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

[JayUtah]

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

So you're claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is ipso facto retarded?

[Chief]

Comments?

[Romulus]

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.

I believe the fellow Nomuse's metaphor is fitting. If  you're shot with a naval cannon how badly you were blown to bits doesn't really enter into the debate of whether or not you are dead.And what you will find is that if you honestly evaluate the enviroment the astronauts and film were exposed to, that metaphor is very fitting.

[Bob B.]

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

My aptitude for the subject is far superior to yours.  I just haven't demonstrated to you yet because Jay has been handling this topic just fine by himself.  I'm waiting for us to get to the discussion about the Van Allen Belts before I decide to mop the floor with you.

[nomuse]

Again I have to underline this. You haven't argued that taking all things into consideration, there is a strong possibility that some of the film may have shown signs of fogging. You have characterized it, repeatedly, as a home run, a shoe-in, that the film would absolutely be fogged, totally fogged, that there is no chance that any kind of camera could protect it.

Furthermore, you have held up an experiment using only x-rays as proof, and argued in such a way as to appear to be claiming that solar x-rays alone could and would fog the film in this manner.

Which means you have, inescapably, described a sun much more violently active in x-rays than is supported by the literature. The onus would be on you to either show that contrary to other people's understanding the sun is indeed thought to be that active in that way, or that everything space scientists think they know about solar activity is wrong.

These are not subtle points. They don't require finely grained calculation.

[JayUtah]

If you're shot with a naval cannon how badly you were blown to bits doesn't really enter into the debate...

But you're presuming the naval cannon.  The quantitative argument is necessary to know whether you have a naval cannon or a water pistol aimed at you.

And what you will find is that if you honestly evaluate the enviroment the astronauts and film were exposed to, that metaphor is very fitting.

Then present the evaulation.  Stop begging the question.

[nomuse]

Meh. I'll bow to that qualification. Aside from pointing at Grove's experiment and posting a link to a gif of solar activity, he doesn't appear to have made a quantitative statement about solar activity. So no reason for Andromeda to enlighten us about magnetars just yet.

[Romulus]

Comments?

VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

[JayUtah]

...EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING.

First, the word you're looking for is "perspective."  Parallax means something else.

Second, are you sure?

[nomuse]

As a first and simplest question -- what reason have you to believe that the wide-angle lens used on the lunar surface doesn't behave similarly?

(Related to that -- are you honestly proposing that there are special lenses manufactured entirely for NASA apologists to make trick photographs with? I would think a more reasonable supposition is that, whatever the behavior you ascribe to the lens, it is otherwise a stock and commonly available item.)

Please note I'm using your misapprehensions about geometry here just for the purpose of discussion; to allow your logic to be examined on its own merits. In no way should this be taken as a statement that I ascribe to your conceptions or terminology or accept them as either ordinary or correct.

[JayUtah]

lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.

Your response is that the lenses used in these photos have been purposely doctored solely to make you look wrong?

Wide-angle lenses indeed exaggerate perspective.  It is a necessary consequence of the way they work; it is not an effect contrived just to make conspiracy theorists seem foolish.  The Zeiss Biogon lenses used for most of the lunar surface photography were wide-angle lenses.  Why is that not a suitable explanation for some of the effects you say you see?

[DD Brock]

Comments?

VERY GOOD PROPAGANDA! Only one problem. The Photographer who took the picture of his and his companions shadow is  using a lens that purposely and unnaturally greatly magnifies and exaggerates the effects of parallax in order to be used as propaganda.. IF TWO VERTICAL  OBJECTS ARE AT A DISTANCE IN A PHOTOGRAPH AND THEIR SHADOWS (AND THEREFOR THE LIGHT SOURCE IS ILLUMINATING THEM FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION)   PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE LENS THE EFFECTS OF PARALLAX SHOULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING. And yet in the Apollo photographic record I have over a hundred examples of just this

Funny, it looks a lot like shadows on uneven terrain to me. Woah, kinda like the surface of the moon, huh?

Go figure...

[nomuse]

Nice bit of heiligenschein, too.

Is it even necessary to describe lens shape at this level of error? Seems to me that treating the film as a point and the lens as a clear window into the view angle produces exactly the effects seen and disputed.

[JayUtah]

Nice bit of heiligenschein, too.

Is it even necessary to describe lens shape at this level of error? Seems to me that treating the film as a point and the lens as a clear window into the view angle produces exactly the effects seen and disputed.

You treat the focal point as a point.  That's, well, the point of the focal point.  The image seen through the "window" of the lens, as focused through the focus point, is reflected (in the geometric sense, not the optical sense) onto the film.

[Bob B.]

Shadows can do some funny things.