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

[JayUtah]

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

Yep, I shot my last roll of Kodachrome sometime around 2008.  Had to tweak the tint in Photoshop.

The E-3 process was chosen because although it required greater skill from the photographer in the field to get the exposure right, it offered greater latitude in the darkroom to fix errors.

[Chief]

Is film still preferred for some applications or has everything gone digital now?

[nomuse]

As usual everything you have said I have said is a misrepresentation of what I have actually said, it is you putting words into my mouth. This seems to be a very consistent pattern with you Mr.Windley, and typical of NASA propagandists in general. I never said anything remotely resembling what you said.

What I did say is we have no way of determining precise flux values of the wide variety of radiation in question with any specific mission parameters because space weather conditions are constantly changing, and to be frank, NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories. They claim to have skirted the worst of the radiation, which I agree is possible but the language is deceiving.....even if you "skirt" the worst of the heat and radiation of a thermonuclear blast by standing behind a tree, 5 miles from ground zero you're still going to be vaporized.

And has nothing to do with the price of fish. As long as you support Grove's experiment as being representative, only the sun needs to be considered. And it doesn't shine any brighter on the Moon than it does in Earth orbit.

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.

Correct, but:

What we can is prove that in the very best of circumstances and lottery winning luck, the astronauts would be killed and the film totally exposed.

Horseshoes and hand grenades -- and searing radiation hells. It is the order of magnitude problem again. EITHER it is close enough there is a range of doubt (and more better calculations are necessary) OR it is dangerous enough there is no chance the astronauts survived. You can't have it both ways.

As you know (or should know) , since the Apollo missions we have learned more than 99% of what we now know about the space weather enviroment and the radiation trapped by Earths magnetic field.

In fact, we have discovered an entirely new  band of radiation that was previously unknown, and the dynamic nature of the space weather enviroment is now much better understood than in 1969.

A few things most of us are aware of is the amount of radiation required to expose film is very tiny fraction of what causes biological effects. X rays penetrate thin layers of aluminum practically as if it is transparent, and secondary radiation from high energy particle interaction with metals like aluminum creates electromagnetic radiation (including especially x rays) and secondary particle radiation as well.

If you will concede all of the above is totally accurate, i believe we can continue. What has been said in my absence does not require a response, as far as I can see. It is just the usual propaganda, personal attacks and BS.

The only thing I will concede is what is easy to conclude; you can't stick to a story, and you can't quantify.

[nomuse]

Prediction: Romulus will not return to the threads he has conspicuously abandoned, but will lie low for a few days, then open a new thread on a different aspect of Apollo hoping that everyone will forget previous failures and bow to his "science knowledge". Rinse, lather, repeat.

Basically, a slo-mo gish gallop.

Well, no. What you do not realize is simply disabling a single computer is a useless gesture.

Stop! My bingo card filled up already!

[beedarko]

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

And K-11 and K-12 before that.  The processes were extremely complex and multi-staged, with so much specialized hardware and technical knowledge required that outside of Kodak Rochester & Palo Alto, I think there were only ever a handful of independent labs equipped to handle it.  By contrast, Ektachrome could be processed in your bathtub, with results that some still argue are superior to Kodachrome.  I always found it to be a bit cold though, and my photography tends to feature a lot of natural earth tones, so I favored Kodachrome's warmth, and used a ton of it back in the day.

The Ektachrome I did shoot was largely infrared, when a particular mood hit me. 

[ka9q]

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

But you have to admit it was a technical tour de force of physics and chemistry. Looking at the K-14 process it's hard to remember that it was developed (heh) 80 years ago, and that it worked as well as it did. Back in my film days I preferred Kodachrome because of its dye stability. I'd generally shoot Ektachrome only when I needed the speed.

Despite having done a lot of my own (B&W only) film and print processing I've never been satisfied by the usual layman's descriptions of a "latent image". How exactly does a silver halide crystal 'remember' that it has been exposed to light so it'll decompose to metallic silver later in the developer?

My own reasoning is that a latent image is produced when the light from a brief exposure decomposes a tiny fraction of the halide in each crystal in the emulsion. This tiny amount of metallic silver then catalyzes the further reduction of halide to metallic silver by the developer. This explains why faster films generally have larger grain sizes; if metallic silver anywhere in the grain catalyzes the reduction of the entire grain (but not adjacent grains), then a larger grain would be a bigger and more sensitive target for light.

Am I close?

[smartcooky]

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. 

I think the problem with hoaxies (and Romulus is no exception) is they struggle understand that a photograph is a two-dimensional depiction of a three dimensional space, and they simply do not understand the implications of that

[nomuse]

I have never read any propaganda pieces from either side.

That must have made it extremely difficult to cite Groves.

[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

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. 

Your photograph proves nothing and neither does your handwaving.


Physicist Oleg Oleynik's detailed experiments involving parralax proving backgrounds in Apollo photographs is projected onto a screen using frontscreen projection:
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=767.390
[notice:Handwaving not allowed. If you can debunk this mans work, do so.Your say-so is not evidence, it is not appreciated,  and it is not desired here]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees. Notice that the shadow of the LEM is at right angles  to the camera's field of veiw . NO ONE can duplicate this anomoly with any type of camera, lens or  film with the sun as the only source of light  because if one shadow is perpindicular to the cameras field of veiw in the forground they all will be,  and in this case on is an another is not. The only explanation is that the light source is coming from the opposite direction that the shadow is projected. In this example is is very easy to see where the artifical light source is positioned. Notice the difference in my analysis and the "multiple light source" theories. I believe NASA used a compound stage light that was very intense and flourecent lighting for filling in shadows.

The only thing I will accept is experimental duplication, in other words a photograph taken with one shadow perpindicular to the cameras perspective and another at a 45 degree angle. NO HANDWAVING.It is simply not possible.  Granted, if the shadows (and light source) are much closer to parallel with the cameras field of veiw as in the example above that I have quoted, it is obvious the shadows will appear to converge, but never can. This is simply a matter of perspective, the same distance further away looks shorter.

[Romulus]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

[Romulus]

THE SAME DOZEN OR SO PEOPLE......ALWAYS SHOW UP LIKE FILES ON A FRESHLY LAID TURD.....

[JayUtah]

Is film still preferred for some applications or has everything gone digital now?

The only people I know who still use film use it for artistic purposes and for very good reason.  There is prestige in the fine-art photography world for using only traditional equipment and processes.

However commercial and editorial photography has gone digital simply for production reasons.  Making money on a volume of work as opposed to its unique quality is a matter of maximizing workload and minimizing deadlines.  An end-to-end digital process speeds that up greatly.  In my studio I shoot exclusively on digital with immediate wifi upload to the server where it can begin its digital post-processing.  I still have a store of film equipment and stock, but I haven't found anything yet to use it for.

[JayUtah]

I will not be posting here any longer, I was really just wanting to prove the same people showed up no matter where you expose the NASA moonlanding hoax (they did), if I could get them to admit that they refused to use the scientific method to defend their claims (you didn't disappoint) and if I could prove a consistent pattern of unethical and dishonest behavior.(you didn't disappoint). Since Jay and Bob are in the public arena representing NASA, their words are public domain. Over the years between the two of you and Phil Plait,I have enough material to paint you as you as what you are.  In my opinion you all belong in jail.

Your delusion is not proof.

[nomuse]

Is there such a thing as a Gish Drunkard's Walk?

[Luke Pemberton]

In my opinion you all belong in jail.

OK, that's nice to know.