing ignorance, which is sad and not vile.  Either way, insulting them won't change their mind.  But you'll note I, for one, have stopped using "conspiracy theorist" and starting using "conspiracist" instead, in part because of how misused "theory" is in this context.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 12:37:43 PM
You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

Every once in a while I wonder if they can even read anyone else's posts.  As I recall, at Bad Astronomy he even demanded that the moderators keep everyone else but me from posting, so that he could have free reign to play out his obsession.  While I don't dispute the likely sexist overtones in his disregard for you and Andromeda, and the general trend of sexism (for which you should feel genuinely offended) in these debates, I really think he's ignoring you mostly because you're not me.

At least this guy isn't as bad as the one who told me and Laurel to let the menfolk get on with talking, asked her if she was hot, and posted something so vile--while, as I recall, he was under moderation!--that LO deleted it and banned him immediately.  That last directed at me.  I'd still, I'll freely admit, rather have the occasional guy like that than the level of bizarre obsession you deal with from ninety percent of the HB crowd that's left these days.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 12:52:22 PM
...the level of bizarre obsession you deal with from ninety percent of the HB crowd that's left these days.

Indeed it seems the only ones left are the obsessives.  This topic used to be a discussion of science, technology, and history.  Now it's just mainly dodging blobs of spit.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 12:54:02 PM
It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 01:38:03 PM
An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees.
The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.

That's the other interpretation I pitched to Mythbusters.  I believe the shadow of the LM falls farther toward the viewer than is at first apparent.  Whether by the natural effect of distance (which tends to render all marginally transverse shadows closer to apparent horizontal the farther away they are), or by the combined effect of distance and terrain, I believe the shadow of the foreground rocks more closely represents the true illumination azimuth.

In the photo referenced by Romulus...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg

he claims that the LM's shadow extends straight out to the right.  Note that the LM is turned about 45 degrees in relation to the camera position.  Let's say that, relative to the LM, the front landing gear (the one with the ladder) is at the 12 o'clock position.  If Romulus is correct, then the LM's shadow is cast in the 10:30 direction relative to the LM (in the direction of Quadrant 1).

However, when we examine other photos...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9276.jpg

we see that the Sun in behind the LM and the shadow is cast in nearly the 12:00 direction (maybe bout 11:30).  This supports the argument that in photo A14-68-9486 the shadow is actually to the front-right of the LM, consistent with the shadows of the rocks in the foreground.  It is simply the perspective that is fooling the eyes.  Also note that in photo AS14-66-9276 we see that the shadow is cast on a slight uphill slope.  This further enhances the illusion that the shadow in 9486 is to the right rather than the front-right.

There is no anomaly here that I can see.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 02:29:28 PM
It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.

I didn't laugh, but I did smile wryly.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 05, 2015, 02:41:40 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 02:53:16 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 02:55:59 PM
I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 03:01:42 PM
I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.

Oh yes, we saw it here. My famous points are: "NASA didn't publish the TLI trajectory" and "Apollo capsule was white at the launch pad, not reflective"  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 03:08:44 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.

Not only that, it was changed to LM before it ever even flew into space. LEM was only used by NASA prior to around 1967 when Apollo was still in development (LM's first flight was on Apollo 5 in January 1968).

What I have read is that NASA's Public Affairs Office thought that "Excursion" sounded like the astronauts were going to the moon on a jolly jaunt, so they shortened the name to "Lunar Module" (LM),

The Apollo 9 crew nicknamed their LM "Spider", a name which was used as the title for an episode of "From Earth to the Moon". "Spider" was one of my favorites in that series.... must be the closet aerospace engineer in me coming out!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: nomuse on February 05, 2015, 03:23:04 PM
It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.

I didn't laugh, but I did smile wryly.

Good, that's how I meant it. Could have been taken wrong so easily I hesitated a lot before posting it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 03:26:19 PM
I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.

Oh yes, we saw it here. My famous points are: "NASA didn't publish the TLI trajectory" and "Apollo capsule was white at the launch pad, not reflective"  ;D


I missed that. Oh, that is priceless!!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 03:26:26 PM
What I have read is that NASA's Public Affairs Office thought that "Excursion" sounded like the astronauts were going to the moon on a jolly jaunt, so they shortened the name to "Lunar Module" (LM)

The story I heard is that NASA was arguing for funding to develop a lunar rover.  They didn't want anyone in Congress to get the wrong impression about the lunar module's capabilities, so they took the word "excursion" out to avoid the possibility that someone would mistakenly believe the LM had lunar surface mobility.  To have the mobility to go on an excursion, the lunar rover would have to be approved and funded.

(ETA)  Despite the change in abbreviation, the pronunciation "lem" had already become ingrained among those at NASA and in the media, so it remained.
   
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: sts60 on February 05, 2015, 03:53:07 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.

Not only that, it was changed to LM before it ever even flew into space. LEM was only used by NASA prior to around 1967 when Apollo was still in development (LM's first flight was on Apollo 5 in January 1968)...
To be properly nitpicky, I've seen a few later NASA/contractor documents which used "LEM".  And, of course, in conversation it was often pronounced "Lem", so I suppose it might get transcribed that way.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 05, 2015, 04:03:36 PM
  Now it's just mainly dodging blobs of spit.
"Spit" if you are lucky...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 05, 2015, 05:25:25 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

That one drives me crazy! Nitpicking, I know,  would it kill them to at least learn the correct term? They certainly demand perfection from Apollo defenders...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 05, 2015, 05:31:55 PM

Not only that, it was changed to LM before it ever even flew into space. LEM was only used by NASA prior to around 1967 when Apollo was still in development (LM's first flight was on Apollo 5 in January 1968).

What I have read is that NASA's Public Affairs Office thought that "Excursion" sounded like the astronauts were going to the moon on a jolly jaunt, so they shortened the name to "Lunar Module" (LM),

The Apollo 9 crew nicknamed their LM "Spider", a name which was used as the title for an episode of "From Earth to the Moon". "Spider" was one of my favorites in that series.... must be the closet aerospace engineer in me coming out!

Spider and the Apollo 8 episode (I'm forgetting the title at the moment) are the two I watch the most.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 05, 2015, 05:38:57 PM
Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

That one drives me crazy! Nitpicking, I know,  would it kill them to at least learn the correct term? They certainly demand perfection from Apollo defenders...
You should be grateful for it. Use of the term "LEM" immediately identifies the poster as a copy pasta artist, regurgitating whatever they found on some crackpot site. It isn't a mistake, it's a lable.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 05:47:06 PM
Spider and the Apollo 8 episode (I'm forgetting the title at the moment) are the two I watch the most.

"1968"
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 05, 2015, 05:54:01 PM
You probably aren't wrong. The use of LEM is almost invariably by a hoax believer. Anyone I've ever seen with any knowledge use LM,   Lunar Module, or maybe even lem. 

Full disclosure, I am by no means a scientist, engineer, or any other kind of credentialed authority. Just an average blue-collar Joe who reads everything I can get my hands on about the history of spaceflight ( among many other historical subjects).

Sometimes even the works of hoax believers, if only out of curiosity.



Smartcooky, thank you. I should have remembered that, considering the events of 1968 were the focus of the episode. Brain fart, lol!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Abaddon on February 05, 2015, 06:36:10 PM
You probably aren't wrong. The use of LEM is almost invariably by a hoax believer. Anyone I've ever seen with any knowledge use LM,   Lunar Module, or maybe even lem. 
Yup

Full disclosure, I am by no means a scientist, engineer, or any other kind of credentialed authority. Just an average blue-collar Joe who reads everything I can get my hands on about the history of spaceflight ( among many other historical subjects).
I happen to be a credentialed engineer, but so what? All you reveal here is that you are capable of rational thought and critical thinking. Scientists and engineers have no hegemony on that process. It is to your credit that you can read and understand the material. As a professional graduate engineer, I can claim to spot the BS quicker than you, perhaps, but that does not mean I am any better or worse that you. In fact, I quite love the fact that you want to learn new things and have the ability to absorb and understand new data. There is a CT mindset out there that the entire scientific and engineering community is somehow in cahoots to conceal the real science from you "knowlessmen". Nothing could be further from the truth of course.

Sometimes even the works of hoax believers, if only out of curiosity.
Curiousity was what got me interested. Many years ago, I had a tradesman fitting wardrobes in my home who, it turned out was a hoaxie. That prompted me to start researching. I couldn't fathom that there were real people who subscribed to such nonsense. Turns out there are.


Smartcooky, thank you. I should have remembered that, considering the events of 1968 were the focus of the episode. Brain fart, lol!
Well, there's a thing.Smartcooky is a genuinely nice guy. So is Jay, ka9q, LO, dwight, bob. b, gillianren, bryanpop, our resident vampire, nomuse, frenat, Luke, Apollognomon, ineluki, echnaton, rob<somedurn number>, sus, sts, obm, RAF, Capt. Swoop (apologies to any I missed) good grief the list is endless. But I would be hard pressed to make a similar list of hoaxies.  The simple fact is that there will be a subject matter expert right here, on whatever topic a hoaxie raises. They don't like that much.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 06:54:22 PM

I happen to be a credentialed engineer, but so what? All you reveal here is that you are capable of rational thought and critical thinking. Scientists and engineers have no hegemony on that process. It is to your credit that you can read and understand the material. As a professional graduate engineer, I can claim to spot the BS quicker than you, perhaps, but that does not mean I am any better or worse that you. In fact, I quite love the fact that you want to learn new things and have the ability to absorb and understand new data. There is a CT mindset out there that the entire scientific and engineering community is somehow in cahoots to conceal the real science from you "knowlessmen". Nothing could be further from the truth of course.

[

Unfortunately not all professional engineers disbelieve the hoax theories. My brother's father-in-law is a retired Engineer but is so anti-Semitic that he is blinded by his hatred and blames the Jews for everything. He believes the Jewish Lobby in the US controls everything. Everything from the 'faked' Apollo missions to the Charlie Hebdo attack was orchestrated by the Jews. I haven't heard him openly deny the holocaust but I suspect he does.

This is the problem I have with my brother and I when use the argument that professional scientists and engineers around the world are not coming forward crying fake to everything, he just turns around and states that his father-in-law is and engineer and he should know what he is talking about.

Unfortunately qualified doesn't always mean right in the head.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 05, 2015, 07:20:39 PM
You probably aren't wrong. The use of LEM is almost invariably by a hoax believer. Anyone I've ever seen with any knowledge use LM,   Lunar Module, or maybe even lem. 
Yup

Full disclosure, I am by no means a scientist, engineer, or any other kind of credentialed authority. Just an average blue-collar Joe who reads everything I can get my hands on about the history of spaceflight ( among many other historical subjects).
I happen to be a credentialed engineer, but so what? All you reveal here is that you are capable of rational thought and critical thinking. Scientists and engineers have no hegemony on that process. It is to your credit that you can read and understand the material. As a professional graduate engineer, I can claim to spot the BS quicker than you, perhaps, but that does not mean I am any better or worse that you. In fact, I quite love the fact that you want to learn new things and have the ability to absorb and understand new data. There is a CT mindset out there that the entire scientific and engineering community is somehow in cahoots to conceal the real science from you "knowlessmen". Nothing could be further from the truth of course.

Sometimes even the works of hoax believers, if only out of curiosity.
Curiousity was what got me interested. Many years ago, I had a tradesman fitting wardrobes in my home who, it turned out was a hoaxie. That prompted me to start researching. I couldn't fathom that there were real people who subscribed to such nonsense. Turns out there are.


Smartcooky, thank you. I should have remembered that, considering the events of 1968 were the focus of the episode. Brain fart, lol!
Well, there's a thing.Smartcooky is a genuinely nice guy. So is Jay, ka9q, LO, dwight, bob. b, gillianren, bryanpop, our resident vampire, nomuse, frenat, Luke, Apollognomon, ineluki, echnaton, rob<somedurn number>, sus, sts, obm, RAF, Capt. Swoop (apologies to any I missed) good grief the list is endless. But I would be hard pressed to make a similar list of hoaxies.  The simple fact is that there will be a subject matter expert right here, on whatever topic a hoaxie raises. They don't like that much.

Don't give me too much credit,  I have a laymen's understanding of the technical aspects.I struggle to understand alot of the engineering and especially the science involved, but I do try to understand, and I'm not afraid to ask when I don't.  That, as I see it, is where the HB's fall flat on their faces. They cannot say "I do not understand, could someone explain this," they say " this doesn't make sense, it must be fake!!" At that point most learning tends to stop, in my experience.

I have met some of the nicest and most incredibly helpful and knowledgable people in Apollo defender circles (forgive me for a lack of a better term). I have learned a great deal in the last couple of years about Apollo and spaceflight in general from you good people in various places around the net. I am grateful to all of you. People I can learn from are one of life's great gifts!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 05, 2015, 07:46:21 PM
Oh yes, we saw it here. My famous points are: [...] "Apollo capsule was white at the launch pad, not reflective"  ;D

Well, that's actually true. At the launch pad, the CM has a white boost protective cover. It is jettisoned along with the escape tower (which pulls it off) shortly after staging, exposing the CM's aluminized Mylar thermal covering. Little (if any) of this survives re-entry so when it lands, it's brown from the now-exposed phenolic heat shield resin.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 05, 2015, 08:50:52 PM
I will not be posting here any longer

Funny because there are 11 more posts from you waiting in the moderation queue. I guess you haven't quite caught on that you're being moderated yet.

I will decide whether to approve those posts when I get home from work tonight. Maybe use that time to collect some actual proof for your claims.
Wait, are you saying Romulus said he wouldn't post here any more, then made 11 more posts after that?

Yes, that's right. I placed him under moderation last night right after he said he wasn't going to post here anymore, and then when I woke up this morning there were 11 posts waiting to be moderated.

Quote
I hope you release his posts; maybe one of them will discuss why he said the photographs he posted were "totally undeveloped".  Or maybe he'll decide to rejoin the conversation.

I've approved all 11 posts. There doesn't seem to be anything of interest, just more insults and baseless accusations.

