Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the Space forum, there is a long thread of over 46 pages of posts about the Apollo hoax and how some people think we never went to the moon. It generated much discussion and was finally closed because some felt it should be in this forum. It seems over there they dont want any serious space discussions interrupted by science heretics.
I have been watching the 3-part UFOTV documentary-argument about the Moon landing hoax called What Happened On the Moon - An Investigation into Apollo (2000).
Although they say they think the landing on the Moon actually happened, they feel there are many instances where the information we were given in the form of TV images, and photos have many inconsistensies. They claim much of it was produced at a different time to the actual Apollo Mission itself and show where studio lights have been used as fill-in lighting to show areas of shadow, and where the actual photo was taken from a higher vantage point (as shown by the line of the horizon and the central image cross-hairs) than that shown the picture being taken in the TV footage.
So, the hoax is not that we never actually got to the Moon, but that many of the images we were shown were artificially created at a different time and place. The whole thing is one massive NASA publicity campaign.
They made at least one, what I consider a very good point which is...
When the rolls of films from the Hasselblads came back and first or second generation copies were ordered and examined...
How come NONE of the photos taken on the surface have fading caused by radiation exposure or any had cosmic radiation streaks on them?
When the rolls of films from the Hasselblads came back and first or second generation copies were ordered and examined...
How come NONE of the photos taken on the surface have fading caused by radiation exposure or any had cosmic radiation streaks on them?
Why wouldnt NASA consider radiations affect, short or long term on film used for photography during the moon landing or any missions in space??
NASA meticulously decided upon a number of factors that determined the fate of the space-bound Hasselblads and the resulting images.
Why wouldnt NASA consider radiations affect, short or long term on film used for photography during the moon landing or any missions in space??
So, rather than give an answer, you pose another question. Yes, that figures.
All I know is that I have not seen any radiation-caused fogging or streaks, not one. How did they manage that?
From the article you linked.
Quote:
Other features present to these two cameras was the use of special-designed locks for the film magazines, levers for the aperture and distance settings and featured a simple sighting ring, rather than a reflex mirror viewfinder.
The astronauts gloves had thick padding, on some missions rigid ends to the fingers and they could not manipulate the small levers and buttons on a standard Hasselblad. The cameras were strapped to their chest and could not be brought up to eye level, so what was the point of mentioning a "simple sighting ring" special modification?
Considering the astronaut had to move his whole body to position the camera and that they could not look through a viewfinder as we normally do, it is totally amazing how accurate and 'perfect' their images were as many have been used for adverts and publicity since. They did have practice sessions with the cameras however.
The link you posted also gives us an example of another strange phenomena as detailed in that video I mentioned above. It is concerning the image in that link you provided.
See where the sun is coming from? From the right behind the Lunar Module(LEM) which gives us a deep shadow on the ground and on this side of the rocket nozzle underneath the LEM.
So, how come the astronaut, the ladder, the gold reflective foil, the hatch has NO shadow at all. Normally, you would expect everything in shadow to be black, particularly since the sunlight/shadow on the Moon is very contrasty. The lunar surface has about 7%-10% relectivity yet light would have to go around corners to light up the astronaut and the recesses of the hatch door.
So, rather than give an answer, you pose another question. Yes, that figures.
All I know is that I have not seen any radiation-caused fogging or streaks, not one. How did they manage that?
I addressed the question raised in your post. Additional questions were then raised ( by you ) and may have ( notice the use of may) logical explanations.
Here's your inquiry: How come NONE of the photos taken on the surface have fading caused by radiation exposure or any had cosmic radiation streaks on them?
Why wouldnt NASA consider radiations affect, short or long term on film used for photography during the moon landing or any missions in space??
It is unlikely the cameras were radiation-proofed with lead shielding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgode
I addressed the question raised in your post. Additional questions were then raised ( by you ) and may have ( notice the use of may) logical explanations.
I see, OK, so what you are saying is that they may have taken them all out?
I would agree with you - only the point was made in the program that there were none on the pieces of emulsion between the negatives either, so I dont think they would have spent the man-hours (in those days) to manually retouch the parts which were not going to be printed.
It is unlikely the cameras were radiation-proofed with lead shielding.
I see, OK, so what you are saying is that they may have taken them all out?
I would agree with you - only the point was made in the program that there were none on the pieces of emulsion between the negatives either, so I dont think they would have spent the man-hours (in those days) to manually retouch the parts which were not going to be printed.
If NASA spends the dough insuring photo protection from radiation, taking it a step further with retouch wouldn't be a stretch.
You'd have to be extremely knowledgable about NASA in addressing photographic questions of whys and hows. There may be truth to some of it...or none within the link.
It is an interesting topic to explore.
While the specifics of the film used in Apollo 11 aren’t noted, records indicate the same emulsion used on Apollo 8 was used in the Apollo 11 mission.
Thus, we can conclude that the magazines were loaded with the special-designed film NASA contracted Kodak to develop. For black and white they used 70mm perforated Kodak Panatomic-X ‘fine-grained’ film with an ASA rating of 80.
It’s incredible to think about how much work went into the creation of special-designed equipment for the documentation of our endeavors to the moon.
Here's further reading:
To read up more on the camera tech behind the Apollo 11 mission and more, you can check out a number of resources, here, here and here.
How come NONE of the photos taken on the surface have fading caused by radiation exposure or any had cosmic radiation streaks on them?
You've given up on the resolution canard, then? Good.
Why do you expect fading or streaks? Is it some sort of gut feeling, or do you have numbers? Type and intensity of radiation, compared to an Earth surface environment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
