Author Topic: NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?  (Read 360725 times)

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
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.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
    • ApolloHoax.net
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.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
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.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
    • ApolloHoax.net
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.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
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.

Offline Chief

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 84
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.

Offline BarnabyMoose

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 3
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.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
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]

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
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                                 

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
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?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1607
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
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.