You'll probably have to go back a few pages to find the posts since people have been posting in the meantime.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 09:20:44 PM
THE SAME DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE......ALWAYS SHOW UP LIKE FILES ON A FRESHLY LAID TURD.....

Really? What a strange place to keep your files, but then that hardly surprising since you are full of freshly laid turd, and its probably the only place you have to keep them on.

Me, I keep my files in a filing cabinet or on my computer, or on a portable HDD or jumpdrive
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 05, 2015, 09:26:31 PM
IT'S A BIG HOAX, A LIE, PSY OP, IT"S DAVY CROCKETT WINNING THE BATTLE OF THE ALAMO WHILE HIDING IN THE BASEMENT OF  A STOLEN MISSION AND BEING CUT TO PIECES BY SANTA ANA'S ARMY. REMEMBER THE ALAMO! REMEMBER APOLLO!
Not just bragging of a false accomplishment, but claiming the most amazing thing in human history, and it is a goddamned lie.


I AM THE KILLER OF ANCIENT GODS


This looks like a full on case of China syndrome to me

(http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Computer-Rage.gif)


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 05, 2015, 09:28:21 PM
I will not be posting here any longer

You are among the most dishonest and unethical people I have ever met.

Does reneging on multiple promises to leave the board count as dishonesty?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 09:33:11 PM
You know, a reasonably intelligent person can construct a defense against practically any kind of obvious truth. Why are there no tracks from a wheeled vehicle where astronauts  footprints can clearly be seen right where the wheels would have had to roll? Well, they picked it up, it was light on the moon.....Ok, it's possible, yeah.  But we both no he real reason is because it was carried there and placed. No dust displaced under the ascent stage engine? Well, it only had the force of a leave blower...(LMAO)....Astronauts exposed to essentially exactly the same rate of radiation exposure on LEO missions as where they traversed the van allen belts and walked on the lunar surface outside the protection of the magnetosphere, surviving 1600 x ray flares and many hundreds of par tile events...THEY GOT REAL LUCKY, they "won the lottery" so to speak..45 years later it cannot be done, a no government claims it is near ready ebcause they don't have the means to get beyond the magnetosphere and protect astronauts from radiator in space, but these 6 missions all succeeded in the past century nearly half a century ago and not a single man was lost on any lunar mission, not even a broken finger or scraped knee....And a man filmed dropping off a ladder supposedly on the moon can be experimentally proved to have been accelerating at a speed 2.5 times what he would on the moon, and NASA claims our videos are not e idence because they're not first generation, while claiming to have lost the originals. DO you see my point?

Yawn.  Nothing here but the same old long debunked nonsense.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: scooter on February 05, 2015, 09:51:38 PM
Why are there no tracks from a wheeled vehicle where astronauts  footprints can clearly be seen right where the wheels would have had to roll?

...by gosh, I think he got one (and doesn't even know it...). Yes, the activity behind the rover at each stop, unloading and reloading equipment, did indeed obscure the rover's tracks.
Wow...some thread. Are your heads recovering from all the wall banging? It would be nice if just one HB could stick to the topic and really answer challenges, but alas...your patience is admirable.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 09:55:44 PM
I will not be posting here any longer using this ID

Fixed it for you.

I assure you, when I am finished kicking you in the nuts, i won't be back here. there is nothing to be proved beyond what I already have.

So then a grand total of nothing then, right?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 09:56:39 PM
There is enough evidence to prove you are all conspiring to conceal a multibillion dollar fraud and hoax.
You keep saying that but then you provide no proof, no evidence.  Hilarious.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 09:59:22 PM

The fact that you are professional liars does not equate with any competence in the fields required to understand this subject, which you and your comrades have proved this over an over again, and consistency across the board.

Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can do what you are doing here.It's easy  .What isn't easy is actually proving anything, and if any of you could, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE STILL TRYING TO 48 YEARS LATER
Calling people professional liars implies you have proof they are paid to do so.  So far you've failed to provide said proof and failed to prove anything said was a lie. 

How's that book coming?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 05, 2015, 10:08:33 PM
Why are there no tracks from a wheeled vehicle where astronauts  footprints can clearly be seen right where the wheels would have had to roll? Well, they picked it up, it was light on the moon.....Ok, it's possible, yeah.  But we both no he real reason is because it was carried there and placed.
You answered your own question.  the tracks were often obscured by the dust kicked up by the astronauts footprints.  Also hilarious that you think it was carried and placed when it is a vehicle that can move under its own power.

No dust displaced under the ascent stage engine? Well, it only had the force of a leave blower...(LMAO)....
It is a lie that there is no dust displaced.  Thank you for proving you haven't really looked and are quoting yet more of that propaganda you claim to never have read.

but these 6 missions all succeeded in the past century nearly half a century ago and not a single man was lost on any lunar mission, not even a broken finger or scraped knee...
9 missions went to the Moon.  I thought you'd studied this?

And a man filmed dropping off a ladder supposedly on the moon can be experimentally proved to have been accelerating at a speed 2.5 times what he would on the moon,
Really?  Then prove it.  Do the math for once in your life.

and NASA claims our videos are not e idence because they're not first generation,
Please post where NASA claims this.  I'll bet you can't.

while claiming to have lost the originals.
the originals are only gone from a SINGLE mission.  I thought you'd studied this?

DO you see my point?
Is it that you've essentially parroted the same propaganda you claimed to never have read?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 05, 2015, 10:16:53 PM
He's in full on Gish Gallop mode now.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 05, 2015, 10:41:26 PM



Maybe the optical systems in the Keyhole spacecraft.  ;D



Touché!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 05, 2015, 10:43:33 PM
You answered your own question.  the tracks were often obscured by the dust kicked up by the astronauts footprints.  Also hilarious that you think it was carried and placed when it is a vehicle that can move under its own power.
He's actually partly right, though for the wrong reasons. On the moon, the LRV was so light that it could easily be lifted by the astronauts. They found it was often easier to turn the LRV around by simply picking it up than by driving it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 11:07:55 PM


You are a phoney, you have no clue what you are talking about and you lost.

ROTFLMFAO!

Look at this thread and the other I posted here.  There is only one thing any of you actually discuss and that is me! This pattern is repeated over many years with many different people that are extremely qualified and have a high degree of integrity ,credibility and honesty. Have you noticed that none of you have this reputation with anyone? Just wondering.

Actually my Engineering staff and I do have that reputation. From the people that matter. The hundreds of people who fly 50,000 hours or more in our aircraft each year. We are complimented regularly on the level of maintenance we provide and we have never had a maintenance related issue.

Don't pretend to know me or anyone else here. You are most definitely a phoney, you most definitely have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about and you have most definitely lost whatever tiny, insignificant argument you may have thought you had. Run away little man.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 05, 2015, 11:20:32 PM
the originals are only gone from a SINGLE mission.

Weren't the tapes that are often referred to today as 'originals' considered at the time to be 'backups'?  My understanding is that all the data was sent to Houston where it was converted and stored as the primary source of the Apollo 11 TV imagery.  The tapes back in Australia were retained (for awhile) as a backup.  It wasn't until decades later when people went looking for the Australian tapes that they began to be referred to as original recordings.  Do I have that right?
 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 05, 2015, 11:37:26 PM
Weren't the tapes that are often referred to today as 'originals' considered at the time to be 'backups'?
That's right. Their sole purpose was to capture the raw receiver output in case a scan converter failed during the EVA. We would have lost live coverage of the EVA, but the tapes could have been played back through the repaired scan converter later. That never happened, so the tapes were never needed. At the time, and for quite some time later, they had no other use.

Only decades later did it dawn on anybody that we could have extracted better quality video from them than the recordings of the scan converter output that are in the archives.

NASA has long made it standard practice to have backup tapes spinning everywhere during critical mission phases in case hardware, software or a transmission link fails.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Allan F on February 05, 2015, 11:41:43 PM
Does a machine capable of playing those tapes still exist?

It was my impression that those tapes were reused because there was a problem with a new batch.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 05, 2015, 11:57:29 PM
Does a machine capable of playing those tapes still exist?
Probably. It was common in those days to modify commercial 2" quad videotape recorders as wideband instrumentation recorders. Although 2" quad has long been obsolete, they were so common that you can still find parts if you know where to look.

The recorders used by the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP) are a case in point. The two working units I saw came from NASA and had required a lot of work to make them operational again. All the big electrolytic capacitors had to be replaced with modern parts. A third unit was cannibalized for circuit boards and other unique parts to make the other two work. It helped that recording wasn't necessary; in fact I think they disabled that function.

The biggest problem were the spinning headwheel assemblies; as I knew from my own background in TV broadcasting they had an operational lifetime of only about 1,000 hr and had to be periodically refurbished. I don't remember where they got those, but I think there are some specialty shops that will still do this.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 06, 2015, 12:09:08 AM
I wouldn't bet on THAT, cretin. This is"your house" as you put it, and I DON'T BELONG HERE for the same reason I don't belong at a gay pride parade . But I'll be around. And I will be there when NASA is exposed. And you will all be doing the same things you are now in the meantime, losing ground with every day that goes by .

Why do I hear Plankton's voice when I read Rom's rants?

(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120831215457/thehungergames/images/0/04/Plankton.jpg)

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2015, 12:25:26 AM
Astronauts exposed to essentially exactly the same rate of radiation exposure on LEO missions as where they traversed the van allen belts and walked on the lunar surface outside the protection of the magnetosphere

No one has claimed that astronauts in LEO have the same rate of radiation exposure as those who went to the Moon.  We said that the exposure to electromagnetic radiation is the same in LEO as it is in cislunar space.  That does not include particle radiation, which we never got around to discussing.

surviving 1600 x ray flares and many hundreds of par tile events...

How many of those flares produced radiation exposures that were of biological significance?  I'm not interested in speculation, please provide numbers.

THEY GOT REAL LUCKY, they "won the lottery" so to speak.

That is a gross mischaracterization of the actual situation.  The Apollo spacecraft was well protected from Van Allen Belt radiation and normal cislunar radiation.  The only real threat was from major solar flares, which are rare.  The Solar Particle Alert Network was established to support the Apollo program.  SPAN's function was to monitor solar activity during the missions and provide warnings of particle events.  The network included seven stations around the world, situated so as to provide 24-hour coverage of the Sun at both optical and microwave frequencies.  If SPAN detected that a large solar flare was imminent, there was a few hours' advance notice of the particle flux. This was adequate time for the astronauts on the Moon to get back to the LM, take off, rendezvous with the CSM, and take cover as best they could. While in lunar orbit, the Moon would protect the astronauts for half of each orbit. At other times the spacecraft would be turned so the bulk of the service module was between the astronauts and the incoming particles. The astronauts had a handheld Geiger counter so they could find the safest spot in the command module cabin should they have to ride out a solar flare.

45 years later it cannot be done

That's only because nobody currently has a moon-capable system in production and/or operation.  It's not because it is impossible or because we don't know how to go to the moon. 

no government claims it is near ready ebcause they don't have the means to get beyond the magnetosphere and protect astronauts from radiator in space

When has any government has said that a short duration Apollo-style mission to the moon is impossible due to radiation (or for any other reason)?  Provide sources.
 
 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 06, 2015, 12:46:14 AM
Just add to the telemetry discussion: there is a least one machine retained to allow playback of the tapes should they ever surface. And yes the telemetry tapes where the BACKUP not ,the master.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 06, 2015, 12:48:46 AM
Well, that seems to be the end of him.

Coffee anyone?

I wouldn't bet on THAT, cretin. This is"your house" as you put it, and I DON'T BELONG HERE for the same reason I don't belong at a gay pride parade . But I'll be around. And I will be there when NASA is exposed. And you will all be doing the same things you are now in the meantime, losing ground with every day that goes by .
The only thing missing is the maniacal laughter. He's homophobic too I see.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 12:57:11 AM
Probably. It was common in those days to modify commercial 2" quad videotape recorders as wideband instrumentation recorders. Although 2" quad has long been obsolete, they were so common that you can still find parts if you know where to look.

Ampex VR-660C telemetry recorders.  They're about the size of a refrigerator and eat a reel of 2-inch tape the size of a large pizza every 15 minutes.  I think you can see one in the photos of Honeysuckle Creek.  IIRC there's one working model and two others in various stages of de-zombification.

Quote
The biggest problem were the spinning headwheel assemblies; as I knew from my own background in TV broadcasting they had an operational lifetime of only about 1,000 hr and had to be periodically refurbished. I don't remember where they got those, but I think there are some specialty shops that will still do this.

Only one today, an they have to be cleaned in unicorn sweat.  Seriously, the refurbishment of the heads is a nearly lost art form.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 12:59:50 AM
The only thing missing is the maniacal laughter. He's homophobic too I see.

I doubt the gays would want him either.  So a gish-gallop of long-debunked claims and a bunch of puerile name-calling later...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 06, 2015, 01:03:26 AM
.... He runs away  with his tail between his legs declaring a victory.

Surely they must have transferred all the footage to digital by now. How long would tape last?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 01:33:12 AM
How many of those flares produced radiation exposures that were of biological significance?  I'm not interested in speculation, please provide numbers.

The afternoon before Romulus first night here, we had one of those "1,600 measurable x-ray flares."  When Romulus linked to the NOAA data, all one had to do was scroll back a few hours and see the spike.  And with that data I was able to compute the biological dose and put it in a lay context.  Romulus missed all that.  It was part of the day's debate he unilaterally declared off-topic.

As I documented when Jarrah White made the same naive mistake, X-class solar x-ray events occur on average six times per year.  The overwhelming majority of "measurable" x-ray events are of the B- and C-classes that would give an astronaut in space about the same radiation exposure as eating a bunch of bananas.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 01:35:27 AM
Surely they must have transferred all the footage to digital by now. How long would tape last?

Enter Mark Gray and Spacecraft Films.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 06, 2015, 01:45:28 AM
So intense x-rays and gamma rays need significant lead or concrete shielding (just quoting your website) but there are none of the intensity that would require said shielding? Is my assumption correct?

