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

[AtomicDog]

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.

I have many demands to respond but you ask, so I'll try. My underlying "theory" here is that radiation fogging woudl be easiest to detect in portions of the film negative that were unexposed to light, or only exposed to very low levels, as opposed other areas of the negative. this is true, isn't  it ?  (I already know the answer BTW)                         
[/quote]


Ektachrome? Negative?

I guess that we can add photographic film to the list of things you don't know about.
Anyone who's ever developed Ektachrome  (like I have) would never make that mistake.

[ka9q]

It's really simple. It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

No, only someone as utterly naïve as you are could say that this is "simple". It's not.

The time it takes to expose film depends on several factors:

1. The inherent sensitivity of the film to the radiation in question.
2. How the film is packaged, protected or shielded.
3. The photon energy distribution and intensity to which the packaged film is exposed.

These are all quantitative issues. Indeed, your use of the phrase "minute quantities' is an inherently quantitative claim. "Quantitative" means that numbers are involved. (Note: numbers and math are vital in every aspect of science.) Yet you have given NO numbers at all despite repeated requests. Your claim fails.

[Luke Pemberton]

The effects of x radiation on chemical emulsion film is how it was discovered in the first place.

Whoops!

[JayUtah]

I am not using David Groves for anything but to establish something as fact that we should all already know...

The errors in Groves' analysis have been presented.  You are unwilling to address them.

"We all" don't somehow secretly know that you're correct.  In fact you're being unanimously disputed along with evidence to support those disputations.  Do not beg the question.

...that very tiny amounts of x ray radiation exposure can be detected by film and will be evident in developed photographs from negatives exposed to radiation.

25-100 rads at 8 MeV is a "tiny amount of x-ray radiation exposure" by whose standard?

You are carefully skirting admitting this.

Constantly begging your critics to admit you're right is not an argument.

The effects of x radiation on chemical emulsion film is how it was discovered in the first place. Many dosimeters work on this principal.

List the number of ways a dosimeter is different than a camera.

Putting aside personal interests, this seems a bit suspicious to you, doesn't it Mr.Windley?

No, it doesn't.  Do not beg the question.  If you believe it is suspicious, it is your burden to prove your suspicions.  You are being asked a number of questions designed to test your proof.  Answer them.

[Romulus]

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

[DD Brock]

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You should probably read NASA's data then.

I hardly think Mr. Windley's politics are relevant to the discussion. Practice what you preach, sir.

[Luke Pemberton]

I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You want NASA's data for the moon missions that you claim they faked while claiming they lie about everything, so you can prove they lied. Wow! Do you realise the absuridty of your position? I'm sorry, but for someone with self proclaimed uber intelligence, that really does burn.

[gillianren]

Thanks for the correction[ s], guys.  I'll note Romulus has started ignoring me, either because I'm a girl or because I'm not one of his bêtes noires; I'm not sure.  But that's okay; until he starts producing numbers instead of bluster, nothing he says is worth listening to anyway.

[Luke Pemberton]

Thanks for the correction[ s], guys.  I'll note Romulus has started ignoring me, either because I'm a girl or because I'm not one of his bêtes noires; I'm not sure.  But that's okay; until he starts producing numbers instead of bluster, nothing he says is worth listening to anyway.

I had to google bêtes noires.

[Romulus]

Not to be unnecessarily insulting, but I personally find the author to not be credible...

Then show what part of his work is in error.  It's easy simply to call someone a liar.  That's just words.  To show someone is a liar requires you to understand and show that what he produced was dishonest.  Do so, please.

...and I do not consider that book to be hard evidence.

Changing horses.  You claim the figures are not published, but they are published.  Whether you believe them or not is a separate matter.  Will you withdraw the claim?

You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?

You keep lying like a rug about things I've supposedly said and I will not permit it to go unchalleneged. You have lied dozens of times about what  have said, and you are in the simplest of terms a blowhard and a liar.What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You should probably read NASA's data then.

I hardly think Mr. Windley's politics are relevant to the discussion. Practice what you preach, sir.

