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

[Romulus]

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

[nomuse]

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.

[Romulus]

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?

[nomuse]

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.

[Romulus]

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?

[JayUtah]

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[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

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.

[Romulus]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.)

[JayUtah]

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.

[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.

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

[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

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.

[JayUtah]

Proof Windley lied. If this brief description isn't succinct and correct, show your version Mr.Windley

And the followup questions?

[Romulus]

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.

[Romulus]

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.