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 01:56:39 AM
So intense x-rays and gamma rays need significant lead or concrete shielding (just quoting your website) but there are none of the intensity that would require said shielding? Is my assumption correct

Right.  X-rays in the million-electron-volt range (or gamma rays, at that point) have tremendous penetrating power.  As photon energy increases, penetrating power increases dramatically.

X-rays in the thousand-electron-volt range comprise the vast, overwhelming majority of what comes out of the sun, and a few millimeters of aluminum (or your skin, or a roomful of air) is appropriate shielding.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 06, 2015, 02:07:24 AM
Thanks Jay,

I'm slowly getting it, I am going to check out Jarrah's videos again to see if I can work out where he is wrong. I know he is but up to now I have been taking everyone else's word for it.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2015, 02:53:27 AM
I'm slowly getting it, I am going to check out Jarrah's videos again to see if I can work out where he is wrong. I know he is but up to now I have been taking everyone else's word for it.

Several months ago I wrote a review of Jarrah's Van Allen radiation belt video and highlighted all of his mistakes.  If you are interested, you can read it here...

Review of Jarrah White's "Radioactive Anomaly III" (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/JWhite.htm)

I admire that you want to work it out for yourself.  My review should give you some helpful information.  I'd be happy to discuss with you any part of it.
 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 06, 2015, 02:55:02 AM
I'm slowly getting it, I am going to check out Jarrah's videos again to see if I can work out where he is wrong. I know he is but up to now I have been taking everyone else's word for it.

The real intersting part of this is Jarrah tried debating Jay and others at the IMDb. Jarrah assumes that every solar flare is accompanied by a solar proton event (SPE). SPEs have an exact definition and are generally produced by a different mechanism to solar flares. Jay tackled him on the correlation between flares and proton events (with other aspects of Jarrah's understanding).

Jarrah, after being moderated for his foul mouth, ran away and the declared he's being asked to produce proton data which did not exist in the time of Apollo. Jarrah claims that proton data is unavailable before 1976. This is complete hogwash as Jarrah uses an event from pre-Apollo which cites proton data, he's quite proud of his SPE graph which is based on proton data that he claims does not exist. Yes, proton data pre-GOES and pre-SOHO was obtained by different methods, but none the less we know when SPEs occurred. Google the Carrington event, we know space was swimming in protons back in the 1859 when that event was observed. It is considered the largest SPE in 'recent history', much larger that the Halloween storm (another massive SPE event), and occurred before modern space craft. How do we know, because of observations and core ice samples. Determining the size of an SPE does not need a spacecraft beyond the van Allen belts. The latter helps, but it is not required to know that an SPE has occurred.

Anyone can obtain the proton flux from the NOAA space weather website and find that the proton flux rarely rises to 'deadly' amounts. The flux is collected across three channels, >1 MeV, >10 MeV and >100 MeV (if I recall correctly). It's morning here and I really need to head for work, but I'll dig out more later.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2015, 03:03:17 AM
So Romulus' brief visit here consisted of two threads of 60 odd pages in which he

a. dragged up nothing more than previously long debunked and factually incorrect horse puckey, and
b. obsessed excessively over Jay, and
c. abused and berated other posters, calling them liars and frauds.

This was followed by him running away with his tail between his legs, desperately pulling up his pants after we gave him a good old fashioned ass whooping.

Excellent!   
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 04:08:07 AM
So Romulus' brief visit here consisted of two threads of 60 odd pages in which he

a. dragged up nothing more than previously long debunked and factually incorrect horse puckey, and
b. obsessed excessively over Jay, and
c. abused and berated other posters, calling them liars and frauds.

This was followed by him running away with his tail between his legs, desperately pulling up his pants after we gave him a good old fashioned ass whooping.

Excellent!

Nail.
Head.

That's how i summed it up Smartcooky...he came in all full of p*ss and vinegar, attempted a gish-gallop and then ran away crying about how the bigger boys were picking on him.
I wonder how these people operate in real life? Is their online persona a true reflection of their true nature? if it is, then there sure are some obnoxious people out there. How do they get through each week without getting a slap or two??
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: beedarko on February 06, 2015, 04:39:57 AM
c. abused and berated other posters, calling them liars and frauds.

You guys got off easy. My nether regions were directly threatened.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 05:50:00 AM

Nail.
Head.

That's how i summed it up Smartcooky...he came in all full of p*ss and vinegar, attempted a gish-gallop and then ran away crying about how the bigger boys were picking on him.
I wonder how these people operate in real life? Is their online persona a true reflection of their true nature? if it is, then there sure are some obnoxious people out there. How do they get through each week without getting a slap or two??

I think there are two (or more) kinds of them in the real world.

There are those who only want to get attention. Either for their self-assurance (Hey, they're talking about me, so I'm important) or, as I noticed especially here in Germany, to make a quick dollar/euro/whatever by selling their books or dvds or getting klicks on their websites.

And there are those who really need help. This YT troll humanmonkeyrace and his several incarnations is one of the saddest examples. It seems this guy needs a manual to get his pants on. There is really not a shred of basic knowledge.

Maybe I can add another kind of those people. I call them easy to impress. Most of them are easy to impress by big numbers and big words like the famous "deadly radiation".
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 05:54:12 AM

Well, that's actually true. At the launch pad, the CM has a white boost protective cover. It is jettisoned along with the escape tower (which pulls it off) shortly after staging, exposing the CM's aluminized Mylar thermal covering. Little (if any) of this survives re-entry so when it lands, it's brown from the now-exposed phenolic heat shield resin.

Right, but Rommy wasn't aware about this boost protective cover. And this guy claimed to be a scientist. I'm not really impressed by his research skills  :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dalhousie on February 06, 2015, 06:18:50 AM
He came in with all this irrefutable stuff and wouldn't share it. His reluctance was telling because,  when it began to be dragged out of him - Surprise! - there was nothing new and nothing that stood up to scrutiny. I would say he clearly knew this and just threw a hissy fit because it was found out so quickly.  It's sad really. 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 06, 2015, 07:13:03 AM
Well, that's actually true. At the launch pad, the CM has a white boost protective cover. It is jettisoned along with the escape tower (which pulls it off) shortly after staging, exposing the CM's aluminized Mylar thermal covering. Little (if any) of this survives re-entry so when it lands, it's brown from the now-exposed phenolic heat shield resin.

Right, but Rommy wasn't aware about this boost protective cover. And this guy claimed to be a scientist. I'm not really impressed by his research skills  :)

And Romulus-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25853#msg25853)), but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26206#msg26206) that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

He said somewhere that he is not an expert in photography, which he proceeded to prove, but why then, is he arrogant enough to criticise lunar photography when he knows so little about the subject? He doesn't have the mental tools to understand his own criticisms, let alone any rebuttals.

However, he gave me a fair few out-loud laughs, and I was extremely grateful I didn't have a mouthful of coffee (otherwise I would have drenched my computer, screen, keyboard and clothing) when I read something he said in his other thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg25620#msg25620):

Quote
Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal.

When he's so funny, so wrong, and leaves the door so far open, what else can one say, but:- Jackal, meet Jackass!  :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 07:19:12 AM
He came in with all this irrefutable stuff and wouldn't share it. His reluctance was telling because,  when it began to be dragged out of him - Surprise! - there was nothing new and nothing that stood up to scrutiny. I would say he clearly knew this and just threw a hissy fit because it was found out so quickly.  It's sad really.

So in other words he came in to start a fight knowing that he had nothing but fluff and bluster and then got the hump when his ass was handed to him? It seems like a strange way to get your jollies, but I guess that, as they say in the North of England, "there's nowt as queer as folk".

The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.

Its also amusing when people like him are firing the accusations that they don't realise how easily the accusation applies to themselves:

You know, out of tens of thousands of words posted here not a one of you has said a single thing that was truly informative. This is because when you are defending a lie,
^^That sounds like a very good description of Rommy, doesn't it. 218 posts in 17 hours (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=statistics;u=1157) and virtually every post had zero information in it. Heck, I don't think that he posted a single number in any of those 218 posts. Like I said...it seems like a strange way to get your jollies.....
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 07:28:56 AM


And Rommy-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25853#msg25853)), but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26206#msg26206) that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

He said somewhere that he is not an expert in photography, which he proceeded to prove, but why then, is he arrogant enough to criticise lunar photography when he knows so little about the subject? He doesn't have the mental tools to understand his own criticisms, let alone any rebuttals.

However, he gave me a fair few out-loud laughs, because as Abbadon said, he is he is awfully amusing (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg25831#msg25831), and I was extremely grateful I didn't have a mouthful of coffee (otherwise I would have drenched my computer, screen, keyboard and clothing) when I read what he said in his other thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg25620#msg25620):

"Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal."

Jackal, meet jackass!  :)

Yeah, I wanted to point to this Ektachrome disaster  ;D But I haven't found the Replies in time. Do I remember right that he used something like "nazi correction" after being corrected? This was my coffee-spewing-moment  :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 06, 2015, 08:45:33 AM
I have the entire collection in the form of an original 'Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moonm' (at a very good price I might add!), as well as another smaller book 'The moon as viewed by lunar orbiter', which has Farouk El Baz as co-author, is easy to find second hand and not too expensive. I'd recommend the latter as a budget purchase for any enthusiast of Apollo era space exploration :)

The images are remarkably free of defect, the only issues seemingly from problems in developing the film rather than radiation damage of any kind. The detail in some of the high resolution ones is extremely good (in some cases comparable with the LRO).

If you like Lunar Orbiter, you'll love the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP). Several years ago, a guy named Dennis Wingo learned that NASA still had the tapes of the raw receiver output signals from the Lunar Orbiters as they scanned their films. Dennis realized that he could make much higher quality images by directly digitizing these tapes.

Digital imagery wasn't around in the 1960s, so all the Lunar Orbiter pictures you see in books are multi-generation copies of photographic prints generated from the received signals. At the time, the tapes were only useful as backups should an optical printer fail in real time. Very similar backup tapes were made during the Apollo 11 EVA, but unfortunately those tapes were recycled in the early 1980s so we can't do for them what Dennis has done for Lunar Orbiter.

He convinced NASA to give him all the LO tapes plus some funding to set up shop in an abandoned McDonalds' at NASA Ames. He finished digitizing them all a while ago. Their quality is indeed dramatically better than the older versions made from photographic prints. Go to www.moonviews.com to see some of their work; it's also been incorporated into the regular NASA planetary databases.

Dennis and his organization also conceived the ICE/ISEE-3 Reboot Project last year. I was involved in that project so I visited their site in August. Big piles of videotape cans were still stacked up around their McDonalds' building, and several heavily rebuilt 2" quad videotape recorders were still operating. 2" quad was the first type of videotape invented and the broadcast standard through the 1970s. The LO recorders didn't actually record standard video; they were modified to operate as wideband instrumentation recorders.

So, are you in the group photo in the article in the December Playboy, "Mission Out of Control",  by Pat Jordan, pages 78-79? The six people in the photo are unfortunately not named.

It's quite a good article and excellent reading except near the end where the author makes too much of an issue out of foibles of some of the people involved. Page 82 has a photo of some of the stacks of tapes, and there are a few photos of the machinery used.

It took me a while to find the McDonalds' building (now "McMoon's") in Google Earth, until I searched around the big building in the background of one photo. Found McMoon's at 37º 24' 33.96" N, 122º 03' 17.23" W.

It's a pity that ISEE-3 had run out of nitrogen.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Grashtel on February 06, 2015, 09:21:59 AM
The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.
Except that in this case its claiming he has a knife when he actually has a rubber spoon
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Allan F on February 06, 2015, 09:58:32 AM
An imaginary rubber spoon, that is.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 11:32:07 AM
The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.
Except that in this case its claiming he has a knife when he actually has a rubber spoon

Given the whopping that he got I think that he came with one of these.....

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-X9oeTNZNrRc/UeXkAlRMdpI/AAAAAAAAF5o/C81EzzqslPA/s1600/6975041_xl.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ipearse on February 06, 2015, 11:50:17 AM
So, in a nutshell, after 20+pages, the answer to the question posed by the topic title, is "No." Next?

Edit: Sorry, 30+pages.... good grief.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 11:59:53 AM
And Romulus-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg25853#msg25853)), ...

Maybe he meant Ectochrome -- the film used to photograph ghosts.  ;D  Seriously, though, I rarely care about spelling errors.  Granted, if you're a photographer or familiar with photography, you probably know should Ektachrome.  But my mother has a Master of English degree and still intentionally spells "vacume" (the gadget you clean carpets with).

Quote
...but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26206#msg26206) that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

A more egregious error, especially if you're choosing film for a particular project.  Laymen can be forgiven for referring to "the negative" as the strip of film that goes into the camera and comes out of the end of the developing process.  They may not understand that to a photographer, words such as "negative" and "positive" also describe whether the colors are reversed in the image.  The final evolution of the blue-screen process in film for traveling transparent mattes involves nearly a dozen film elements, some negative and some positive.  You need to keep track of that and understand the difference.

But not to know the difference between "exposed" and "developed."  That's important.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 12:06:41 PM
Edit: Sorry, 30+pages.... good grief.

He only lasted about 60 posts at Bad Astronomy.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 06, 2015, 12:21:45 PM

The fact that you are professional liars does not equate with any competence in the fields required to understand this subject, which you and your comrades have proved this over an over again, and consistency across the board.

Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can do what you are doing here.It's easy  .What isn't easy is actually proving anything, and if any of you could, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE STILL TRYING TO 48 YEARS LATER

Actually the fact is:- 48 years of trying and still the HB's do not have ONE piece of smoking gun evidence against Apollo. In 48 years not ONE person has come forward as a credible whistleblower. In 48 years the FACT that Apollo landed man on the moon, has stood as testament to the bravery of the astronauts and the ingenuity of the designers and systems engineers involved. It is actually offensive, to denigrate the achievement of Apollo with what is basically, poor science and outright lies.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2015, 12:35:31 PM
as they say in the North of England, "there's nowt as queer as folk".

and it seems he doesn't like that sort of folk ;)

A fellow northerner? I hope you're from the decent God-fearing part!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 12:51:50 PM
A fellow northerner? I hope you're from the decent God-fearing part!

I fear no god.

