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

[Dr.Acula]

Well, that's actually true. At the launch pad, the CM has a white boost protective cover. It is jettisoned along with the escape tower (which pulls it off) shortly after staging, exposing the CM's aluminized Mylar thermal covering. Little (if any) of this survives re-entry so when it lands, it's brown from the now-exposed phenolic heat shield resin.

Right, but Rommy wasn't aware about this boost protective cover. And this guy claimed to be a scientist. I'm not really impressed by his research skills 

[Dalhousie]

He came in with all this irrefutable stuff and wouldn't share it. His reluctance was telling because,  when it began to be dragged out of him - Surprise! - there was nothing new and nothing that stood up to scrutiny. I would say he clearly knew this and just threw a hissy fit because it was found out so quickly.  It's sad really. 

[Kiwi]

Well, that's actually true. At the launch pad, the CM has a white boost protective cover. It is jettisoned along with the escape tower (which pulls it off) shortly after staging, exposing the CM's aluminized Mylar thermal covering. Little (if any) of this survives re-entry so when it lands, it's brown from the now-exposed phenolic heat shield resin.

Right, but Rommy wasn't aware about this boost protective cover. And this guy claimed to be a scientist. I'm not really impressed by his research skills 

And Romulus-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1), but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

He said somewhere that he is not an expert in photography, which he proceeded to prove, but why then, is he arrogant enough to criticise lunar photography when he knows so little about the subject? He doesn't have the mental tools to understand his own criticisms, let alone any rebuttals.

However, he gave me a fair few out-loud laughs, and I was extremely grateful I didn't have a mouthful of coffee (otherwise I would have drenched my computer, screen, keyboard and clothing) when I read something he said in his other thread:

Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal.

When he's so funny, so wrong, and leaves the door so far open, what else can one say, but:- Jackal, meet Jackass! 

[Zakalwe]

He came in with all this irrefutable stuff and wouldn't share it. His reluctance was telling because,  when it began to be dragged out of him - Surprise! - there was nothing new and nothing that stood up to scrutiny. I would say he clearly knew this and just threw a hissy fit because it was found out so quickly.  It's sad really.

So in other words he came in to start a fight knowing that he had nothing but fluff and bluster and then got the hump when his ass was handed to him? It seems like a strange way to get your jollies, but I guess that, as they say in the North of England, "there's nowt as queer as folk".

The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.

Its also amusing when people like him are firing the accusations that they don't realise how easily the accusation applies to themselves:

You know, out of tens of thousands of words posted here not a one of you has said a single thing that was truly informative. This is because when you are defending a lie,

^^That sounds like a very good description of Rommy, doesn't it. 218 posts in 17 hours and virtually every post had zero information in it. Heck, I don't think that he posted a single number in any of those 218 posts. Like I said...it seems like a strange way to get your jollies.....

[Dr.Acula]

And Rommy-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1), but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

He said somewhere that he is not an expert in photography, which he proceeded to prove, but why then, is he arrogant enough to criticise lunar photography when he knows so little about the subject? He doesn't have the mental tools to understand his own criticisms, let alone any rebuttals.

However, he gave me a fair few out-loud laughs, because as Abbadon said, he is he is awfully amusing, and I was extremely grateful I didn't have a mouthful of coffee (otherwise I would have drenched my computer, screen, keyboard and clothing) when I read what he said in his other thread:

"Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal."

Jackal, meet jackass! 

Yeah, I wanted to point to this Ektachrome disaster  But I haven't found the Replies in time. Do I remember right that he used something like "nazi correction" after being corrected? This was my coffee-spewing-moment 

[Kiwi]

I have the entire collection in the form of an original 'Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moonm' (at a very good price I might add!), as well as another smaller book 'The moon as viewed by lunar orbiter', which has Farouk El Baz as co-author, is easy to find second hand and not too expensive. I'd recommend the latter as a budget purchase for any enthusiast of Apollo era space exploration

The images are remarkably free of defect, the only issues seemingly from problems in developing the film rather than radiation damage of any kind. The detail in some of the high resolution ones is extremely good (in some cases comparable with the LRO).

If you like Lunar Orbiter, you'll love the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP). Several years ago, a guy named Dennis Wingo learned that NASA still had the tapes of the raw receiver output signals from the Lunar Orbiters as they scanned their films. Dennis realized that he could make much higher quality images by directly digitizing these tapes.

