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

[Bob B.]

Bob Braeunig has a reputation as a liar and a NASA paid propagandist. HE IS POSTING HERE UNDER THE ID Bob B and I have had previous experience with him and know him to be totally lacking in integrity, ability and general credibility.

Those comments would hurt if they came from somebody had the tiniest respect for.

[JayUtah]

GET: 002:50:13.03...

The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?

[Chief]

My very first job was a lithographic technician making printing plates.

The negatives were pure black and transparent. Underexposed for me then was when the black was not solid. Over exposed was when the fine detail was lost to the black.

Simplistic, I know but I wasn't working with colour and that was the extent of my photographic knowledge.

Close or completely irrelevant?

[gillianren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha

Note that those are survivors from within a few kilometers (alas, nothing more specific is given) of the blast who were in point of fact not vaporized.  The radius of total destruction at Nagasaki was only about a mile.

Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?

[JayUtah]

Close or completely irrelevant?

Relevant, but not quite correct.  Is "exposed" the same thing as "developed?"  What does an undeveloped Ektachrome transparency look like?

[Romulus]

Romulus,

Where did you get your independent knowledge from? What publications did you use to self study?

Independence knowledge does not imply what you appear to be claiming it does.it simply means I do not require Google  searching to pretend proficiency like you do.

Actually, and with respect, I was genuinely interested. I wasn't alluding to Google.

Secondly, I have never pretended to have any proficiency in anything I am unfamiliar with, I am intimately familiar with aircraft systems and structures and the physics involved with flight and flight loads and for that matter accident investigation, I am not proficient in radiation in space. I am very interested and would like to learn and understand.

I would like to know the background of your knowledge. We can't all be like Isaac Newton and bugger off to Cambridge in our early twenties and invent calculus. You must have gained your knowledge from somewhere.

I just wanted to know.

I believe you. and I have respect for a man  THAT CAN, and does, and doesn't pretend. But face it, an aircraft engineer is not necessarily educated in the fields required to understand the  radiation enviroment in space and it's effects. I have been doing it for close to 40 years  now and I learn something totally new on a regular basis. As I said before, Mr Windley seems to believe education is a destination he has reached and I have never journeyed to. He is wrong. The difference between myself and  Mr Windley (or Bob) is that I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination where one can claim victory because he is at the "finish line" and you haven't reached it yet. To be blunt, Mr.WIndley is aware he is lying.



I have been schooled by people who have no education at all when they brought up details I had never noticed, an dI've noticed some of the most educated turn out to be dull ,boring windbags..                       

I think relative intelligence is difficult to conceal. People like Mr.Windley and Bob have very narrow ranges of expertise, but when they step out of them their ignorance and inadequacies become readily apparent and they feel the need to begin the ad hominem attacks side stepping and handwaving.

[sts60]

...You mentioned a book called "Apollo by the Numbers" claiming it could provide continuous measurements of radiation in all of the types required and apparently a precise translunar injection trajectory.
. I  am  it is a propaganda  piece .Can you please post the specific translunar injection  claimed by NASA with, say Apollo 11, so as to save me from being required to buy a book that I do not wish to fund?...

No need.  Like so much other Apollo technical, scientific, and historical documentation, it is freely available:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm

However, no one stated it provides "continuous measurements of radiation".  Nor is such needed to compute a quantitative estimate, as Bob recently did.

[JayUtah]

Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?

I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.  The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion, while the World War II bombs use nuclear fission.  Thermonuclear devices are generally an order of magnitude or two more powerful than nuclear devices.

The pat is that it's absolutely true here that numbers matter.  Neither here nor at Bad Astronomy has Romulus been able to mount any sort of quantitative argument, especially when the quantities matter.  He relies on categorical assertions such as (hypothetically), "Nuclear weapons are unsurvivable."  Romulus has yet to show any quantitative figures that prove the environment in space would have made photography impossible.  He has shown other figures trumped up by other people, and he has show benign figures from which he has "interpolated" his gloom-and-doom conclusion.  I think the first step would be to document a natural source of 8 MeV x-rays.

[Romulus]

GET: 002:50:13.03...

The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible because of  personal involvement creates a conflict of interest with relating the truth,  and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence. You don't  ask a murderer if he committed the crime and then take his word for it.Anyone can write a book. I have seen it referenced from time to time. If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.

[Sus_pilot]

All I've asked in your absence is why you claimed the two photographs you posted on the first page were in large part "totally undeveloped".  You haven't answered that question.  Would you please do so?  Thank you in advance.

Fair question. In the photos posted, there are large areas of what appear to be a shadow. In that shadow there is very little if any light exposure of the film in the photo. If radiation fogging were there in even small amounts, photos like this would reveal it.