I'm a honorary Lancastrian, but originally from  over the stretch of water to the left....
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 06, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
A fellow northerner? I hope you're from the decent God-fearing part!

I fear no god.

I'm a honorary Lancastrian, but originally from  over the stretch of water to the left....

Shakes fist from the Yorkshire side ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 01:00:20 PM
My ancestral home is in East Midlands.  My nearer ancestors (i.e., somewhere between Henry III and 1830) were from Devon.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 06, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
I'm from that peaceful tribe of Huns across the North Sea...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Allan F on February 06, 2015, 01:43:54 PM
We used to own (or plunder) large parts of England and the Baltic.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 01:49:11 PM
I live in the Middlewest of Germany. My hometown is Düsseldorf.

I'm travelling much around the world. It's part of my profession. The last time I was in the USA was in 2002 at the winter olympics in Salt Lake City. What a pity, that I didn't know Jay at that time  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 06, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
The last time I was in the USA was in 2002 at the winter olympics in Salt Lake City. What a pity, that I didn't know Jay at that time  ;D

Indeed, that was quite a fun time.  I live just down the hill (a short walk) from the Olympic Stadium.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 06, 2015, 02:05:52 PM
Shakes fist from the Yorkshire side ;)

s'OK. Lancastrians are OK with Yorkies having t'hump as we know that we earn more and don't wet the bed.... :P :P ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2015, 02:18:09 PM
My family is from Burnley, Lancashire.  They were Catholic Royalist so when Lord Cromwell's men came around and cut off a few heads, my ancestor relocated to the mountains of Virginia.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 06, 2015, 02:18:56 PM
Given the whopping that he got I think that he came with one of these.....

It's hard to declare a whopping given his reluctance to declare his complicated Earth shattering science that only he and a few others understand. He was like a boxer holding for 15 rounds, refusing to throw a punch and hoping to win on points. He lost on points because he refused to fight.

 ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 02:31:50 PM

Indeed, that was quite a fun time.  I live just down the hill (a short walk) from the Olympic Stadium.

My profession is manufacturing, or better to say developin, bobsleighs and luges. I'm part of the German team and was there as technician and as a member of the technical commission. Four medals in bobsleigh and another four in luge. Yes, it was a funny time  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 06, 2015, 02:43:34 PM
My profession is manufacturing, or better to say developin, bobsleighs and luges. I'm part of the German team and was there as technician and as a member of the technical commission. Four medals in bobsleigh and another four in luge. Yes, it was a funny time  ;D

That's some story to tell. It's why Apollo appeals, because I can't imagine what it would have been like to be involved and witness them land on the moon - 6 times! Same with you, what it must be like to have been involved with people working at the peak of athleticism.

I can sum up my own career in the the words of SG Collins:

'My career has been unremarkable, but it has happened.'
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 02:50:38 PM

That's some story to tell. It's why Apollo appeals, because I can't imagine what it would have been like to be involved and witness them land on the moon - 6 times! Same with you, what it must be like to have been involved with people working at the peak of athleticism.

I can sum up my own career in the the words of SG Collins:

'My career has been unremarkable, but it has happened.'

I'm a great fan of Olympia. My athletic skills are not good enough to participate as an athlete, but I'm proud to be part of the whole team. Salt Lake City were my first games, and they were fantastic, Turin was boring, Vancouver was fantastic and Sochi was strange.

Anyway, I know the work behind such a project. And to see, that all details work, is simply brillant. Ok, I can't compare it with such a project like Apollo, I'm not that megalomaniac  ;D One reason might be, that nobody will call our medals as faked.

P.S. I'm also interested in the history of the Olympics of the modern era. I'm this for Olympics, what Jay is for Apollo.  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Andromeda on February 06, 2015, 03:40:22 PM
Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines apply here then?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 06, 2015, 03:50:05 PM
Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines apply here then?

Absolutely.

But I guess, HB's don't know what this law is.  ;D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Mag40 on February 06, 2015, 03:56:23 PM
Wow! I just spent way too long going through that whole thread in 3 painful chunks. All I could see was somebody horribly out of their depth. Nowhere did I see any proof and the number of questions just brushed aside was very obvious when you read the thread like that.

The worst thing was the sheer number of insults levied by this person and I applaud Jayutah for his totally professional responses in not rising to the bait. The irony was this post I dug up from the first page of his first thread:

By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 06, 2015, 04:06:27 PM
The worst thing was the sheer number of insults levied by this person and I applaud Jayutah for his totally professional responses in not rising to the bait.

Quite. As Jay explained to Gillianren, he most probably ignored her because Romulus was more interested in him. I found his 'Mr Windley' most condescending. I don't think it as a term he used out of reverence. It really is apparent that the focus on Jay is testament to his standing on this subject. It explains the obsessive behaviour he draws to some degree. They clearly feel threatened, and I believe Romulus more than most with his boasts of superior intellect.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 06, 2015, 04:35:31 PM
I think that overall, and Jay in particular, the members of this forum conducted themselves pretty well considering Romulus' constant abuse.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 06, 2015, 05:18:35 PM
I think that overall, and Jay in particular, the members of this forum conducted themselves pretty well considering Romulus' constant abuse.

I was sarcastic on several occasions, but I do find my halo slips at such times.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Northern Lurker on February 06, 2015, 05:23:38 PM
I have mixed feelings on current hoaxies. It is good thing that moon hoax is dying except for the few die hards who are not very convincing. The good thing about hoaxies is that their claims spark interesting conversations and I hope that some people come here to find the truth about hoax claims and get inspired about space. I know I did.

I have had some interest in space all my life but searching the answer for David Percy's glinting wires brought me to Clavius and ApolloHoax on Proboards and I have been lurking ever since  8) To pat myself on back, I recognized PLSS antenna immediately but remained baffled about flashes near the top of the picture.

Romulus was really bad show. All those promises about evidence and scientific approach dwindled down to ad hominems, delusions of superiority and bad analogies not to mention the other blunders which were too technical for me to spot. I know there is Ektachrome and wondered about partially developing film. I had no idea that Ektachrome was positive film (I'm not much of a photographer...).

During the last few days I have been twice outside while it was raining and didn't get wet. First time I used underground access tunnel from my work place to parking garage and drove home. The second time it was snowing outside and my clothing was slippery enough that snow didn't cling.

Lurky

edit: added signature
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2015, 05:47:35 PM
Does Betteridge's Law of Headlines apply here then?

Well, yes, if you listen to what Ian Betteridge himslelf had to say about it....

"This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no.' The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it"


... then it appears to apply perfectly to Romulus' threads.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 06, 2015, 07:16:34 PM
Romulus was really bad show. All those promises about evidence and scientific approach dwindled down to ad hominems, delusions of superiority and bad analogies not to mention the other blunders which were too technical for me to spot. I know there is Ektachrome and wondered about partially developing film. I had no idea that Ektachrome was positive film (I'm not much of a photographer...)

The things is, you don't have to be a photographer to understand some of the basic aspects of photography. It isn't always easy to explain "technical blunders" in some of the sciences; physics, mathematics, chemistry etc. in simple terms that the layman can understand, but this issue of non-parallel shadows is simple and straight forward. Anyone can understand it.

To use Romulus' example, he claims that this photo is faked.

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg)

He claims that, because the LM shadow (in the distance) and the shadow of the rocks (in the foreground) are not parallel, that this is undebunkable proof-positive that the photo was faked. He claims that such non-parallel shadows are impossible. He cited some no-name batshit crazy Ukrainian physicist whom he said had proved this photo was faked because....

Quote from: Romulus
"we see shadows with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles to the camera's field of view* . NO ONE can duplicate this anomaly with any type of camera, lens or film with the sun as the only source of light  because if one shadow is perpendicular to the cameras field of view in the foreground they all will be, and in this case on is an another is not."

I see many Apollo supporters go to the trouble of using the uneven or sloping ground to account for this, but it is not even that complicated. The fact is that even on perfectly flat ground, shadows cast (with the sun as the light source) by vertical objects in the background and foreground of any photo can never seen to be parallel. This is because the shadows are being cast in three dimensional space, but a photograph is a two-dimensional representation of that space.

So Romulus challenged...

Quote from: Romulus
"If you can debunk this mans work, do so."

... and it took me all of two minutes to find a few photographs by Google Image searching "fencepost" and  "shadows" to find images that totally debunks this claim. One of these images was this one...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Shadow2.jpg)

and the rest are in this post...

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26346#msg26346

The degree to which these shadows are non-parallel is also affected by the height above the ground that the photo was taken from, i.e, the Angle of View. In the Apollo photo, the AoV of the LM is low while the AoV of the rocks is high, we are looking down at them at a steep angle. Same applies to the distant and neat fenceposts.

Importantly, the people who took those photos were not trying to debunk an Apollo hoax claim. They will have had no idea whatsoever that someone might use them that way.

Of course, as is true to form for hoax believers, Romulus failed to even acknowledge my post., and I'm sure that if he had, I would have been subject to the usual torrent of abuse for being a paid lackey of NASA and one of "Evil Jay's" minions.




NOTE:
* Actually this makes no sense; but I know what he means. He's saying that the LM shadow is parallel to the photographic horizon (i.e. the X-axis) (http://www.thephotographerslife.com/x-y-z-axis-photography/).  The only thing that can be "at right angles to the camera's field of view" is the Z axis; the direction the camera is pointing in.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2015, 07:23:05 PM
Quite. As Jay explained to Gillianren, he most probably ignored her because Romulus was more interested in him.

Mmm.  That was certainly part of it, but he responded a lot more to a lot of other people.  It's also worth noting that his responses to me dropped entirely once I was definitively established to be female.

As for genealogy, my family is from everywhere!  England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Denmark, German, and a town that, when my great-grandmother was born, was the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  We're not actually sure what country it's in now, since Czechoslovakia split in two.
Title: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 06, 2015, 07:59:11 PM
@Dr. Acula (and Jay):  I work for the railroad that moved the Olympic flame on a special car upwards 70MPH.  My buddies in the Safety Department had fun demonstrating to the FRA that we could do it safely.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: dwight on February 07, 2015, 02:55:53 AM
One VERY interesting point which Jay queried Romulus on: if the lens distortion explains unparalleled shadows on earth based photos, why can it not also explain lunar based photos. An interesting precedence that Romulus has created for us.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 07, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
I think that overall, and Jay in particular, the members of this forum conducted themselves pretty well considering Romulus' constant abuse.

I confess to not being polite to him once it became obvious what kind of poster we were dealing with, and while I haven't read the entirety of responses I gather a term I used did not meet with universal approval.

I did start to compose a long and qualified apology over that, but while I did not want to offend anyone for whom I have respect I certainly did not want to give Romulus the impression that I was apologising to him: he got what he gave.

I simply have no time for him or people like him and I don't see why he should feel he has such a solid position on the moral high ground that he can dish out abuse and not get it straight back. Logical arguments and reasoned discussion are a waste of time for him - he never came here with any intention other than to troll and admitted as much.

I have been abused and banned on too many conspiracy forums for expressing my support for and supplying evidence in favour of Apollo to feel inclined to treat people like Romulus with anything but the contempt I feel for them once they have raised their true colours.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 07, 2015, 03:59:03 AM
One VERY interesting point which Jay queried Romulus on: if the lens distortion explains unparalleled shadows on earth based photos, why can it not also explain lunar based photos. An interesting precedence that Romulus has created for us.

An well but you see the thing is it wasn't the right camera, or the right lens, or it was taken on a Wednesday, or standing on one leg, and so on and so on....
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 07, 2015, 04:05:54 AM
One VERY interesting point which Jay queried Romulus on: if the lens distortion explains unparalleled shadows on earth based photos, why can it not also explain lunar based photos. An interesting precedence that Romulus has created for us.

Lens distortion (also called "barrel distortion") is not what causes parallel lines in reality to appear non-parallel in a photograph

Barrel distortion causes straight lines near the edges of the field of view to appear bent...

(http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/resources/images/VBO_BAR02.jpg)

... and it really only applies to wide angle lenses. I would not consider the 53° field of view of the Apollo lunar surface cameras to be "wide angle"
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 07, 2015, 04:46:40 AM
One VERY interesting point which Jay queried Romulus on: if the lens distortion explains unparalleled shadows on earth based photos, why can it not also explain lunar based photos. An interesting precedence that Romulus has created for us.

While not identical to the point Jay raises, as that is specific to lens distortion, my question with many of the photographic anomaly claims has been 'why can't the 'anomaly' be on the lunar surface?'

My own summary would be that the three stock arguments were parallel shadows, fill lighting and secondary light sources, but it would appear that every photograph is subject to some sort of Earth only anomaly now. The whole argument is tediously boring, particulary when the debunking of these three stock arguments has been ignored and the 'entire' photographic record is questioned. It makes their position even more ludicrous as they extend their theory beyond the original claims.

I also get slightly annoyed when the one piece of evidence that they were shot in a vacuum is ignored, and that is the sharpness of the shadows.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 07, 2015, 04:50:05 AM
Mmm.  That was certainly part of it, but he responded a lot more to a lot of other people.  It's also worth noting that his responses to me dropped entirely once I was definitively established to be female.

I am more than happy to add misogynist to a list of his -isms and -ists.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 07, 2015, 05:27:22 AM
I have had some interest in space all my life but searching the answer for David Percy's glinting wires brought me to Clavius and ApolloHoax on Proboards and I have been lurking ever since  8) To pat myself on back, I recognized PLSS antenna immediately but remained baffled about flashes near the top of the picture.

Hi Northern Lurker.  You don't say whether you figured out the flashes at the top of the picture, but if not, here's an old post of mine at the previous incarnation of this board.

Notice I talk about "frames," which probably horrifies those who know more about copying film and video onto DVDs than I do, but even so, it shows that in this example from the area near the Apollo 17 flag, one or two of the flashes are simply coincidental artifacts of the copying process - kinescope to video or vice versa - and are not related and therefore not wires.

Anyone who has the Apollo 17 DVD set can check what I wrote.

