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

[JayUtah]

The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less...

Groves tested only x-rays.  Why then is not film in low Earth orbit destroyed merely from x-rays?

[Romulus]

Romulus, in your reply #4 on this thread, you wrote:

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?

If you look a the photos  I referenced you will see they have very large areas with no light exposure at all (hard shade shadows), or very low light exposure if it is there. the purpose of using these examples is that if even a very minor degree of x radiation fogging existed, it would be evident in theses examples.

[Bob B.]

... and particle radiation conversion to x rays of very high energy.

Wrong.  Bremsstrahlung radiation is quite soft.

[nomuse]

. 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.

Italics mine. It is not necessary to muddy the waters by bringing in these other sources and/or qualifications. You've already characterized the solar output by itself -- the x-ray output of the quiet sun alone -- is of the same magnitude as therapeutic x-ray machines. You've done this in three ways; by pointing at what you believe are accurate and complete pictures of the solar energies in the x-ray band, by asserting unavoidable fogging of film, and further asserting the quick death of astronauts (although the last may have been intended to implicate the charged particles of the proton belt, not just solar x-rays).

It seems to me you have no need to wander off into discussing neutron emission of lunar soils, thermal transfer, bremsstrahlung or anything else. You've claimed the Sun is a deadly x-ray source. I see no point in quibbling about the thickness of the Hassie magazines until you've defended that assertion.

[Romulus]

The fact is, film exposed to the cislunar, lunar surface and ionosphere /radiation belt enviroment would be completely exposed and rendered use less...

Groves tested only x-rays.  Why then is not film in low Earth orbit destroyed merely from x-rays?

To answer this question first we would have to know several different things. What kind of camera was being used for instance and how was the film protected. I think what you will find is that film has been and is damaged in low earth orbit, though obviously the challenges involved in protecting it are miniscule compared to with Apollo due to particle radiation. Remember, all I have tried to prove up to this point is three things, Apollos film shows no evidence of x radiation damage,  x radiation damages film, and camera bodies made of aluminum not only provide little protection but actually make the  problem worst due to conversion of particle radiation. You're assuming I am stupid  enough to believe that solar x radiation alone would have badly damaged the film. In certain situations like the 1600 or more  measurable x ray flares during he Apollo missions, it would have to some degree. But this isn't my argument at all.  You have consistently underestimated me, perhaps by design. i really hope for your sake you are not actually as stupid as you appear to be.

[JayUtah]

What I will say is this: Show your evidence of this bolded claim.

Sure, after my second attempt to get you to characterize the flux distribution, you wrote:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

Since that still wasn't an answer, I asked:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

At the same flux for all energies?  Show your work.

...which you never answered.  Then you went on to handwave about interpolation.  Since you never answered the questions I asked you in order to clarify your position, I used "insinuate" when I described them.  That word conveys, "I'm not sure whether this is what me meant."

[Romulus]

. 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.

Italics mine. It is not necessary to muddy the waters by bringing in these other sources and/or qualifications. You've already characterized the solar output by itself -- the x-ray output of the quiet sun alone -- is of the same magnitude as therapeutic x-ray machines. You've done this in three ways; by pointing at what you believe are accurate and complete pictures of the solar energies in the x-ray band, by asserting unavoidable fogging of film, and further asserting the quick death of astronauts (although the last may have been intended to implicate the charged particles of the proton belt, not just solar x-rays).

It seems to me you have no need to wander off into discussing neutron emission of lunar soils, thermal transfer, bremsstrahlung or anything else. You've claimed the Sun is a deadly x-ray source. I see no point in quibbling about the thickness of the Hassie magazines until you've defended that assertion.

You're confused, naturally I assume. I do not believe x ray emissions from the Sun are deadly unless there is a solar flare (like was occurring a few hours ago). The baseline average we have had for the last few days would be dangerous, but not  deadly. It would take a week or more to kill.

All of the radiation sources you mentioned  figure heavily into why the film would be clouded. You cannot be this stupid.Are you pretending?

[Romulus]

What I will say is this: Show your evidence of this bolded claim.

Sure, after my second attempt to get you to characterize the flux distribution, you wrote:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

Since that still wasn't an answer, I asked:

The Sun produces energy levels throughout the x ray spectrum

At the same flux for all energies?  Show your work.

...which you never answered.  Then you went on to handwave about interpolation.  Since you never answered the questions I asked you in order to clarify your position, I used "insinuate" when I described them.  That word conveys, "I'm not sure whether this is what me meant."

The general pattern is that x rays taper off gradually toward the higher frequencies. But this is totally irrelevant. The fact is the Sun produces x rays across the spectrum and they can and do penetrate mass and expose film. To quantify a precise amount of exposure is totally impossible, but what is easy to prove is the film would be totally exposed by all of the sources to the point where it was useless. You are attempting to create the illusion I have made claims that I haven't.STOP IT

[beedarko]

The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.

You won't convince many readers of your supposed photographic expertise if you can't even spell the name of the film correctly.

You're off to a rocky start.

[Chief]

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.                                                     

Wrong, I started as many have done, with an email many years ago highlighting some shadow flag anomalies. The internet was not as full of CT's then and 9/11 hadn't happened. Instead of blindly believing what was presented, as many do, I decided to do some research. I have looked into many aspects of the hoax accusations and found them lacking in the extreme. I personally don't have knowledge for all aspects of the missions but I knew enough to make an educated decision.

You use absolutes as do many CT's - impossibility, obvious, clearly etc. But in reality there are many shades of grey. You are in actual fact the one who is blinded by your need to prove, a) The missions were hoaxed and, b) anyone who believes to be shills or liars, another typical CT trait.