Digital imagery wasn't around in the 1960s, so all the Lunar Orbiter pictures you see in books are multi-generation copies of photographic prints generated from the received signals. At the time, the tapes were only useful as backups should an optical printer fail in real time. Very similar backup tapes were made during the Apollo 11 EVA, but unfortunately those tapes were recycled in the early 1980s so we can't do for them what Dennis has done for Lunar Orbiter.

He convinced NASA to give him all the LO tapes plus some funding to set up shop in an abandoned McDonalds' at NASA Ames. He finished digitizing them all a while ago. Their quality is indeed dramatically better than the older versions made from photographic prints. Go to www.moonviews.com to see some of their work; it's also been incorporated into the regular NASA planetary databases.

Dennis and his organization also conceived the ICE/ISEE-3 Reboot Project last year. I was involved in that project so I visited their site in August. Big piles of videotape cans were still stacked up around their McDonalds' building, and several heavily rebuilt 2" quad videotape recorders were still operating. 2" quad was the first type of videotape invented and the broadcast standard through the 1970s. The LO recorders didn't actually record standard video; they were modified to operate as wideband instrumentation recorders.

So, are you in the group photo in the article in the December Playboy, "Mission Out of Control",  by Pat Jordan, pages 78-79? The six people in the photo are unfortunately not named.

It's quite a good article and excellent reading except near the end where the author makes too much of an issue out of foibles of some of the people involved. Page 82 has a photo of some of the stacks of tapes, and there are a few photos of the machinery used.

It took me a while to find the McDonalds' building (now "McMoon's") in Google Earth, until I searched around the big building in the background of one photo. Found McMoon's at 37º 24' 33.96" N, 122º 03' 17.23" W.

It's a pity that ISEE-3 had run out of nitrogen.

[Grashtel]

The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.

Except that in this case its claiming he has a knife when he actually has a rubber spoon

[Allan F]

An imaginary rubber spoon, that is.

[Zakalwe]

The old advice to never bring a knife to a gunfight applies, I think.

Except that in this case its claiming he has a knife when he actually has a rubber spoon

Given the whopping that he got I think that he came with one of these.....

[ipearse]

So, in a nutshell, after 20+pages, the answer to the question posed by the topic title, is "No." Next?

Edit: Sorry, 30+pages.... good grief.

[JayUtah]

And Romulus-the-pretend-scientist couldn't even spell Ektachrome properly (post 4, page1), ...

Maybe he meant Ectochrome -- the film used to photograph ghosts.    Seriously, though, I rarely care about spelling errors.  Granted, if you're a photographer or familiar with photography, you probably know should Ektachrome.  But my mother has a Master of English degree and still intentionally spells "vacume" (the gadget you clean carpets with).

...but even worse, stated in post 317, page 22 that it was negative film instead of the positive film it really was (colour slide film in layperson's terms).

A more egregious error, especially if you're choosing film for a particular project.  Laymen can be forgiven for referring to "the negative" as the strip of film that goes into the camera and comes out of the end of the developing process.  They may not understand that to a photographer, words such as "negative" and "positive" also describe whether the colors are reversed in the image.  The final evolution of the blue-screen process in film for traveling transparent mattes involves nearly a dozen film elements, some negative and some positive.  You need to keep track of that and understand the difference.

But not to know the difference between "exposed" and "developed."  That's important.

[JayUtah]

Edit: Sorry, 30+pages.... good grief.

He only lasted about 60 posts at Bad Astronomy.

[Bryanpoprobson]

The fact that you are professional liars does not equate with any competence in the fields required to understand this subject, which you and your comrades have proved this over an over again, and consistency across the board.

Anyone with a moderate level of intelligence can do what you are doing here.It's easy  .What isn't easy is actually proving anything, and if any of you could, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE STILL TRYING TO 48 YEARS LATER

Actually the fact is:- 48 years of trying and still the HB's do not have ONE piece of smoking gun evidence against Apollo. In 48 years not ONE person has come forward as a credible whistleblower. In 48 years the FACT that Apollo landed man on the moon, has stood as testament to the bravery of the astronauts and the ingenuity of the designers and systems engineers involved. It is actually offensive, to denigrate the achievement of Apollo with what is basically, poor science and outright lies.

[onebigmonkey]

as they say in the North of England, "there's nowt as queer as folk".

and it seems he doesn't like that sort of folk

A fellow northerner? I hope you're from the decent God-fearing part!

[Zakalwe]

A fellow northerner? I hope you're from the decent God-fearing part!

I fear no god.

I'm a honorary Lancastrian, but originally from  over the stretch of water to the left....