Quote
Kiwi
Post 41
Suspended by wires.
Reply #39 on 28 Jul, 2005, 12:47am
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1122302912&page=3#1122468469

Apollo 17 "wire"

For the record, the link provided by Margamatix
http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rm
does indeed claim that there are wires holding up the astronauts, and shows a scene of the Apollo 17 flag and an antenna reflecting the sunlight with a similar flare at the top. This is, of course, "a wire," as far as the hoax-promoters are concerned.

However, close examination of the Spacecraft Films DVDs, disc 2, "EVA 1," "First Television," with the image filling a TV screen, reveals some interesting points.

First of all the film continuously shows the astronauts from 0:8:35 until 0:14:56, a total of 6 minutes 21 seconds, both out beyond the flag and very close to the TV camera on the rover. Never at any time during their different activities is there evidence of wires holding them up. Their antennas can be seen regularly when they are side-on to the TV camera, sometimes dark, sometimes light, and sometimes brightly reflecting the sun.

At 0:10:56 the image changes to a darker one, with the lunar surface going from medium grey to dark brown. It changes back again at 0:16:02. From the booklet that comes with the DVDs, I guess that this is a changeover from videotape to kinescope or vice versa. It's not unusual and happens at other times during the flag-raising and, for one instance of a few, between 1:02:36 and 1:04:36 during the ALSEP deployment.

During these darker phases, the overall image quality is much lower and there is a type of audio tape print-through, when dialogue can be heard faintly four or five seconds before it actually occurs. Additionally, and of importance regarding "wires," there are many artefacts that appear briefly on the screen -- colour banding, random white spots, dark spots and sometimes a number of white spots that can all be seen at once. Most of these last for one to three frames.

The particular flash in Margamatix's link occurs at 12 minutes 10 seconds during "First Television." In fact, there are two flashes from the antenna, both lasting for three frames. Neither of these two flashes are responsible for the flash at the top of the screen, which lasts for two frames and begins four frames after the beginning of the second antenna flash, just as it fades completely away.

About one second later another similar flash can be seen at the bottom of the screen and also lasts for two frames. It is unrelated to anything happening on screen, so I believe that the flash at the top of the screen is just another random artefact and just coincidentally occurs above the antenna, but is not in any way evidence of a wire. If it was, it should also have occurred during the first antenna flash.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ChrLz on February 07, 2015, 08:22:06 AM
Lens distortion (also called "barrel distortion") is not what causes parallel lines in reality to appear non-parallel in a photograph
Barrel distortion causes straight lines near the edges of the field of view to appear bent...
... and it really only applies to wide angle lenses. I would not consider the 53° field of view of the Apollo lunar surface cameras to be "wide angle"
I'm going to nit pick a little here...  Given how perspective works, any 'straight' line that is not the one you have centred in your field of view (be it your eye or *any* lens) IS curved.  The further from the centreline* of your field of view, the more curved it is.

For both lenses and your eye, it is relatively easy to correct this effect IF and ONLY if your field of view is limited, eg out to about 90 degrees f-o-v (that figure is highly arguable).  In lenses, the barrel and pincushion discrepancies are what are left over from the designers choices on how to create a rectilinear lens, ie one that corrects for the actual, real, not illusional, bending that happens for everything above/below (and left/right) of the centre of view.  As Smartcooky said, it is normally only a problem for lenses that are very wide angle, but that is *only* because lens designers do devious things to twist the image into a roughly rectilinear form when it is projected onto the sensor/film.  Once you get to the very wide (fish eye) lenses, they basically have to give up and accept that it cannot be done. 

Interestingly, for those of us who do panoramas by stitching lots of images together, this rectilinear correction probably creates more trouble than it solves.. and we have to learn about this stuff as the perspective issues become quite problematic.  We have the inverse problem that mapmakers have, as it were, when they have to flatten the globe.  Think about it.. 

Your eye has an easier job of it - the eye does actually see a very fish eyed world, but you have a brain that takes care of that and straightens everything in some very, very clever ways.  It sort of *has* to, as you know the lines are straight, and they shouldn't bend..  so the brain simply makes it so...

This perspective issue, which is simply caused by us being effectively a single point in space around which a spherical universe exists, also explains the Moon Tilt Illusion (it's not an illusion!) where the Moon can be (and often is) clearly illuminated from way above the horizon even after the Sun has set, also anti- crepuscular rays, also the way railway lines bend outwards under your feet and then converge at the vanishing points.  Straight lines CANNOT do that, yet they do - from a single point perspective.  Anyway, I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about this perspective issue - at BAUT long ago I largely unsuccessfully argued this, and some erudite members there (Hi Grapes..) pretty much ran me off the thread, wrongly claiming that straight lines must always appear straight.

It's a bit offtopic, but I'm very happy to elaborate in great (painful) detail, including a pretty simple elegant mathematical proof (all you need is you standing near a fence, and some trigonometry...)  If this subject interests you, see this link (http://muddycolors.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/todd-lockwood-curvilinear-perspective.html) from someone else who gets it and explains it well using the moon tilt thing...


* I've done a bit of simplifying here, I hope any perspective purists will forgive me for trying to simplify.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Tedward on February 07, 2015, 08:41:27 AM
I would like to thank Romulus, as ever I learn something new from the replies. Still not read them all yet as it escalated quite quickly.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 07, 2015, 09:58:48 AM

Your eye has an easier job of it - the eye does actually see a very fish eyed world, but you have a brain that takes care of that and straightens everything in some very, very clever ways.  It sort of *has* to, as you know the lines are straight, and they shouldn't bend..  so the brain simply makes it so...


My brain currently sees a very fish-eyed world - I've just got varifocals, and lines I previously considered extremely straight (sides of a computer screen, my guitar neck and so on) turn out to be very very curved indeed!

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 07, 2015, 11:00:43 AM
I have mixed feelings on current hoaxies. It is good thing that moon hoax is dying except for the few die hards who are not very convincing. The good thing about hoaxies is that their claims spark interesting conversations and I hope that some people come here to find the truth about hoax claims and get inspired about space. I know I did.

I have had some interest in space all my life but searching the answer for David Percy's glinting wires brought me to Clavius and ApolloHoax on Proboards and I have been lurking ever since  8) To pat myself on back, I recognized PLSS antenna immediately but remained baffled about flashes near the top of the picture.

Romulus was really bad show. All those promises about evidence and scientific approach dwindled down to ad hominems, delusions of superiority and bad analogies not to mention the other blunders which were too technical for me to spot. I know there is Ektachrome and wondered about partially developing film. I had no idea that Ektachrome was positive film (I'm not much of a photographer...).

During the last few days I have been twice outside while it was raining and didn't get wet. First time I used underground access tunnel from my work place to parking garage and drove home. The second time it was snowing outside and my clothing was slippery enough that snow didn't cling.

Lurky

edit: added signature

Hello, Lurky, greetings from Germany.

You're absolutely right, the hoax is dying. You can see it on several forums (eeehm fora? don't know the pluralform  :) ). When one of these die hards comes up, he can only present old and long debunked nonsense.

You've got to know, I was one of them. Not a die hard, but I believed in the hoax. But at one time I realized, that there is nothing really convincing. I did my own research, something that most of the HB never do. I didn't want to parrot all the old points, so I tried to find the real thing, the absolute and undeniable proof. I did my calculations, my research. I looked for help from real experts. And they showed me, how wrong I was. Shortly after this I realized, how dishonest most of the HB's are. I've got a good example here in Germany. And I decided, that I don't want to have a liar on my side.

To make it short, two or three years ago I found some interesting science fora and I found Jay's clavius site. I've learned so many things about spaceflight, the history of Apollo, physics and other very important things. It's incredible and it's enjoyable to get this knowledge.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 11:49:43 AM
My profession is manufacturing, or better to say developin, bobsleighs and luges.

We probably have a lot more in common then.  I don't manufacture directly, but I often have to work closely with manufacturing engineers to work out fabrication and assembly problems.

In English we prefer "bobsled" to "bobsleigh."  While you won't cause confusion, English generally prefers "sled" when the vehicle descends by gravity and "sleigh" when it is drawn by an animal.  Technically I guess you could say it's a bobsleigh until they stop pushing it and get in. Then it's a bobsled. :)

I'm glad you liked being in my city, although I imagine you probably spend most of your time up at Bear Hollow, where the track is.  You might be interested to know that the area across the highway from it has been built up a lot since the Games.  We're quite proud of that track.  The public can ride it with a trained pilot, but it's $185 per person so I would have to save up.  They even do it during the summer with a wheeled "sled." ($75)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 12:04:47 PM
Interestingly, for those of us who do panoramas by stitching lots of images together, this rectilinear correction probably creates more trouble than it solves.

Undoubtedly, because the gimmicks (especially in the Biogon) that push all the distortion to the edges are generally not linear or even second-order corrections.  That makes it practically impossible to design a one-size-fits-all algorithm to rectify the image.  However, for professional applications, you can build a lens model.  Basically you photograph a special pattern from a fixed, very precisely measured, distance with the optical axis very precisely centered on the center of the pattern, and where specific lines on the pattern fall in the image can tell certain software exactly how light refracts through the lens.  That can be used later where a precise rectification is needed.  It's a more rigorous, more precise version of the same process lens manufacturers use to plot the distortion curves for the lens's data sheet.

Quote
We have the inverse problem that mapmakers have, as it were, when they have to flatten the globe.  Think about it.

I have a whole pile of software recipes (somewhere...) for implementing cartographic projections.  But yes, it's a similar problem.  Only harder, because the resulting cartograph doesn't strictly have to be a rectangle.  I even ran across one that mimics the celestial sphere as seen from the ground.  At elevation zero, the azimuth lines are vertical and parallel.  As elevation increases, the azimuths converge until at elevation 90° the azimuth lines are radials.

Quote
Your eye has an easier job of it - the eye does actually see a very fish eyed world, but you have a brain that takes care of that and straightens everything in some very, very clever ways.

One of those ways is the concept of the eyespan.  While your eye sees a surprisingly wide field of view, physiologically it's most sensitive near its optical axis.  And cognitively, your brain applies certain interpretive processes only to that eyespan -- roughly a 30° cone in the center of your vision.  Any profession that has to do with clear perception takes care to keep things within the eyespan.  This, for example, is why typography still uses narrow text columns and why heads-up displays are still small.  Typographers learned that the eye has a hard time finding the next line of type when the column is wider than the eyespan.

But in terms of perspective what it means is that your mind doesn't spend a lot of time trying to build spatial coherence at the edge of your vision, probably because if it did you'd have lots of headaches.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 12:17:42 PM
One VERY interesting point which Jay queried Romulus on: if the lens distortion explains unparalleled shadows on earth based photos, why can it not also explain lunar based photos. An interesting precedence that Romulus has created for us.

Well, it's hard to guess sometimes at what hoax believers think the world should be like, especially in one so addled as Romulus.  But what I think he was trying to say is that the shadows are "wrong" in Apollo photos as an unavoidable consequence of how they were lit.  Then in order to pretend to recreate those same shadows on Earth in sunlight, we need special lenses fabricated exactly for the purpose of producing these fake proof photos and useful for nothing else.  Rather than the expected effects of wide-angle lenses that you and I consider, I gather he was pleading a very specific case -- lenses made for no purpose other than forging Apollo-like photos.  Not just "lens distortion as from an ordinary lens," but "lenses specifically designed to distort the picture in sunlight exactly the way Apollo shadows are distorted by the use of stage lighting."

Keep in mind, that's an argument coming from someone who tells the world that NASA spends millions of dollars opposing only him.

Yes, if you're thinking about ordinary distortion, then sun-cast shadows cast on Earth would be distorted the same way as sun-cast shadows on the Moon.  But if you're proposing a one-off lens made just to correct specific effects, why can't NASA then have produced a special one-off lens to make the stage shadows look "parallel?"  They can fabricate exotic lenses to try to fool Romulus, but they can't fabricate exotic lenses to avoid the problem altogether?  See how that's just another egoist argument?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 07, 2015, 12:53:46 PM
And I can't imagine (argument from incredulity, I know, but this ties in to the very small amount of physics I actually learned in that ill-fated physics class) that it's possible to manufacture a lens that would only distort the shadows.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 01:30:10 PM
And I can't imagine (argument from incredulity, I know, but this ties in to the very small amount of physics I actually learned in that ill-fated physics class) that it's possible to manufacture a lens that would only distort the shadows.

Not optically.  You can have lenses that selectively distort small areas of the field of view.  Such a lens would have elements with specific lumps, despressions, or other visible discontinuity.  The effect would be similar to using a "stretch" tool in an image-editing software program.  And actually, those are exactly the methods used to distort models in fashion photography to produce those unachievable results.  A few weeks ago there was a tizzy when Justin Bieber's unedited photos for Calvin Klein surfaced.  Such effects could theoretically be achieved optically by a lens manufactured solely for that photograph.  (Now the one-off lens for Lawrence of Arabia doesn't seem so outrageous.)  But that lens would need a plethora of small-scale alterations on its surfaces to selectively "barrel" or "pincushion" very small areas of the field of view.

So the best you could hope for in the 1960s would be an optical alteration of the region of the photo to "stretch" everything in it, including the shadows, to make it appear to lie in some other direction.  But in the context of proposing special propagandist lenses, we're really just quibbling over degrees of absurdity.

Is there a way optically to redirect only the relative absence of light (i.e., a shadow) along a different path through a camera?  Or more physically accurate:  is there a way to redirect only the portions of strong light surrounding the shadow so as to undetectably redirect the appearance of where the shadow lies?  Not bloody likely.  We know several ways to redirect light preferentially based on its wavelength.  (In fact it happens in lenses whether we want it or not -- usually not.)  But not how to move shadows with lenses.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 07, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
They can fabricate exotic lenses to try to fool Romulus, but they can't fabricate exotic lenses to avoid the problem altogether?

Or why just not just shoot it knowing that shadows aren't always parallel? I just don't get the overly convoluted scenarios with the Apollo surface photography and the need for special lenses. Is this a case of Occam's razor?

