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

[Romulus]

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.

...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.

[Romulus]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[Romulus]

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

[Romulus]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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?

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.

[Kiwi]

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.

[RAF]

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??

[JayUtah]

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.

[Romulus]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

[Romulus]

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.