You start with a premise, fake missions, and you work your way through looking for anything that you think supports your theory. This is a most unscientific approach. You may think you have great knowledge but my guess is you have tried to gain what you can for the singular purpose of proving a hoax. But knowing a bit is more dangerous than knowing nothing.

You accuse those who have no doubt the Apollo missions went ahead of blindly believing what they are told by NASA.

This could not be further from the truth. I have said this before, it is because they understand, really understand the technology behind the missions and because many of them do this on a daily basis for a living that they have demonstrated and have seen things demonstrated that prove the missions to be true and the hoax theories wrong.

Much of the data they would use on a daily basis was collected so many years ago during the missions, certain things just would not work without this data.

You say you doubt the credentials of some here, Google Jay and see what he does and what experience and knowledge he has.

[Romulus]

The first element of evidence I will present is the quality of the Apollo surface photography as taken with the Hasselbad cameras using Kodak Ectachrome film.

You won't convince many readers of your supposed photographic expertise if you can't even spell the name of the film correctly.

You're off to a rocky start.

I am not a photographic expert, but I an and do know the effects of radiation on photographic film. The grammar nazi bullshit is the fall back of the idiot

[JayUtah]

What kind of camera was being used for instance and how was the film protected.

Agreed.  Pick a representative handful of film cameras used in space and show how they were protected.

I think what you will find is that film has been and is damaged in low earth orbit...

All of the film in Groves' study was damaged.  Why isn't all film in low Earth orbit damaged as Groves' findings suggest?

...though obviously the challenges involved in protecting it are miniscule compared to with Apollo due to particle radiation.

Irrelevant.  Groves applied only x-rays, and the results -- according to you -- show that x-rays alone would destroy the film in space.  In order to check Groves' results, we need to see whether film in low Earth orbit has been destroyed only by x-rays.

You're assuming I am stupid enough to believe that solar x radiation alone would have badly damaged the film.

No, that's not the argument.  You argue that Groves' results are probative as they stand, without needing to add the effects of energetic particles.  Groves didn't test energetic particles and drew his conclusion on the x-ray component alone.  I've proposed a way that you can prove Groves' results are as probative as you say they are.  That way it so show that film is damaged in space to the same degree Groves demonstrated, in a space environment that includes only the x-rays you say Groves tested.

In certain situations like the 1600 or more measurable x ray flares during he Apollo missions, it would have to some degree.

To what degree, exactly?  Show your work.  Is an x-ray flare that is merely "measurable" automatically a hazard to space missions?

[JayUtah]

I am not a photographic expert, but I an and do know the effects of radiation on photographic film.

Both can't be true.

[Romulus]

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.                                                     

Wrong, I started as many have done, with an email many years ago highlighting some shadow flag anomalies. The internet was not as full of CT's then and 9/11 hadn't happened. Instead of blindly believing what was presented, as many do, I decided to do some research. I have looked into many aspects of the hoax accusations and found them lacking in the extreme. I personally don't have knowledge for all aspects of the missions but I knew enough to make an educated decision.

You use absolutes as do many CT's - impossibility, obvious, clearly etc. But in reality there are many shades of grey. You are in actual fact the one who is blinded by your need to prove, a) The missions were hoaxed and, b) anyone who believes to be shills or liars, another typical CT trait.

You start with a premise, fake missions, and you work your way through looking for anything that you think supports your theory. This is a most unscientific approach. You may think you have great knowledge but my guess is you have tried to gain what you can for the singular purpose of proving a hoax. But knowing a bit is more dangerous than knowing nothing.

You accuse those who have no doubt the Apollo missions went ahead of blindly believing what they are told by NASA.

This could not be further from the truth. I have said this before, it is because they understand, really understand the technology behind the missions and because many of them do this on a daily basis for a living that they have demonstrated and have seen things demonstrated that prove the missions to be true and the hoax theories wrong.

Much of the data they would use on a daily basis was collected so many years ago during the missions, certain things just would not work without this data.

You say you doubt the credentials of some here, Google Jay and see what he does and what experience and knowledge he has.

I DON"T BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES APOLLO WAS NOT A HOAX IS A NASA SHILL.What I do believe is those who defend it are ,for the most part. Most people do not have the skills to decide for themselves, so they believe those claiming to be  "authority" AND THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHY WE ELECT CRETINS FOR LEADERS AND BELIEVE OUR ENEMIES ARE THOSE POINTED OUT TO US BY OUR REAL ENEMIES.
I understand what you say about shades of grey, and it is intelligent. HOWEVER, some things are absolutes and one of these absolutes is that the Apollo manned moon landings had to be and therefor were a hoax.

[nomuse]

You're confused, naturally I assume. I do not believe x ray emissions from the Sun are deadly unless there is a solar flare (like was occurring a few hours ago). The baseline average we have had for the last few days would be dangerous, but not  deadly. It would take a week or more to kill.

All of the radiation sources you mentioned  figure heavily into why the film would be clouded. You cannot be this stupid.Are you pretending?

As I noted, it isn't clear if you asserted there was human danger. It isn't necessary to the point at hand. Groves, if he really conducted the experiment he claimed, would have had to be using a source typical of radiation therapy. By accepting the demonstration you have accepted his characterization of solar output.

In addition, you presented a diagram you have claimed represents significant solar EM at mega-electron volt energies. Which, unless a whole bunch of people going back to Planck at least are wrong, would also make the typical output and the actual measured peak of solar output at a different energy range than anyone studying space weather thinks it is.

This is not subtle. This does not require extraneous factors. You've basically created a sun with a black-body curve more suitable to, I don't know, Rigel.

You've made a strong, simple, clear statement. Whether other radiation sources might fog the film is pure obfuscation, and leads one to believe you don't trust your own claim.

This would be a great moment for Andromeda to show up, I think.