I can sort of understand falling for the fill light claims with photos such as Aldrin descending from the LM, but parallel shadows and multiple light sources push the boundaries beyond what is reasonable. The latter are so easily debunkable and anyone that leans on them as evidence despite obvious evidence to the contrary really is just looking for a fight.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 07, 2015, 02:38:46 PM
And I can't imagine (argument from incredulity, I know, but this ties in to the very small amount of physics I actually learned in that ill-fated physics class) that it's possible to manufacture a lens that would only distort the shadows.

I'd say that was an argument from common sense and practical experience of observing the world around you.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 07, 2015, 02:55:27 PM

We probably have a lot more in common then.  I don't manufacture directly, but I often have to work closely with manufacturing engineers to work out fabrication and assembly problems.

In English we prefer "bobsled" to "bobsleigh."  While you won't cause confusion, English generally prefers "sled" when the vehicle descends by gravity and "sleigh" when it is drawn by an animal.  Technically I guess you could say it's a bobsleigh until they stop pushing it and get in. Then it's a bobsled. :)

I'm glad you liked being in my city, although I imagine you probably spend most of your time up at Bear Hollow, where the track is.  You might be interested to know that the area across the highway from it has been built up a lot since the Games.  We're quite proud of that track.  The public can ride it with a trained pilot, but it's $185 per person so I would have to save up.  They even do it during the summer with a wheeled "sled." ($75)

I was there the whole event, from the opening ceremony until the closing ceremony. So I had time enough to get some impressions of your city. And I have to say, it was very interesting. Maybe I should visit it again per streetview. ;)

I know this special difference between "sleigh" and "sled" ;) But we use the term, which the IOC use either (sleigh), for example in our documents and correspondence. Our international federation is the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation. So you understand, why I use sleigh every time ;)

I've done a public ride in Germany (at Oberhof in Thuringia). It was a two-men-model with the professional pilot Christoph Langen (who won gold in Salt Lake City). I didn't have to pay for it, because it was important for me to have this special experience. And man, I can tell you, you should do it  ;D Surely you will s*** your pants before the first curve, but at the end it's a really fantastic thing.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 07, 2015, 03:38:47 PM
The issue here is that distortion in the optical systems of lens has nothing whatsoever to do with why shadows that are parallel in real life, appear non-parallel in a photograph. I concur with ChrLz when he says that all lines off the centre x and y axes are curved to some degree, but this is generally undetectable in lenses with less than about a 70° FoV, and certainly would not be easy to detect in the Apollo lens..

Assuming that the two objects casting the shadows are both vertical (w.r.t. with the X axis of the photo) and the surface on which the shadows are being cast is flat and horizontal (w.r.t. the Y axis of the photo) then the degree to which the two parallel shadows appear non-parallel depends on how far away the foreground and background shadows are relative to each other and relative to the point of view, as well as the distance that the point of view is away from the plane of the surface on which the shadows are cast.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/30ydline.jpg)

I have used American Football yardage lines to show this because they are evenly spaced and we KNOW that in reality, they are all parallel with each other. The distant (background) ones appear to be parallel with the X axis while the nearer (foreground) ones do not. In fact, the background ones are not parallel with the X axis either, they only appear that way because the angle (above the plane) that we view them from is so low that we cannot detect the difference. However, the angle we view the foreground ones from is much higher so the can easily see they are not parallel.

The important thing however, is that this does not only happen in a photo. Of you go and stand on the corner of a football field you will see this effect with your own eyes. Your brain corrects for this and tells you that the lines are parallel in 3D space but that is not what you actually see.

I reiterate; when lines that are in reality parallel, appear to be non-parallel on a photograph, it has nothing to do what what happens in the camera or the lens or any other piece of optical or photographic equipment. It has to do with one, and only one thing, perspective, which is the consequence of trying to display three dimensional space in two dimensions. When you do so, you lose a dimension, so there is a compromise; the third dimension is displayed as a distortion in either or both of the remaining dimensions.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 07, 2015, 04:47:23 PM
I know this special difference between "sleigh" and "sled" ;) But we use the term, which the IOC use either (sleigh), for example in our documents and correspondence. Our international federation is the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation. So you understand, why I use sleigh every time ;)

To be fair, the difference may be more adhered to in American English than the Queen's variety, which prefers "sledge" to "sled" anyway ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 07, 2015, 06:49:43 PM
Smartcooky, your photos and explanation is excellent.  To illustrate the point further I created the following drawing, which shows how the shadow cast by a cube changes with different angles of view (from overhead to side view).  The rocks in the foreground of image AS14-68-9486 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg) are viewed from approximately the middle perspective while the LM is viewed from approximately the bottom perspective.

(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/ShadowPerspective1.gif)

Furthermore, as I indicated here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26397#msg26397), I believe the LM's shadow may be projected onto a slight uphill incline, as seen in AS14-66-9276 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9276.jpg).  Adding this incline into the illustration, we get something like this:

(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/ShadowPerspective2.gif)

So even though the shadow is in fact angled about 45 degrees toward the direction of the camera, it give the impression that it is projected to the right.
 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 07, 2015, 08:37:16 PM
To illustrate the point further I created the following drawing, which shows how the shadow cast by a cube changes with different angles of view (from overhead to side view).  The rocks in the foreground of image AS14-68-9486 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg) are viewed from approximately the middle perspective while the LM is viewed from approximately the bottom perspective.

(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/ShadowPerspective1.gif)

Furthermore, as I indicated here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.msg26397#msg26397), I believe the LM's shadow may be projected onto a slight uphill incline, as seen in AS14-66-9276 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9276.jpg).  Adding this incline into the illustration, we get something like this:

(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/ShadowPerspective2.gif)

So even though the shadow is in fact angled about 45 degrees toward the direction of the camera, it give the impression that it is projected to the right.
 


Like this

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/bobshadow.png)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 07, 2015, 09:12:07 PM
So, are you in the group photo in the article in the December Playboy, "Mission Out of Control",  by Pat Jordan, pages 78-79? The six people in the photo are unfortunately not named.
No, but I do recognize 4 or 5. I didn't even know that article existed. I found it here

http://www.playboy.com/articles/mission-out-of-control

and I'll have to read it.

I was only there for a couple of days during the ISEE-3 flyby of the earth-moon system; the rest of the time I was working at home in San Diego.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 07, 2015, 09:34:34 PM
It's a pity that ISEE-3 had run out of nitrogen.
Yeah. This was a big mystery to me, as I couldn't figure out how the N2 could leak while leaving the hydrazine (N2H4) behind. The N2 was in the propellant tanks, not in separate tanks, with no bladders separating it from the hydrazine. (Bladders are often used when a tank has to work in 0 G, but the spinning ISEE-3 induced fairly substantial artificial gravity in its tanks.)

I suggested the possibility that the hydrazine was simply frozen (it freezes at a relatively high +1C). They'd already thought of that, and turned on the tank heaters to ensure that the hydrazine was liquid. That didn't help. They were also careful to select only one of the two banks of propellant tanks at a time so that if one contained a leak, you wouldn't empty the other bank through it.

Finally Dennis explained the leading hypothesis to me. It was apparently known to the people who built the propellant valves that N2 could diffuse very slowly through the seals (some form of Teflon, I think). If it was indeed molecular diffusion, this could explain why the larger N2H4 molecules were left behind.

I don't remember what convinced them that the hydrazine was still in the tanks; I'll have to consult my email on that.

I made an observation that I still haven't explained, though I haven't worked on it for some time. My role in the project was to demodulate and decode the telemetry (this is sort of a specialty for me). Someone else noticed a very small frequency modulation in the carrier frequency at the spacecraft spin rate. At first my only concern was to keep it from upsetting my carrier tracking loop, but then I began to wonder why it should be present in the first place. Obviously it was caused by the S-band antenna being displaced from the spin axis, but it was supposed to be directly on the spin axis; I estimated an offset of a few cm. But the mass properties document showed the spacecraft to be exquisitely well balanced, so why was this happening? Could something have taken a chunk out of the spacecraft in a non-vulnerable spot, perhaps during the 1985 comet encounter? Were the propellant tanks unequally filled? Or was it just the normal result of a small dynamic imbalance? I still have to crunch the data and see, but like a lot of the people on the project we were kinda burned out by the intense effort we all put in prior to the encounter.




Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 10:07:27 PM
Were the propellant tanks unequally filled? Or was it just the normal result of a small dynamic imbalance?

Propellant slosh?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Count Zero on February 07, 2015, 11:35:58 PM
One of the clearest examples of lens distortion in Apollo photographs comes from two images in the panorama that Buzz Aldrin took on Roll 40

(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cncsj9.jpg)

AS11-40-5885 (Left) shows the flagpole (on the right side of the image) tilted to the right with respect to the horizon, whereas the next photo in the pan, AS11-40-5886 (Right), shows the flagpole (near the left edge of the image) tilted to the left with respect to the horizon.

When I started making stereo pairs, I used these two images as a "Rosetta Stone" to deconvolve (is that the right word?) the images so that I could compare the right side of one image with the left side of another with minimal distortion.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 08, 2015, 01:52:58 AM
Propellant slosh?
I don't think so. There are 8 propellant tanks arrayed around the equator of the spacecraft, with the takeoffs on the outside (the direction of acceleration from the spin). There are two banks of four interleaved such that the spacecraft should remain balanced even if the banks are unevenly depleted.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 05:16:13 AM
One of the clearest examples of lens distortion in Apollo photographs comes from two images in the panorama that Buzz Aldrin took on Roll 40

(http://i62.tinypic.com/2cncsj9.jpg)

This is not my area to be quite honest, so this a genuine question: Can some of the tilting also be explained by the angle at which the composition was taken? The camera has been moved between the two images and given how it is chest mounted could rotation also contribute to the tilting?

It's a good example for the uninitiated in this area. Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 08, 2015, 05:40:25 AM
Look at the angle of the solar wind experiment as well as the flag, they both show the same angle of tilt, you may well be right Luke..
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 06:04:35 AM
Look at the angle of the solar wind experiment as well as the flag, they both show the same angle of tilt, you may well be right Luke..

There is that too. Getting into the CTs mind for a minute I guess they would argue that flag was tilted because of the wind on the 'moonset.' I would say that the solar wind composition experiment would negate this, and that both flag and solar wind composition experiment are tilted at the same angle due to the movement of the camera.

I do defer this to others with far more expertise of image analysis.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Kiwi on February 08, 2015, 07:04:22 AM
...The things is, you don't have to be a photographer to understand some of the basic aspects of photography. It isn't always easy to explain "technical blunders" in some of the sciences; physics, mathematics, chemistry etc. in simple terms that the layman can understand, but this issue of non-parallel shadows is simple and straight forward. Anyone can understand it.

To use Romulus' example, he claims that this photo is faked.

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg)

He claims that, because the LM shadow (in the distance) and the shadow of the rocks (in the foreground) are not parallel, that this is undebunkable proof-positive that the photo was faked. He claims that such non-parallel shadows are impossible...

For anyone who's interested in seeing more examples of how this effect occurs, JayUtah has long had some examples at Clavius -- links below.  Three lots of photos show what happens when a rock's shadow is photographed from high above, then at increasing distances.  The photos are composed so that the shadows are at 15º, 30º and 45º to the lens axis, and a wooden stake points along the lens axis.  Note that at the greatest distance from the rock, in each case the shadow looks as if it is at or very close to right angles to the lens axis.

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Count Zero on February 08, 2015, 07:54:28 AM
This is not my area to be quite honest, so this a genuine question: Can some of the tilting also be explained by the angle at which the composition was taken? The camera has been moved between the two images and given how it is chest mounted could rotation also contribute to the tilting?

I don't think so.  Here are the Hi-Res versions:
AS11-40-5885 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5885.jpg)
AS11-40-5886 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5886.jpg)

If you zoom-in and look at the features behind the flagpole and the solar wind experiment, you can see that the camera did not change position very much - I'm guessing less than a foot.  This would be consistent with the movement of the lens as the photographer rotates in place (It took 12 frames to complete the panorama.  Imagine Buzz snapping a picture, rotating 30-degrees, then snapping another).  The lens is tracing the circumference of a circle whose radius runs from Buzz's center of rotation, through the RCU and the camera body.  If that radius is ~18 inches, then the camera lens will be shifting ~9 inches to the right, going clockwise.  Of course, the center of rotation may change a little as Buzz repositions his feet, but that can either increase or decrease the parallax between images.

The important thing is that the angle between the flagpole and the horizon appears to have changed between the images.  If the camera tilted between shots, the angle from the pole and the horizon to the image frame would be different, but not the angle between the flagpole and the horizon.  Comparing these images to AS11-40-5875 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5875.jpg) (which was taken from the reverse angle), the slight right-tilt in AS11-40-5885 appears close to the actual angle. 

Incidentally, the flagpole itself did not shift while Buzz was taking the pan.  I checked both the video and the DAC.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 08:03:32 AM
If you zoom-in and look at the features behind the flagpole and the solar wind experiment, you can see that the camera did not change position very much - I'm guessing less than a foot. 

I see this now, the movement is not that great. Zooming in on the high resolution images, it appears that the stars in the USA flag have been stretched out a little too, where the blue pane in the flag is mishapen when the flag is closest to the left hand side of the image.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 08, 2015, 12:10:35 PM
The thing that I notice is that the angle between the horizontal support rod at the top of the flag and the flagpole has changed between images.  In 5885 they form nearly a right angle, while in 5886 they form about an 80 degree angle.  It appears that the horizontal rod's orientation with respect to the horizon doesn't change much.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ChrLz on February 09, 2015, 09:33:51 AM
Great post, thanks Jay!
....
One of those ways is the concept of the eyespan.  While your eye sees a surprisingly wide field of view, physiologically it's most sensitive near its optical axis.  And cognitively, your brain applies certain interpretive processes only to that eyespan -- roughly a 30° cone in the center of your vision.
Going off topic, sorry... I used to teach basic photography, and I used a few party tricks to show how the eye *really* works when you don't let the brain 'cheat'.

One of them was to get the class to stare fixedly at a little circle I drew on the whiteboard.  I then uncovered two pieces of paper above and below that circle, only about 20cm/8" away from the dot, upon which was some reasonably large text, text that should be easily read from anywhere in the room.  I then asked them, without moving their eyes from the circle, to use their peripheral vision to tell me what was written on the upper and lower sheets.  There was silence, and then laughter as they gradually gave up and then had to move their eyes to read it (can't remember the joke I used..).

