It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
[color=gold]Ahem....
Cause so far I've found 200 frames.
...The film used on Apollo-11 was the same type carried on the other flights - a Kodak special thin-based and thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film - which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each loading.
Originally posted by nataylor
How is it not an explanation? There was enough film in the magazine to get at least 170 exposures. They got 182. Seems reasonable to be conservative and have the actual number of possible exposures be higher than the rated number.
Originally posted by FoosM
Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.
200 on one magazine of 3401 B&W from Apollo 16?
Originally posted by FoosM
Cause so far I've found 200 frames.
it was a REMINDER for the crew in the film studio and they forgot to take it off.
Originally posted by FoosM
Im surprised you brought up 35mm.
Of course you could get a frame or two extra from 36 or 24 exposures every now and again.
But those were commercial products...
Originally posted by FoosM
Its still not an explanation for the 170 on the camera and the took over 180.
Originally posted by nataylor How is it not an explanation? There was enough film in the magazine to get at least 170 exposures. They got 182. Seems reasonable to be conservative and have the actual number of possible exposures be higher than the rated number.
Could it be because Apollo 14 used type 3400 film and Apollo 16 used type 3401?
Originally posted by FoosM
You just said Apollo 14 B&W magazines were rated at 190 photos.
Why would they go backwards to 170 two missions later?
It doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
it was a REMINDER for the crew in the film studio and they forgot to take it off.
OK Foosm, you know I'll debate both sides but WTF was that??
IF the entire Apollo program was a TOTAL HOAX, why the hell would they put a sticker on a camera saying "170 remaining.??"
If you can give me even the slightest explanation then I will continue to listen to you...
Now I have just proven that NASA blatantly doctors their Apollo photos:
Something NASA defenders and the general public does not believe or expect them to do. But as you can see they do. So if the mysterious counter, or label, stating "170 EXPS Remaining" is not an issue for you, there are many more issues that have been brought up in this thread.
Originally posted by ppk55
edit: Also, this is exciting ... an 8 hour documentary from Jarrah White examining the bizarre 'moon rocks'. Can't wait for it.
8 frakkin hours...
Wow.
That just dawned on me.
Thats worth a lot of money.
Just in man hours, how much you think JW's video series is worth?
Around 500K?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
8 frakkin hours...
Wow.
That just dawned on me.
Thats worth a lot of money.
Just in man hours, how much you think JW's video series is worth?
Around 500K?
It doesn't matter how much Jarrah's Cuban masters pay him, the videos will be worthless.
I wonder what topics he will discuss.
On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is so energetic that it knocks electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micron and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes, Stubbs explains. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again.
Originally posted by FoosM
I wonder what topics he will discuss.
PS (and rather tellingly..) - bib, do you understand how big a one-micron particle is? And how many of them we are talking about? And that they are not being windblown, but merely falling straight back down to the surface?
Originally posted by backinblack
"and rather tellingly???"
I quote an interesting NASA article and you talk like that??
It's a theory based on science and observations of some of the astronauts..
The dust would not fall straight down, the astronauts actually drew them up as arced fountains..
Quite visible so you'd expect quite a lot of displacement..
Also, most moon dust is quite fine anyway so the smaller particles would push the larger ones around...
But for anyone who wants to actually think things through, my posts might be appreciated. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether this new 'claim' has been thought through and is worthy of further consideration.
Originally posted by backinblack
But for anyone who wants to actually think things through, my posts might be appreciated. Again, I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether this new 'claim' has been thought through and is worthy of further consideration.
You continually mention "your audience".
Do you really think many are following this thread other than your mates etc?
I note it's pretty much the only thread you post in..
Maybe you need to widen your interests..
Ohh BTW, some of them dust particle reach up to a kilometer in the air..
Not exactly a minor jump...
Or are you still calling it a footprint?