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

[Chief]

Great Website, by the way.

It's a really good gateway to so much information. I am going to get pinged by my IT guy soon for spending too much time here whilst I'm in my office!

[LunarOrbit]

Great Website, by the way.

It's a really good gateway to so much information.

Thank you.

I am going to get pinged by my IT guy soon for spending too much time here whilst I'm in my office!

I am the IT guy in my office, but I still can't get away with spending too much time here while at work (which is why I'm only just getting around to moderating Romulus now).

[ka9q]

First of all, as I have already established, I am the debunker. You are the hoaxer. You have reassigned roles.

Wrong, but I'll let this one slide. You won't win any arguments by redefining words.

If you've got in in your mind that I do not know magnetic fields do not measurable effect electromagnetic radiation, you are badly underestimating your opponent. I know more about this particular subject than anyone here, and your misrepresentations about what you believe I have said prove it. That is unless you are willing to concede you are intentionally lying.

How am I lying?

You asserted that the solar X-ray environment on the moon would have fogged the film of the Apollo astronauts. By invoking Groves' results, you are endorsing his claim that the accumulated dose was as high as 100 rads. This is enough to cause radiation sickness in humans, so presumably you are claiming that the Apollo lunar astronauts would have gotten sick had they actually gone to the moon.

X-rays are photons. Photons do not carry electrical charge. Therefore, photons are not measurably affected by magnetic fields. On this, we actually agree.

Therefore, a necessary and inescapable implication of your statements is that film would be equally fogged by X-rays even in low earth orbit, and astronaut travel even to low earth orbit is impossible because of the radiation hazard.

Is that your position? If not, why not?

[smartcooky]

I think as we go on, it will become increasing undeniable who is lacking in knowledge about the radiation and copy/pasting a party line, and who is independently knowledgeable. I do not need a data base of disinformation and pre prepared attack responses like you do, nor do I need to attack you using a pack of yes men minions patting me on the back and saying "atta boy, you got him". I operate strictly in my own base of knowledge, which it will become increasingly self evident greatly exceeds that of Jay Windley or any of his minions, including yourself come close to equaling.

The more I read of Romulus/IDW's pompous and arrogant self-aggrandising, the more he reminds me of a Mac Davis song (with slight paraphrasing from me)

"Oh Lord its hard to be humble
When I'm perfect in every way
I can't wait to see what I've posted
'Cause my postings get better each day"

[Sus_pilot]

Romulus:  I'm still trying to figure out how to selectively develop 70mm transparency film (essentially positive motion picture stock), specifically Ektachrome.

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.

[ka9q]

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.

The specific film type was Kodak SO-368. It was an Ektachrome emulsion on an Estar (polyester) thin base stock.

Here's a report on its properties:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750013526.pdf

This was not the only kind of film carried on Apollo missions, but it was by far the most heavily used color film type.

Edited to add: The cited report describes a version of SO-368 with a built-in filter produced for the ASTP mission. I don't know if it also applies to earlier Apollo flights. I note that the film speed varied with the processing machine speed, but ASA 64 is midway in the speed range so I assume that's its nominal speed. ASA 64 was a common speed for retail Ektachrome; I used a lot of it.

[JayUtah]

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?

E-3, but the lab technicians altered it in some cases by ad hoc methods to correct exposure or achieve other desired effects.  Photo historian Michael Light has noted that camera originals subjected to the modified E-3 process have been more susceptible to dye shift.

[Chief]

Just so it is clear Romulus,

This is the notice on the Hoax Theory index:


"Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them. Discussions unrelated to Apollo are not allowed in this section."

You are yet to provide a defence.

Or much of anything else for that matter, except for calling everyone liars.

[beedarko]

Why is it that every hoaxer that ever was always resorts to calling their opponents liars?

When that's the only ammunition you have, you use it.  Remember when the goofy, arrogant aliens used their laser weapons against the Enterprise? 

 

[Chief]

Yeah, and some of them use cloaking devices............

[smartcooky]

Romulus:  I'm still trying to figure out how to selectively develop 70mm transparency film (essentially positive motion picture stock), specifically Ektachrome.

BTW, not that it matters, can anyone tell me if the film used required the E3 or E4 process?  Just wondering what "generation" of Ektachrome NASA used.

A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome film used by NASA was processed  E2 or E3.

[ka9q]

A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome 120 medium format film used by NASA was E2 or E3.

K14 was the late, great Kodachrome as I recall. Completely different stuff from Ektachrome.

That SO-368 report I cited refers to Kodak processes ME-4 and EA-5.

[Count Zero]

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

I'm getting a kick out of the discussion of this photo.  I took it early on a lovely morning on Molokai in late December of 2009.  Note that my brother Sam is carrying Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark".

I took it with an ordinary Canon Powershot SD1100IS purchased (iirc) at Walmart.  The zoomed-out field-of-view is ~60 degrees from side-to-side, which is only slightly more than the ~53 degree field-of-view on the Apollo surface cameras.

I took it to illustrate the effect of perspective and uneven terrain on parallel shadows, heiligenschein, and zero-angle effect and posted it on ATS, where I go by "Saint Exupery".

I find it hilarious that Romulus' description is egregiously wrong on nearly every point. 

[smartcooky]

A lot of transparency film of that era used the (diabolical) K14 process, but IIRC, the Ektachrome 120 medium format film used by NASA was E2 or E3.

K14 was the late, great Kodachrome as I recall. Completely different stuff from Ektachrome.

Yep. I hated the stuff. It was really toxic, it stank (in multiple ways) and it was notoriously unreliable. The slightest mistiming or error could produce unacceptable colour shifts 

[nomuse]

A point well made. If space was such a dreadful sea of deadly high energy electromagnetic radiation then astronauts in LEO would be exposed. I'm not sure if many are familiar with un4g1v3n1, 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

That actually showed up once back when I had time for role-playing games. Some super-batteries were brought in from a different campaign and the DM declared that they would lose most of their charge over the next week until they agreed better with the listed Traveller energy densities. As an additional hand-wave, the excess energy was said to be carried away by neutrinos. Not a smart thing to do when you have several physics geeks playing. They did the math, and it turns out people standing near those batteries were getting radiation burns. Yes; from neutrinos. Same campaign had a giant laser so energetic it could actually pull about an eighth of a G.