It's quite a weird sensation when you do this - if you are curious, try it by looking at a large paragraph of text you haven't read, and then focus on the middle word.  Without moving your eye, see how much of the lines above and below you can actually read using only peripheral vision - you'll be surprised at how quickly the resolution falls away.  Yet your brain, somehow, makes you still perceive the unresolved characters as sort of 'sharp', even though they are definitely not.  And as soon as you glance at them, they snap into legibility.. and then stay there.

Thanks, brain!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: HeadLikeARock on February 09, 2015, 02:49:57 PM
I haven't participated in this thread, which has unfurled somewhat like a particularly painful slow mo train crash.

My hopes for Romulus faded entirely with this post:-

There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

...to you.

If you can come up with an explanation for a 45 degree divergence of shadows in objects illuminated by 'The Sun" at nearly the same distance from the camera that makes sense to you, you're retarded. Not just scientifically illiterate, but RETARDED

As we all know, What he is claiming to be completely inexplicable can be easily reproduced by anyone in possession of a camera, some sunlight, and some common sense. It's not only his denial, but the forthright and offensive nature of that denial, that show that not only can he not possibly have a basic grasp of some fairly straightforward optical principles, but he can't even contemplate the possibility of being wrong, implying some serious cognitive bias.

He compounds his error in this paragraph:-

Quote
VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Firstly, the sentence he capitalised is complete gibberrish. Nothing more than word salad.

Secondly, he stated (incorrectly) that some kind of special "propaganda" lens was used - yet failed to make the connection that for his argument to be internally consistent, why couldn't the Apollo photos also have been taken with this "propaganda" lens?

Thirdly, he effectively admits that taking such a photograph is indeed possible, yet in the paragraph above, he stated that anyone who could come up worth an explanation that made sense to them, they were retarded - and yet, he came up with an explanation that made sense to him. So, a triple epic fail in this single paragraph.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone announce themselves onto this forum with so much fanfare, pomp and self-aggrandisement, then  humiliate themselves so painfully and publically. Is it wrong to feel sympathy for him?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 09, 2015, 02:57:44 PM
As we all know, What he is claiming to be completely inexplicable can be easily reproduced by anyone in possession of a camera, some sunlight, and some common sense.

What, you mean like this guy did?



Quote
I don't think I've ever seen anyone announce themselves onto this forum with so much fanfare, pomp and self-aggrandisement, then  humiliate themselves so painfully and publically. Is it wrong to feel sympathy for him?

That's putting it politely.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: HeadLikeARock on February 09, 2015, 03:54:27 PM
What, you mean like this guy did?


Hang on a minute... I recognise that shadow!!! ;)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2015, 05:18:14 PM
It's not only his denial, but the forthright and offensive nature of that denial, that show that not only can he not possibly have a basic grasp of some fairly straightforward optical principles,


But, but, but, but..... he's a "theoretical astrophysicist!

As we say in Tui Land.... Yeah, Right!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: raven on February 11, 2015, 03:11:07 AM
I guess that means he's theoretically an astrophysicist, just like I am theoretically Pope Francis. 8)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ineluki on February 11, 2015, 10:25:48 AM
I'd say that was an argument from common sense and practical experience of observing the world around you.

Both are things that are practically unknown to hoaxers and conspiracists in general...
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2015, 11:12:54 AM
I guess that means he's theoretically an astrophysicist, just like I am theoretically Pope Francis. 8)

I hypothetically bow and kiss your ring.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 11, 2015, 12:38:05 PM
That is a really bad thing to say in England, lol.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 11, 2015, 03:10:04 PM
I hypothetically bow and kiss your ring.

Bryanpoprobson beat me to it, but you really don't want to say that in the UK... ever. Especially in a crowded public bar.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 11, 2015, 05:28:59 PM
I hypothetically bow and kiss your ring.

Bryanpoprobson beat me to it, but you really don't want to say that in the UK... ever. Especially in a crowded public bar.

Rumour has it that in *some* bars it'd get you a round of drinks, at least....

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LoipE_v4nC0/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2015, 09:16:52 PM
That is a really bad thing to say in England, lol.

LOL. Thanks for the heads up on that.   But there is the still open question on how the non-theoretical Pope would take that particular meaning..............
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dalhousie on February 12, 2015, 02:45:16 AM
I guess that means he's theoretically an astrophysicist, just like I am theoretically Pope Francis. 8)

I hypothetically bow and kiss your ring.

A friend of mind is a Bishop and his son said "may I kiss your ring?" to him when he heard the news. It sounds bad here, just like in the UK.  My friend thought hilarious and recounts it with relish!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 12, 2015, 07:56:05 AM
I was responsible for one of the first Pan-European STM64 Fibre optic networks. As the technical lead project manager I was responsible for bringing the network into service. The Network was made up of 5 interconnecting MSP rings. I had 4 in service but was awaiting the test results for the main West Ring which was the prime structure of the network. I had to attend a board meeting at 10 o'clock and the final 24 hour test results were due at 11. So I am at a senior board meeting and I phone my Nortel Contact at 11 O'clock (a West Indian guy called Precious, yes "Precious") and ask the status of the test results.

In a real deep West Indian accent the reply (on loudspeaker) was... "I'm looking at the ring now and it's the cleanest ring I've ever seen." One senior board member literally fell off his chair laughing, it was 10 minutes before we could carry on with the meeting.... :D


Ah well you probably had to be there!! :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DataCable on February 12, 2015, 02:15:52 PM
I know I'm very late to this party, but I just skimmed this thread, ran across this gem, and noticed nobody else pounced on it... so I will (post-mortem):

Apollo By the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.
OH REALLY!

This is the very first time I have seen that particular claim. I see it on Amazon and I see it has a library of congress number.WASN'T AWARE NASA CLAIMS CREDIT!
[emphasis mine]

Perhaps my sarcasometer just suffered a massive overload, but how could anyone see the listing on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Numbers-Statistical-Reference-History/dp/1493646796) and miss the first listed author?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 12, 2015, 03:08:26 PM
Perhaps my sarcasometer just suffered a massive overload, but how could anyone see the listing on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Numbers-Statistical-Reference-History/dp/1493646796) and miss the first listed author?

What, you mean by The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Richard W. Orloff. I'm clearly missing your point here, exactly how can this point to NASA's involvment in the publication?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 12, 2015, 03:59:43 PM
Perhaps my sarcasometer just suffered a massive overload, but how could anyone see the listing on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Numbers-Statistical-Reference-History/dp/1493646796) and miss the first listed author?

The thing I find most amusing was Romulus' claims that the book has a "Library of Congress number."  The gargantuan level of ignorance that attends that statement is truly worth note.  The Library of Congress is literally the library of Congress.  It has a special legal status in the United States.  First, every book that claims statutory copyright in the United States under Title 17 and/or the Bern Convention must provide a depositary copy for the Library of Congress.  That means every book published in the United States for which statutory copyright protection is granted is kept and cataloged in the Library of Congress.  And every item that is cataloged in the Library of Congress necessarily has a LC catalog number.  To say "It has a Library of Congress number" is as significant as saying "It has pages."  It certainly doesn't mean Library of Congress wrote or published it.

Second, every public publication by any agency or arm of the U.S. government must repose a copy with Library of Congress.

Here's what the Library of Congress has to say about that book.



LDR    01258cam a22003134a 4500
001    12124663
005    20041110074622.0
008    000731s2000    dcua     bs  f001 0 eng 
906    |a7|bcbc|corignew|d1|eocip|f20|gy-gencatlg
925 0  |aacquire|b2 shelf copies|xpolicy default
955    |apc20 to ja00 07-31-00; jg11 08-02-00; jg16 08-05-00; jg07 08-10-00; to Dewey 08-10-00; aa01 08-10-00; jg00 02-13-01;|fjg11 2001-11-30|gjg07 2002-02-07 to BCCD, copy 1 and 2
010    |a   00061677
040    |aDLC|cDLC|dDLC
042    |apcc
043    |an-us---
050 00 |aTL789.8.U6|bA564 2000
082 00 |a629.45/4/0973|221
100 1  |aOrloff, Richard W.,|d1948-
245 10 |aApollo by the numbers :|ba statistical reference /|cby Richard W. Orloff.
260    |aWashington, D.C. :|bNational Aeronautics and Space Administration,|c2000.
300    |aviii, 334 p. :|bill. ;|c28 cm.
440  4 |aThe NASA history series
500    |a"NASA SP-2000-4029."
504    |aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 317-322) and index.
610 20 |aProject Apollo (U.S.)
610 20 |aProject Apollo (U.S.)|vStatistics.
650  0 |aSpace flight to the moon.
651  0 |aMoon|xExploration.
991    |br-SciRR|hTL789.8.U6|iA564 2000|tCopy 1|wGenBib



I'll spare you learning the MARC21 bibliography format.  Tag 010 is that pesky LC number, assigned to every book in their system:  00-61677, in common format; MARC21 normalizes it.  Tag 020, where present, is the ISBN, a more universal reference.  But the all-important Tag 260 gives the imprint -- the canonical publisher that LC recognizes as being responsible for the book.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 12, 2015, 04:17:22 PM
The thing I find most amusing was Romulus' claims that the book has a "Library of Congress number." 

I did wonder about your question at the time. It did occur to me that you jumped on a juicy bone, but I was equally ignorant to the Library of Congress. Knowing your Socratic style from the IMDb and these boards I left it for Romulus to answer. I guess our equivalent would be the British Library?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 12, 2015, 04:32:40 PM
Yes, it's the legal repository for the U.K. in the same way LC is for the United States.  In addition, each U.S. state is required to maintain at least one legal repository for U.S. government documents.  This is most often a land-grant university library.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 13, 2015, 12:50:27 PM
I think my alma mater has one.  That would certainly explain a fairly large chunk of our library.  Also those books of Supreme Court decisions in the basement that no one ever reads but that Simon likes to try to pull off the shelf.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 13, 2015, 07:33:00 PM
Out here it's UCSD (University of California  San Diego). They have (or had) huge cabinets of microfiche with thousands of NASA documents, among many other things. I don't  know how much of it has been converted to electronic form and placed online. A lot has, but a lot hasn't.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 14, 2015, 03:43:17 AM
...and all this stuff is out there for anyone to go look at, should they be prepared to make any effort. There are even countless editions of original NASA publications floating around places like Abebooks and ebay for very reasonable prices (current bargain for UK posters: "Apollo over the moon: a view from orbit" for £2.45 and £2.75 postage at Abebooks!!).

For a small amount of effort, or money, you can look at photographs and articles that were all freely available around at the time of Apollo - not magically invented in the age of the internet or forcibly dragged kicking and screaming under a FOI request as some HB's seem to think.

Actual photographs, not scans of photographs. Real books!!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 14, 2015, 08:33:19 AM
...real books!!

That made me smile. Despite Kindle and other new fangled ways of accessing books, you cannot replace the feel and sense of reading a real book. The paper, the turning of pages, the smell, the feel of it in your hands. Putting it on the beside table when turning over for sleep. There is something inherently honest and satisfying about real books.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Allan F on February 14, 2015, 11:23:28 AM
...real books!!

That made me smile. Despite Kindle and other new fangled ways of accessing books, you cannot replace the feel and sense of reading a real book. The paper, the turning of pages, the smell, the feel of it in your hands. Putting it on the beside table when turning over for sleep. There is something inherently honest and satisfying about real books.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 14, 2015, 06:27:05 PM
That skit must have been the inspiration for a gag in Wall-E. The captain of the Axiom is given a book of procedures for returning to Earth. This being 700 years in the future, he has never seen a book before, so he first tries talking to it. When that doesn't work, "Auto", his computerized first officer, shows him how to open it and turn the pages. The captain is very impressed.

I can't say I share the sentimentality for books. Yeah, they're easy to use  but they are heavy, bulky. hold relatively little information, and are difficult to search. They contain only text and still images, no video or audio. You can't resize the text if you have trouble reading it. They usually cannot be updated to the current version; they have to be discarded and replaced.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 14, 2015, 06:32:55 PM
That skit must have been the inspiration for a gag in Wall-E. The captain of the Axiom is given a book of procedures for returning to Earth. This being 700 years in the future, he has never seen a book before, so he first tries talking to it. When that doesn't work, "Auto", his computerized first officer, shows him how to open it and turn the pages. The captain is very impressed.

ApolloWasReal and his Wall-E avatar, days which are long gone with our little YouTube band. The skit made me smile.

Quote
I can't say I share the sentimentality for books. Yeah, they're easy to use  but they are heavy, bulky. hold relatively little information, and are difficult to search. They contain only text and still images, no video or audio. You can't resize the text if you have trouble reading it. They usually cannot be updated to the current version; they have to be discarded and replaced.

I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to books. I cannot part with any of my books to be quite honest, despite much protest from those around me. I find the Internet hugely valuable, but I do get quite attached to paper bound in a spine. :)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: frenat on February 14, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
Reminds me of this video from Ikea

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Bob B. on February 14, 2015, 07:26:06 PM
I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to books. I cannot part with any of my books to be quite honest, despite much protest from those around me. I find the Internet hugely valuable, but I do get quite attached to paper bound in a spine. :)

I'm with you.  I like my old fashioned books.  I don't own a Kindle, though I'll probably have to break down and get one eventually.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: smartcooky on February 14, 2015, 07:42:10 PM
That skit must have been the inspiration for a gag in Wall-E. The captain of the Axiom is given a book of procedures for returning to Earth. This being 700 years in the future, he has never seen a book before, so he first tries talking to it. When that doesn't work, "Auto", his computerized first officer, shows him how to open it and turn the pages. The captain is very impressed.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 14, 2015, 08:04:46 PM
I'm a bit of a Luddite when it comes to books. I cannot part with any of my books to be quite honest, despite much protest from those around me. I find the Internet hugely valuable, but I do get quite attached to paper bound in a spine. :)
I gladly get rid of paper whenever I can find the same information in electronic form. Every year I go through the same routine with my ham radio magazines; I order the DVD with the previous years' issues and get rid of the paper copies.