I've shot and processed a fair amount of Ektachrome (btw, the spelling really does matter, since it's indicative of how well you've researched a subject) in my life.  I've shot formats ranging from 70mm in a borrowed Hasselblad to 120/220 in a variety of TLR cameras, to what seem like miles of the stuff in 35mm, mostly Canons.  I can also tell you that the range of the film was kind of narrow and unforgiving, unlike a negative film such as Kodacolor II or the pro-series films, such as EKTAR 100.  You had to be sure to use fill lighting with the Ektachrome series when shooting in a studio setting.

With that, I am wholly unfamiliar as to how one would "partially develop" (process) roll film in either a manual film tank or automated processing machine.  Further, I'm not sure how one could partially process even sheet film, except, perhaps something like Kodalith (monochrome product insensitive to red light) where one could see the image forming.

Finally, if film is fogged, it's generally fogged all over.  In the images selected, if they were fogged by radiation, I would expect to see streaks of light gray or a gray haze over the entire scene, not just the shadowed areas.

Please respond specifically to these points, Romulus.

edit I made a mistake on a multi-level quote.  The original was from Romulus and sts60

[Romulus]

Oh, you meant a bigger thermonuclear blast?  See, that's why numbers are important.  What size?

I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.  The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion, while the World War II bombs use nuclear fission.  Thermonuclear devices are generally an order of magnitude or two more powerful than nuclear devices.

The pat is that it's absolutely true here that numbers matter.  Neither here nor at Bad Astronomy has Romulus been able to mount any sort of quantitative argument, especially when the quantities matter.  He relies on categorical assertions such as (hypothetically), "Nuclear weapons are unsurvivable."  Romulus has yet to show any quantitative figures that prove the environment in space would have made photography impossible.  He has shown other figures trumped up by other people, and he has show benign figures from which he has "interpolated" his gloom-and-doom conclusion.  I think the first step would be to document a natural source of 8 MeV x-rays.

Mr.Windley, I really wish you would cease and desist from this tactic of misrepresenting what I have said continuously.I do not believe photography in space is impossible and I never said anything remotely resembling that.Did I?

What I did say is that I can prove to anyone who is not  willfully denying what has been proved is that in the specific circumstances of Apollo, the photographs claimed to have been taken on the moon were not.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm going to nitpick and then pat you on the back.

I'm going to nitpick you for nitpicking.

The nitpick is that the weapons used against Japan were not thermonuclear, but rather just plain nuclear.  Thermonuclear weapons employ nuclear fusion.

Thermonuclear weapons employ a combination of nuclear fission and fusion.   

[DD Brock]

GET: 002:50:13.03...

The book is free online, in case you didn't know that, Romulus.  You said you were familiar with the book.  To what extent and by what means are you "aware of it?"

You have claimed NASA is "totally unwilling" to publish its Apollo trajectory data.  Now you have been presented evidence that it is not only willing, but eager.  Will you retract your claim?

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible because of  personal involvement creates a conflict of interest with relating the truth,  and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence. You don't  ask a murderer if he committed the crime and then take his word for it.Anyone can write a book. I have seen it referenced from time to time. If it makes any difference, I have never read any Apollo critics books either, for the same reason. To be fair.

So basically you refuse to read the data that you claim NASA doesn't want to publish, even though they in fact did publish it? You then base your claim that NASA is concealing pertinent data on the fact that you've never seen it?

Definitely the mark of a keen intellect right there...

[Abaddon]

A Gish saunter?

Perhaps a Gish Amble^TM

[JayUtah]

I have been doing it for close to 40 years now...

Doing what exactly?

As I said before, Mr Windley seems to believe education is a destination he has reached and I have never journeyed to.

Where did I express any such belief?  You claimed to be a scientist.  When I asked for credentials normally expected of a scientist, you balked and redefined what you meant by "scientist."  I simply noted that you were unwilling to substantiate your first claim to expertise and in lieu of it made a different claim.  The precise nature of that claim is becoming more and more relevant.

Your proficiency in science is revealed here.  Or rather, unrevealed.  You simply ignore any discussion that involves actual scientific knowledge.  There are many possible explanations for that reluctance.

You are being asked to describe your journey such that other readers here can judge for themselves whether the claims you might make on the basis of expertise are properly founded.

The difference between myself and  Mr Windley (or Bob) is that I realize I don't know it all and education is a journey and not a destination...

No one here disputes that, and no one is claiming to know it all.  But you have claimed intellectual superiority, which in your new idiom seems to mean you are farther along in the journey than the rest of us.  We would like to see a demonstration of that advanced progress, please, not just boasting.

To be blunt, Mr.WIndley is aware he is lying.

Prove that I am lying and that I know I am.

People like Mr.Windley and Bob have very narrow ranges of expertise...

According to whom?

...but when they step out of them their ignorance and inadequacies become readily apparent and they feel the need to begin the ad hominem attacks side stepping and handwaving.

If you believe you are being subject to ad hominem attacks, report them for moderation.  Do not simply keep alleging it for rhetorical effect.  As to side-stepping and handwaving, you're the one who declared the entire day's discussion something you didn't have to deal with.