Faked images from our trip to the moon?

reply to post by kinda kurious


the picture im referring to was actually on this site, i tried uploading it but every time i try it resizes it and u cant see the stars

reply to post by ashtonkusher


Not the old 'you can't see stars' thing again. No insult intended but that is a result of camera exposure and the intense scattered light on the daytime moon, even when they were there in the low sun mornings. You know a moon day is nearly 28 earth days right? If the camera was exposed to pick up stars there would be no detail on the subjects photographed on the surface, total and complete overexposure to nothing but white, but you'd get stars in the sky.

1903 Wright brother's flight. 1969 man walk's on moon! 66 year's. But still no cure for the common cold.

reply to post by grizzle2


You really don't do much research on your presumptions about this radiation you harp about. The film traveled in thick metal boxes, you don't see the many fogged exposures because you see, those were bad exposures. Apollo 11 had better than expected exposures (very fast exposures due to the highly reflective scattered intense light), and the camera had special UV protective lenses, we have something similar here on earth to protect us from harmful sun radiation, with over a 97% efficiency rating, we call sun glasses. The camera was also coated with a highly reflective silver coating that actually kept the film inside, of 200-212 exposures near room temperatures. Back in the Eagle, the fortified camera film cartridges were retuned to the protective cases, the cameras were left on the moon to save weight for the return trip, and to save fuel.

Apollo 12 had more problems with fogging, we know the Apollo 13 story, and Apollo 14, other issues gave less than A-11 good exposures but by Apollo 15 they worked out the kinks. this is with the Hasselblads.

reply to post by jrstock


And still no cognitive thinkers...

reply to post by Illustronic

The camera was also coated with a highly reflective silver coating that actually kept the film inside, of 200-212 exposures near room temperatures.

Those cameras at times spent a few hours in direct sunlight..
Where can I buy some of that silver coating?
I'd like to paint my house..

I read once that 'supposedly' They admitted to faking the pictures, that they are in such a rush to get things done up there that they didn't have time to take pics..

Also funny how they don't have a live feed of the moon.. some might say data blah blah, but they have live feeds from all over the world...and they can't have ONE measly camera on the moon? Or even on the space station. I think lots of people would watch, so i don't see any problem.. sorry i digress, just the subject got my mind ticking.

Good post =]

reply to post by TKDRL



OH PLEASE, NOT AGAIN !!!!!

I Havn't read any more of the posts and your "THEORY" has probably been shot full holes already but I can think of one very good reason the flag moved right off the top of my head......The exhaust from the chemical rocket of the lunar module !!!! If ypu have watched any footage of the module taking off you will see it blowing moon dust away from under the module during takeoff !!!


Get a grip

reply to post by backinblack

Those cameras at times spent a few hours in direct sunlight..

SO????

Hey, sport! Go outside on a bright, sunny day. At around, oh say......10.00 (that's "AM" for the Americans).

Take a camera. Take several of them. Spend a "few hours in direct sunlight". Gee, do the cameras melt, or something??

Oh, and BTW....when you are using the cameras.....are you standing perfectly still, for that "few hours"? No?? YOu mean, you actually move around, and move the camera the whole time...sometimes it's in shade, or turned so another side is facing the Sun, etc?

Really???

to the people who gave you stars......

News Events are just alien chair moving and distraction..
Well paris Hilton was a bit obvious but the fallout
of multiple revolutions , possible state bank coup 'd etat's
in libya , the current hype factor is dropping and
the populations orbiting and inside our moon are now
relaxing as the humans are confused and most importantly
very very distracted...problem being NOTHINGS CHANGED...and despite the great posts by terral and ninz(marry me plz)
we have not one incy wincy little bit of extra on the moon situation which probably is the root cause of the media
distraction strategy as other smaller control agenda's unfold.

have you been distracted by comets and brown dwarfs and
amateur astronomy , is it not time we protested outside nasa's gates and really did strorm facilities that house aliens
and alien tech ..what a bunch of sheep...I have ABSOLUTE proof !!!!
in hundreds of photo's and i still need acsess to better
equipment , however even my very simple results are enough
to convince even the most hardcore doubter
www.1minpages.com...
www.1minpages.com...


I suggest all who follow the nibiru elenin honda threat from space sage watch these video's carefully and in private
and monitor anyone who has a "moonfreakout"
You have been easily distracted and we knew it was the only reply of the alien elite , question is will you ever
get some front foot momentum towards human self determination or are tour alien sugardaddies gonna
wipe your asses indefinitly

reply to post by RobbWonder

I read once that 'supposedly' They admitted to faking the pictures, that they are in such a rush to get things done up there that they didn't have time to take pics..

Huh? You "read once"? Not good enough, your (fallible) memory....

Whatever you read (or thought your read) you either mis-interpreted....or, it was a LIE! Perhaps from one of the idiotic Apollo "hoax" sites?

Rather than randomly speculating, as is being done here....there is a veritable ton of data out there, to prove Apollo was real.

The links are scattered about already, in this thread (and elsewhere). But, just-in-case, one place to begin your journey:

history.nasa.gov...


Or, this handy page, since that one isn't as "pretty" to look at:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by RobbWonder


Oh where to begin?

Originally posted by RobbWonder
I read once that 'supposedly' They admitted to faking the pictures, that they are in such a rush to get things done up there that they didn't have time to take pics..

You're new so I'll be gentle. We tend to provide links / sources here on ATS to substantiate wild claims. Got any?

Also funny how they don't have a live feed of the moon.. some might say data blah blah, but they have live feeds from all over the world...and they can't have ONE measly camera on the moon?