The only aspect of electronic publishing I can't stand is DRM. When you "buy" a book with DRM, you're not really buying anything. So given a choice between a DRMed book and a paper one, I'll still take paper. But not because it's what I really want.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 14, 2015, 09:08:05 PM
I have a great fondness for paper books.  It comes in part from the time invested in them.  When information was expensive and hard to get, one had to be selective about it.  And the selection and investment process tends to lead us to value what we have put effort into.  But despite my fondness I don't buy them at all any more.

Reading is somewhat more difficult for me than the average person, particularly long stretches of reading because I am so slow at it. So I limit what I read to the things that are required and have stopped reading fiction for pleasure.  The world of audiobooks reopened the enjoyment of fiction for me.   I walked 3 hours this morning listening to The Guermantes Way, the third of seven books of Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.  It runs twenty eight or so  hours and there s simply no way I could sit down and read it as it would take me even longer.   Audio books have reopen the world of fiction to me and allows me to stay active while also absorbing good writing.  And the wonderful thing is this series is available from my public library. 

What I miss when listening to audiobooks are the things that make paper books so special.  The ability to make gloss notes and stop to savor, reread, contemplate and examine a particularity good passage, because the audio just goes on.  But the medium is just indispensable to me now. 
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 15, 2015, 10:57:44 AM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/collections.png)
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Dr_Orpheus on February 15, 2015, 11:34:57 AM
My main disappointment with Kindle is that the pictures are often much lower resolution that what is available in the original book.  They don't always include all of the pictures from the printed version, either.  I purchased the Art of Star Trek a few years ago, and the Kindle edition contained fewer than half the pictures found in the printed version.  Kindle works quite well for books with few or no illustrations/pictures.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 15, 2015, 12:12:14 PM
For some reason I can't seem to get "involved" with books that are presented on e-readers. I have about a dozen books art-way through on the Kindle that I just can't seem to finish. There's something about an e-reader that just stops me from continuing with it. I think that it might be the size of the screen...compared to even a small book there is just less words on the screen and that gets in the way of the "flow" of reading, IMHO.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 15, 2015, 01:00:37 PM
I am a huge fan of real books.  That said, I do love my Kindle.  (I facetiously refer to books now as "single-use Kindles.")  In my teenage years I worked in several university libraries, including in the cataloging department of the University of Michigan library.  For a year I was the assistant librarian at an academic architecture and engineering library (30,000 volumes) -- a very good job for an engineering student to have.  One of my guilty pleasures was putting on the white cotton gloves and leafing through Palladio's I qvattro libri di architettura printed in Venice in 1588.  We also had large folio books (20-40 inches wide, 30-50 inches tall, 4-6 inches thick) from the early 1900s containing large, detailed engineering drawings of bascule bridges and structural systems for things that often didn't exist anymore.

My own rare books collection includes:  Thuvia, Maid of Mars (first edition), The White House Cook Book (1893), The White House Music Book (1898), Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (first edition), and Told by Uncle Remus (1905).  The latter, of course, is one of a few books upon which the Disney film Song of the South was based.  And yes, it appears to be written in an early form of Ebonics -- as blatantly racist disrespectful as it could possibly be.  I also have the Dec. 1969 issue of National Geographic.

This is the joy of reading.  I agree with the synesthetic gestalt of a physical book.  The leather and board of Palladio's cover had a distinct smell.  The paper bore the subtle striations of the drying racks used back then, and the rough-cut edges.  Toward the end there was a series of margin notes made in iron-gall ink, dated by calligraphy to the early 1800s.  At that point the book was already an antique, and still treated by its owner as a valuable textbook -- now the notes themselves are also antiques.

I also have a coffee-table book on space.  And by that I mean it's roughly the size of a coffee table.  Yes, I can get the content anywhere, including on the web and in Kindle form.  But I cannot get the experience of huge photographic reproductions, and turning pages with both hands.  I agree with the Kindle as a very useful way to carry text-only books -- and a lot of them.  I like having my Kindle library widely available on several e-reading forms.  But I also agree with the complaints about illustrations being missing or uselessly degraded.  I deal in information that is most often and most effectively presented in graphical form.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: gillianren on February 15, 2015, 01:17:19 PM
If I traveled a lot, I'd probably get a Kindle; it's easier than packing the number of books I can go through on a trip, even a relatively short one.  But my paper books, I own, and I don't have to worry about obsolescence, and I love the feel and smell and so forth.  Also, if Simon drops one in the toilet, I'm out one, and my few valuable books stay on the other side of the baby gate, where he can't destroy something expensive to replace.  I wouldn't do that with a Kindle.

Actually, I had to read Uncle Remus for a class in college.  Our professors advised us to read the bits of dialect (which is allegedly quite accurate, though I wouldn't know) out loud if we couldn't understand it, because hearing it would probably make it click.  So my roommate came in when I was reading some passage aloud for probably the third or fourth time, still unable to get it, and she didn't understand it, either.  For the rest of the school year, she'd babble at me in faux-dialect to amuse herself.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 15, 2015, 05:12:04 PM
Hey, I like books too. (I suspect we all do). Some of my earliest childhood memories have to do with books. I stayed with an aunt when my younger sisters were born, sleeping in my cousin's room. He had a lot of books on physics and chemistry, and I still remember telling my aunt that I wanted to read them all. She was amused.

I've spent countless hours in school and company libraries, and not just to study or do assigned work.

But times change. We already have bookcases almost everywhere we can fit them, and it's just too much.  Books are heavy; I remember a Civil Defense pamphlet from the Duck and Cover days that suggested them as makeshift radiation shielding!

Books are a potential fire hazard. Many of mine are specialty technical editions that are long out of print, so they'd be difficult or impossible to replace, and many were quite expensive in the first place. I can never seem to find the one I'm looking for when I'm in a hurry, and of course they're completely inaccessible to me when I'm traveling.

So for all these reasons, I try to go electronic as much as I possibly can. Unfortunately, it's still difficult.


Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: DD Brock on February 15, 2015, 06:57:28 PM
I love real books, but I love the availability of e-books that can be hard to find in hardcopy.

This has, unfortunately, led to quite a backlog of e-books on my reader I won't get to for weeks and months  :D
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: AtomicDog on February 15, 2015, 07:03:41 PM
When my son was in elementary school,  he was running to catch the bus laden with a backpack full of textbooks. He was horribly unbalanced, so he fell forward and broke both his front teeth. If all of his books were files on a tablet, I firmly believe that his accident would never have happened.

I have a basement full of paperbacks in boxes that I have collected over the years. If I want to read one, I don't even know where to start looking for it, so I just give up and download the E - version.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 15, 2015, 07:16:34 PM
I use ebooks as a sampler, I will borrow a book of someone else and if I like it I will buy the hardcopy. If I like it a lot I will by the hardback. I have a dream of leather binding all my hardbacks. I also use them for self published amateur authors, who's work is not in print.

At the moment though I have found the convenience of audio books, I have a round trip to work and back of anywhere from an hour to two and a half hours so listening to a book is a great way to make the journey easier and putting the dead time to use. My wife and children are Harry Potter fans and, although I struggled to read even the first book, I found listening to them narrated by Stephen Fry made them very enjoyable for some light entertainment.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Obviousman on February 16, 2015, 02:27:59 AM
I love being able to download books onto a Kindle or tablet or whatever; being able to take 20-30 books in a small device with me on trips is a godsend.

That being said, I love my hardcopy books even more. I rarely get rid of a book (thus why my better half constantly complains about all the books in my man-cave). Some things about a book are just wonderful: the smell of the pages and ink, the cover art, the crinkled spine which says you have read the book far too many times, etc.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 07:01:56 AM
My wife and children are Harry Potter fans and, although I struggled to read even the first book, I found listening to them narrated by Stephen Fry made them very enjoyable for some light entertainment.

I refused to install a DVD play in our car to entertain the kids on long driving trips. Harry Potter audio books were among the best things to have.  We could listen for a while then have the kids talk about the images they developed in their minds from the descriptions.  Really wonderful writing suitable that will entertain for several days of driving and the kids would listen to book over and over again.   
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
I cycle to work and find audiobooks a very good way of passing the journey!
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: JayUtah on February 16, 2015, 12:02:14 PM
When my son was in elementary school, he was running to catch the bus laden with a backpack full of textbooks. He was horribly unbalanced, so he fell forward and broke both his front teeth. If all of his books were files on a tablet, I firmly believe that his accident would never have happened.

I was a nerd as a kid, and I remember not too fondly my own heavy-laden backpack.  So that's a hazard I can sympathize with.  And I've nearly committed the opposite error, reading one of the several professional books I have on my Kindle while walking to work and stumbling over some obstacle or another.

Quote
I have a basement full of paperbacks in boxes that I have collected over the years. If I want to read one, I don't even know where to start looking for it, so I just give up and download the E - version.

Having been a librarian in the past, it's now habit for me to keep books organized so I can find them.  Even if they're in boxes in storage.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Glom on February 16, 2015, 01:19:58 PM
I like the tactile sensation of books too. But I also appreciate the advantages of e-books in many situations.

The big problem with digital storage is longevity. Will archaeologists in 2000 years be able to decipher our culture?
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 03:05:35 PM
The big problem with digital storage is longevity. Will archaeologists in 2000 years be able to decipher our culture?

My audio books are stored on three hard drives.  One in the computer, one in my cloud server and one for eternal backup. As long as one of those survives, there will be a record of my collection.  I think there is good reason to believe that a hard drive can survive that long.  What will be missing are the important parts, margin notes, other markings, wear from handling or pages ripped out to indicate what they meant to the user.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Chief on February 16, 2015, 06:02:31 PM
We, my wife and I, instilled the joy of books in our children as soon as they could understand the stories. I give credit to my mother who would put me and my younger brother to bed and read Jack London's White Fang and Call of the Wild to us for an hour or so before sleep. She also read Charles Dickens to us and bought us the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings each. We would spend hours reading and discussing the stories.
One Monday a month we would be taken down to the Albion Book shop and pick a book. It is one of my happiest memories. To this day I can't resist walking into a book shop if I pass and enjoying the aroma.

I did the same with my kids and all of them have read my original copies of Tolkien. I bought Raymond Feist's Magician series and the first book has fallen apart from the use. I found it funny that at a time when children were spending more and more time in front of the television and also video games, I had to tell my lot to get their faces out of the books to come and eat or have a bath.

My wife is part of a book club, although it's more like a women's club who occasionally discuss books after a few glasses of wine. They are all very interesting people and I do crash the party if we are hosting.

I do worry about digital storage, I try to print those which have not been put on paper if they are PDF. The list not printed grows each day though.
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: ka9q on February 16, 2015, 06:44:23 PM
The big problem with digital storage is longevity. Will archaeologists in 2000 years be able to decipher our culture?
This is a serious concern. Vint Cerf, one of the "grandfathers" of the Internet, was just saying this recently in some news articles. He advises people to print things out, but this is simply impractical for all but a tiny fraction of your data.

A major problem especially with e-books is DRM, which I call "digital restrictions management". The file formats are difficult to read by design, and you can't use your own tools to read them. I generally avoid e-books for just this reason, though I do patronize a few enlightened publishers like O'Reilly that eschew DRM in favor of open, standard formats (e.g., pdf) for which there's a lot of software support.

Another, more general problem is physical storage. I do have some old tapes and disks that I'd like to read someday, mostly for nostalgia, but I'd need to find a working drive first. This problem may be easing somewhat now that we no longer have media per se but media encapsulated with electronics that presents a standardized electrical interface, e.g., USB, SD or SATA. Even then  there can be problems as old interfaces (e.g., PATA, Firewire, compact flash) are phased out.

What has generally saved me so far is periodically replacement of my hard drives as storage capacity rapidly increases. It's been easy each time to just copy everything from the old drives to a small part of my new drives and leave it there. (As my former boss and I once agreed, the best way to preserve old data is to "keep it spinning", i.e., online somewhere on devices you're still using and maintaining. Preferably with internal redundancy such as RAID). Interface changes (e.g., from PATA to SATA) are fairly easy to handle when the computer you're using at the time supports both. It gets a lot harder if you wait until after you've replaced your computer a few times and the old interfaces are no longer available.

But increases in hard drive storage capacity seem to be slowing down, so there's less incentive to periodically swap out my hard drives for bigger ones. If I want more room, I'll have to buy more drives and find room for them. I currently have four 4 TB drives in a RAID-1 configuration, and the array is currently 86% full. So it's either 1) find a new box with room for additional drives or 2) put some old drives on a shelf and risk not being able to read them in the future.

Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: Tedward on February 17, 2015, 02:33:46 AM
So much to lose on one device failing nowadays as well. I cannot print 30,000 odd images so rely on storage. I spread it around in the hope one of the drives will last. And the cloud will not blow away, and the DVD will last (checking the 40 or so on occasion in small batches).

Books, I bank on printed versions for the electronic copies I have still being around. I have a small room that I use for a library (the ubiquitous UK bedroom sold as such despite the size being more of a Tardis in reverse). That is nigh on full and I do not like throwing books away. I do use audio books a lot. Some are copies of the printed versions, some not.

Back to the images. I found one folder where I had tried to capture a blow how on the coast as the tide came in. I failed. But took 300 or so RAW images. One or two interesting ones but should I delete them..... of course I should, there is no real subject, but, well, you know......
Title: Re: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?
Post by: raven on February 17, 2015, 03:37:44 AM
I am a pretty poor person. I am not ashamed to admit I get most of my books from used bookstores, thrift stores and library discards. Many of those books are simply not available in digital form, most often out of print in print form as well. I have things like a 4rth geography textbooks from the 30's, a book on Eugenics from the 20's, a collection of translated plays of a Medieval Chinese playwright. As a scrounger, the joy of the of the hunt or of chance discovery is part of the joy of books for me. Many a book I have found by picking it up  off the  shelf and going 'Ooh, that looks interesting!' I doubt flicking through a list of related books would give me quite the same thrill.