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

[Romulus]

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

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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?

[LunarOrbit]

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.

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

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

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.

[Romulus]

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,

[JayUtah]

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?

[Romulus]

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

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..

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[Romulus]

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

[Romulus]

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.

[Chief]

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?

[LunarOrbit]

Which rules have people been breaking, exactly? Here they are for reference: The Rules

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.

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".

[LunarOrbit]

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.

[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.)

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

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.

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.

...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)?