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

[Romulus]

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.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

[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.

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?

What you must realise is there is no lie. They defend it because it is the truth.

Shadows at greatly differing angles can be demonstrated here on earth, it is easily debunked and demonstrable. If I showed you a picture of shadows at different angles right now taken on earth and created by the sun, what would your response be? 

[Bob B.]

... that NASA produced thousands of images that look like the work of professional  photographers

Actually most of the photos are poorly framed and many are under or over exposed.  The vast majority of them would be pretty boring to most people as they are just photos of rocks in situ.

[JayUtah]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to.

Why?

And it isn't neccessary.

Of course it is.  If you want to prove that the amount of radiation the film received would have damaged it, you have to know how much that is.

At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

No.  You have shown that Groves subjected the film to a huge quantity of radiation.  You have not proved that the same quantity of radiation exists in space.

[Bob B.]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

And you call yourself a scientist.

[Romulus]

Yes, I do.  You cannot conceive that there could be a rational alternative to your belief. 

Mr.Windley, I have seen what you call a rational explanation for many things.

 The fact is when you have two objects in the distance in a photograph and a angle between the shadows of  45 degrees the reason is because the source of light illuminating  them is 93 million miles closer to them than the Sun. There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

[nomuse]

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

I cheerfully agree I can't, practically speaking, do the work. Oh, I could take a pretty good crack at it, but it would take time I can't afford this week, and my results would be amateur.

It takes more than a moderate degree of knowledge before you begin to understand the size and shape of the mountain that is the existing human knowledge on a subject. I have achieved that minimum; I know enough more than you do -- by a comfortable margin, even -- to be painfully aware of how much more there is to learn.

And I'm sorry you can't understand the point. That is the difficulty with arguing in multiple directions at once. It does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it easier to confuse yourself (and your readers even more so.)

[JayUtah]

There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

...to you.

[Romulus]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

And you call yourself a scientist.

If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley

[Bob B.]

If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley

I understand the problem far better than you do.

[Romulus]

There is no rational explanation. there is a bullshit tissue of lies that doesn't make sense

...to you.

If you can come up with an explanation for a 45 degree divergence of shadows in objects illuminated by 'The Sun" at nearly the same distance from the camera that makes sense to you, you're retarded. Not just scientifically illiterate, but RETARDED

[nomuse]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

Then it isn't necessary to give a precise quantitative analysis. Duh. Do you even know what an zeroth order approximation is?  If you shoot a man with a naval cannon, it isn't necessary to measure if it was a 15" shell or a 16" shell to determine whether he is deceased.

[Romulus]

If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data that we have you woudl realize  anyone claiming to be able to is either a fool , a liar or...Jay Windley

I understand the problem far better than you do.

No sir. YOU DO NOT Claims are hollow and you have displayed absolutely zero aptitude for the subject matter.

[Romulus]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to give a precise quantitative analysis of the total radiation the Apollo  film was exposed to. And it isn't neccessary.

. At some point where that amount of radiation is hundreds of times more than what would destroy the film the point has been proved.

Then it isn't necessary to give a precise quantitative analysis. Duh. Do you even know what an zeroth order approximation is?  If you shoot a man with a naval cannon, it isn't necessary to measure if it was a 15" shell or a 16" shell to determine whether he is deceased.

I believe that is what I said. But then I don't have your "skills", do I?

[JayUtah]

If you had any idea of the number of variables involved and the gaps in data...

Actually he does, and he has demonstrated his knowledge of them many times in this forum.  The question is whether you have any such idea, or whether instead you're just claiming it's intractable to get yourself off the hook for providing a quantitative argument to your claim.

The problem still remains.  You claim it's an impossible problem to solve, yet you claim the answer unequivocally supports your belief.  Explain how you know the answer.