I think his politics are reflective of his character.I think he's a liberal cretin with zero integrity.
He has already lied dozens of times about things I have supposedly said. I can see this forum operates exactly like all of the others dedicated to this subject. I could go on any one of the many anti-NASA/Apollo hoax forums and post with no opposition but that isn't my style. What I would like to see is just one unbiased and fairly moderated forum where this subject can be discussed without the same people using the same worn out propaganda tactics. Science isn't propaganda, at least not from my perspective. We all need a neutral battleground and I think the time has come to create it.

[ka9q]

A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed.

Indeed, but the hoaxers are so utterly ignorant of the relevant physics that I doubt they're even aware of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has absolutely no effect on ionizing photon radiation. The solar X-ray (and UV, and optical, and infrared) flux is exactly the same in low earth orbit as on Luna (assuming daytime in both places, of course).

I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1,

All too familiar, actually...

but he often reels lists of radiation types as being deadly. My favourite was his inclusion of neutrinos. I caught Jarrah with this one once when he casually made a list of dangerous radiation and included neutrinos. He avoided my follow on question

Neutrinos, despite interacting only by the weak nuclear force, actually are quite deadly if you happen to be near a star collapsing into a supernova. Something like 10% of the star's mass is converted into a 10-second burst of neutrinos so intense that it blows off the outer layers of the star.

Given that neutrinos can usually pass through light-years of lead without stopping, I find it extremely hard to wrap my brain around such concepts. But that's what science is all about -- teaching us about things that are real, particularly when they run completely counter to our experience, intuition and so-called "common sense".

[Romulus]

I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else.

You want NASA's data for the moon missions that you claim they faked while claiming they lie about everything, so you can prove they lied. Wow! Do you realise the absuridty of your position? I'm sorry, but for someone with self proclaimed uber intelligence, that really does burn.

There is nothing absurd about it.NASA  doesn't publish translunar injection trajectories for a reason,  because to do what they claimed they did is simply impossible and it can be proved.

[sts60]

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.

Yes, of course I know Bob Braeunig posts here as Bob B.

But you said

Even if we knew the precise trajectory they took (WHICH WE DO NOT!) ,unless we had a continuous and accurate measurement, we still wouldn't be able to give a definitive quantitative analysis with precise numbers.

However, the TLI injection parameters (which you said NASA was unwilling to provide) were in fact publicly and freely available.  And Bob did a definite quantitative analysis with sufficient precision to test Apollo's reported numbers.  Both of your claims are factually incorrect, since the trajectory data is known and a quantitative analysis was done.

Now, if you wish to challenge Bob's analysis, he has linked to it for you.  It doesn't matter whether he is a saint or a sinner; the numbers are provided to you, and the sources are provided to you.  If he is lying or wrong in this case, here is your opportunity to show it. 

There is also still the problem that your claim of an immediately-lethal environment is flatly contradicted by the long lives of belt-dwelling spacecraft that are designed using the same environmental data originally developed during and used by the Apollo mission planning.  If your characterization were correct, these spacecraft would fail prematurely - spectacularly so.  They do not.

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.

Thank you again, but you still haven't answered the question.  Why do you characterize them as "totally undeveloped" (emphasis mine)?

[Abaddon]

It's really simple.

Then explain it to us if it so simple, but please offer quantification as that is how radiation sciences are measured, according to well defined parameters.

It takes only minute quantities of radiation to  fog film.

How much is minute? Do you account for the photon energies?

It is simply impossible for the Apollo film to have completely avoided any damage from radiation fogging, and yet there is zero evidence of it in the places where it would be easiest to detect even if it were very very minor.

Why is it impossible?

X radiation of any wavelength is very damaging to film in minute quantities. X rays were discovered with their effects on  photographic film .

That is so horribly wrong that everyone now knows that not only are you not a scientist, you wouldn't know science if it jumped up and poked you in the eye. You have, with this one post, irrevocably painted yourself into the corner labelled as "crank". Now you cannot get out of that corner, ever.

[JayUtah]

What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists.

Apollo By the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.