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

[Chief]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[Abaddon]

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.

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

[Romulus]

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.

X ray attenuation of aluminum:

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

[JayUtah]

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.

[Abaddon]

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.

[Romulus]

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

[LunarOrbit]

...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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

[Romulus]

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

[Romulus]

...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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

...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....

[JayUtah]

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?

[Romulus]

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.

[Kiwi]

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?