That would cost millions and NASA is already under tight budget scrutiny and America isn't exactly loaded right now. You are obviously a child of the internet generation (Hint: can't use internet to get feed from moon.) Here is an overview of live TV from Apollo 11 to get appreciation of technology. Yeah cost, data, bandwidth etc. You call blah, I cal facts.

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Or even on the space station. I think lots of people would watch, so i don't see any problem...

www.nasa.gov... SEE SPACE STATION CHANNEL LINK

sorry i digress, just the subject got my mind ticking.

Wow what a small watch.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Illustronic

 

The camera was also coated with a highly reflective silver coating that actually kept the film inside, of 200-212 exposures near room temperatures.

Those cameras at times spent a few hours in direct sunlight..
Where can I buy some of that silver coating?
I'd like to paint my house..

You do realize that is a bunch of crap. Silver would not keep the film "cool" at all. It does reflect light but so does a chromed bumber. Ever touch one when as it sits in the sun? I call major BS on this assumption. Illustronic, just give it up, we did not go to the moon, sad but true. It is far easier, with all the evidence at hand, to see that we could not have gone, than it is to "prove" we did go. Physics, math and everything else combined makes it a hoax that we went. Sorry, as you must be.

Originally posted by RobbWonder
I read once that 'supposedly' They admitted to faking the pictures, that they are in such a rush to get things done up there that they didn't have time to take pics...

Really? I read once that they didn't fake them.
[well, that was an easy rebuttal]

reply to post by daddio


This is a basic misunderstanding of the principles here:

....so does a chromed bumber. Ever touch one when as it sits in the sun....

TRY THIS!!!!

That same chrome bumper? TOUCH THE OTHER SIDE!!!!


I mean, this is grade-school science. Reflectivity. Insulation. It isn't even counter-intuitive (as is much of the science of space....).

Think about what a Thermos ® bottle does, and why it works.

Originally posted by daddio
You do realize that is a bunch of crap. Silver would not keep the film "cool" at all. It does reflect light but so does a chromed bumber. Ever touch one when as it sits in the sun? I call major BS on this assumption. Illustronic, just give it up, we did not go to the moon, sad but true. It is far easier, with all the evidence at hand, to see that we could not have gone, than it is to "prove" we did go. Physics, math and everything else combined makes it a hoax that we went. Sorry, as you must be.

If you had a box made of chromed bumper material, sitting in a vacuum in direct sunlight, the surface of the box may measure to be a temperature of, say, 150 degrees F. HOWEVER, the temperature inside that box could still be a lot cooler (say 75 degrees F) because, being a vacuum, there is no air to transfer the heat of the surface of the box to the void inside the box.

Another example would be to consider a person inside a metal tool shed on the Moon, with the shed itself in direct sunlight. The walls of the shed would be very hot, but the space inside of the shed (in the shade) would be cold. There is nor air, thus no thermally conductive material between the shed walls and the person.

Space is odd that way. The vacuum of space -- even "sunlit space" -- is not hot. Only the things that the sunlight hits would be hot.

Also, the reflective surface of the camera may be hot, but if that reflective material is a poor conductor, the heat will not transfer well (it will not be conducted well) to the film inside the box under the reflective surface material. And, as mentioned above, there is no "air" for the heat to be conducted through. Therefore, the film inside a box could stay cool -- as long as there are thermally non-conductive materials (and these materials exist), or the vacuum of space, between the outside of the box and the film inside.

It's a pretty simple concept: If there is no material that would conduct the heat from the surface of the camera to the film inside, then the film will not get hot.



EDIT TO ADD:

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by daddio
....so does a chromed bumber. Ever touch one when as it sits in the sun....

TRY THIS!!!!

That same chrome bumper? TOUCH THE OTHER SIDE!!!!

I mean, this is grade-school science. Reflectivity. Insulation. It isn't even counter-intuitive (as is much of the science of space....).

I agree with you ww -- as long as the material between the reflective surface of the bumper and the inside of the bumper is a poor conductor.

reply to post by Illustronic


So for one moment they did land there. What did the feat prove? The gain of what to benefit mankind? The decades of R&D funding came from what source? Space race? And to the victor, the spoil's were? The technological advancement from a bi-plane to moon landing is staggering.

reply to post by daddio


I suggest you go to the HASSELBLAD website, they explain in detail how their moon cameras were modified, but I suppose you want to stay in your safe little conspiracy world because the fact are too big for your widdle mind to comprehend.

Here because I know you have zero interest in actual research.

www.hasselbladusa.com...

history.nasa.gov...

www.myspacemuseum.com...

history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Illustronic


I laugh at you guy's, I have done the reseach, I just post stuff like that to see what new crazy ideas you all will come up with, the cameras don't matter to me, it's the math and the trajectory and the science of "thrusters in space" that I find most interesting and which shows we did not go there and haven't since then because we can't. Why wouldn't some other country go there for their own sake and research, they are going to believe the fraudulent "U.S. government corporation" known as NASA?

And just so you know, I have a very good friend who worked on the saturn 5 rocket project and the landing module, even he believes we never went, he has shared a lot of info on what was really going on and how it would not have worked. I have seen his certificates hangin on his walls in his study and find his conversations quite interesting.


But you guy's keep the faith!!!

Originally posted by daddio...I have done the reseach, I just post stuff like that to see what new crazy ideas you all will come up with, the cameras don't matter to me, it's the math and the trajectory and the science of "thrusters in space"...

Wait...So you have done the research, yet you still say that a rocket can NOT work in the vacuum of space.

That would be news to all of the space-faring nations that have controlled craft in space.