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

[Romulus]

Mr.Windley, I am simply not going to respond to you until you develop a more honest approach. Your last post is over the top with the innuendos  and nonsense. I already know you are a skilled BS artist. Show me something else.

[JayUtah]

The general pattern is that x rays taper off gradually toward the higher frequencies.

How gradually?  Give me some actual numbers.  Specifically, what is the quiescent solar x-ray flux at 8 MeV -- the actual number?

But this is totally irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant?  The more likely an x-ray photon is to penetrate a given thickness of aluminum, the less likely it is to be encountered during a space mission.  You are trying to downplay this relationship as if it doesn't matter.  Prove that it doesn't matter.

The fact is the Sun produces x rays across the spectrum and they can and do penetrate mass and expose film.

You're sidestepping the quantitative factor and once again trying to make it a yes-or-no question.  You don't get to beg the question that the numbers just somehow work out to be what you need them to be.

To quantify a precise amount of exposure is totally impossible...

Why?

...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

No, you're trying to move the goalposts.

Your original post didn't refer to "all of the sources."  It referred only to David Groves and his experiment with 25-100 rem of 8 MeV x-rays using a completely different kind of camera.  You claimed this alone was probative.  On the subject of other sources of radiation such as energetic electrons or protons you have provided absolutely no experiment or data of any kind.  You have simply begged the question that it would be disastrous.

[Romulus]

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.

I have done NO SUCH THING. I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film. i think we all should already know that, but it is one of the steps in the proof. Precise quantitative measurements are impossible, but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

[Romulus]

Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.

[Chief]

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.

And there is one of your problems, I rest my case on that fact. Now your problem is that those who defend it do have the skills to decide for themselves.

Scientists and Engineers are not politicians, they don't get elected, they are employed on the merits of their knowledge because their is a need. If I was Boeing, I wouldn't want to employ a senator to design my next aircraft and I wouldn't employ a self taught 'student of science' to build a satellite. I would employ qualified professionals such as the ones who are members here.

[JayUtah]

Mr.Windley, I am simply not going to respond to you until you develop a more honest approach.

Sooner or later most hoax claimants have had to invent some excuse for not needing to respond to me.  I don't recognize you as the arbiter of what constitutes honesty, so for the purposes of posting to this forum I'll stick with the moderator's judgment on that point.  If you feel my approach is dishonest enough to warrant absolving you of your responsibility to answer, make your case to him.  I'm not interested in your incessant posturing and insults.

Your last post is over the top with the innuendos  and nonsense.

Then either rebut it or report it.  But quit whining.

I already know you are a skilled BS artist. Show me something else.

You mean like the actual attenuation factors in aluminum for the radiation measured by the satellites that produced your data?  Odd how you didn't address that, after claiming that solar radiation would go through aluminum "like it wasn't there."

[Bob B.]

Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.

So in other words you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to anything that is an inconvenient truth.

[JayUtah]

Again, Mr Windley: I am not going to respond To your posts until you post something that isn't designed to either waste my time or misrepresent what i have said.

I'm not going to stop responding to you.  That means all those readers whom you apparently hope to impress with your much-vaunted intellectual superiority will get to read only my side of whatever dispute or discussion exists between us.  Suit yourself.

[nomuse]

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

Ridiculous.

Even the "No safe level" myth wouldn't produce this. I've eaten potassium 40 and inhaled radon daughters and had pions fly through my body and no-one is the least bit surprised I am still alive.

The fact that some x-rays of some energy may have breached a film magazine is not a fact that the film is instantly and totally destroyed. You need sufficient events of sufficient energy to reach a detection threshold. And people who aren't functionally innumerate can and do work out those numbers.

[Bob B.]

... but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

You haven't shown that yet.

[Romulus]

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.

And there is one of your problems, I rest my case on that fact. Now your problem is that those who defend it do have the skills to decide for themselves.

I believe for the most part they do realize they are defending a lie. If they didn't have that ability themselves to decide, after doing this for years they would be thoroughly convinced. I have seen how they discount the evidence, and it is simply dishonest. Sometimes they seem like religious fanatics defending their faith.

  With people like Windley I am certain of it. Whether they have the skills an ability to know they are lying or not is not the issue, really. When I see them try to claim some lame excuse why the shadows of two objects are at greatly differing angles and I KNOW it is because the source of light is  much closer to both than the Sun,                                            I know they must see the same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

[JayUtah]

I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film.

That's too simplistic a characterization.  Groves proved that x-rays of a certain photon energy and flux would damage film in a different container.  But you're trying to apply that to x-rays of a different photon energy, a different flux, and applied to a different camera.  This is science; numbers matter.  You are utterly unwilling to consider the ways in which Groves' experiment says nothing about Apollo film.

I think we all should already know that...

Once again you're trying to foist a simplistic answer.  Dumbing down the problem to where you don't have to actually calculate anything doesn't mean you automatically get a quantitative vindication.  That's just putting your head in the sand.

...but it is one of the steps in the proof.

And all the steps have to function.  You don't get to abandon this one and move on to the next one just because you don't like how this one is going.

Precise quantitative measurements are impossible...

Why?

...but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

No, you can't show it.  For the x-ray component of the radiation environment you have only Groves.  For the particle component of the radiation environment you have nothing.

[nomuse]

I have done NO SUCH THING. I simply used his study to illustrate that x radiation damages film. i think we all should already know that, but it is one of the steps in the proof. Precise quantitative measurements are impossible, but what I CAN show is this:Total Radiation>WHAT WOULD RENDER THE FILM USELESS.

Groves would disagree with you. He knew he had an 8 mEV machine and he knew how long he left it running. Any half-way competent radio-therapist could tell you how much energy that would deposit in soft tissue, and how much a thin sheet of aluminium (which is used in therapy for precise control of the depth of penetration in said tissues) will attenuate it.

And Groves knows his film fogged. It would be trivial for Groves to design a standard for "fogged beyond usefulness" and then to experiment until he found the average exposure time necessary to achieve that goal.

Once again, it isn't necessary to describe the actual cislunar radiation environment in detail, or the actual camera and magazine in any way, to test if your claim of a death sun stands up to any widely accepted description of solar activity.

[Romulus]

I've eaten potassium 40 and inhaled radon daughters and had pions fly through my body and no-one is the least bit surprised I am still alive.

The fact that some x-rays of some energy may have breached a film magazine is not a fact that the film is instantly and totally destroyed. You need sufficient events of sufficient energy to reach a detection threshold. And people who aren't functionally innumerate can and do work out those numbers.

Let me see YOUR work. The fact is you cannot. You do not have the skills neccessary to do anything close to that level of  competence.  Your soliloquy  about being exposed to low level radiation has nothing to  do with the subject, either. You add very little to the conversation besides distractions and nonsense. If you had even a moderate degree of knowledge you would realize the fact that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers in the enviroment they claimed they did so is a LIE

[JayUtah]

With people like Windley I am certain of it.

Of course you're not.  You just make up whatever you need to about me.

...I know they must see the same thing. Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes, I do.  You cannot conceive that there could be a rational alternative to your belief.  You apparently cannot distinguish belief from fact.  Anyone who doesn't agree with what you is ipso facto lying.  Yes, I really mean that last sentence.  Your definition of whether someone is lying or not is whether they have agreed with you or not.