Originally posted by HowardRoark
I missed this one the first time I read it.
Originally posted by Shai
Like why, if moon gravity is so low, did the astronauts not kick up dust clouds when they skipped and jumped..dust clouds that should have hung for
Shai, you really can’t be serious here. Are you?
Even you should be able to figure out the answer to this one.
[edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]
If you don't want to be bored by the text of my rebuttal then just skip down to the bottom of this post and PLEASE explain the photos ..official NASA
photos and how they could be genuine?
Now, for the rebuttal...first to Howard..
Neil Armstrong said that as he looked out the LM window as they touched down he saw dust spreading out horizontally very fast and over the horizon of
the moon and then dying to nothing, like it never happened.
So one would expect to see dust kicked up by the jumping doing the same thing...travelling very fast out of frame, since there would be no wind
resistance,, and arcing almost horizontally before falling dead to the ground..in straight lines...
Besides, all reports say the moon dust was onlly talc-like to a depth of maybe 2 inches and most of it was rocky chunks and blasted glass...meaning
some particles or clots would have a degree of weight and not fall quite as fast as they would on earth..yes?
i am open to those who might maintain that instead of disturbing the dust they only compacted all the silicon together when they bounced up and
down..but what about that famous golf swing on the moon..he kicked up one hell of a divot but the dust did not spread laterally across the horizon,
Nor di it do that other-worldy swirling bit that is used as an excuse for why no dust was kicked up on take off from the surface.
NASA's chief Apollo historian was kind enough to answer some questions for me...[Bob Braeuning] about film base emulsions and sub-strata..but only
for the Hasselblad 500EL's..as well as a few other points. He could not, however account for the foto on www.aulis.com showing the flap on the back
of an astronaut that does not appear in the video of the same event,.but has promised to get back to me.
No one to date has debunked or explained either of these anomalies in the official NASA record..and seem content to ignore them when addressing
Someone is also going to have to explain to me again about the cross hairs disappearing because of over-exposure or bright light refelcting off
The crosshairs were not on the lens as in most cameras, they were engraved on a plate placed between the lens and the film so [NASA claims] that
accurate distances and object ratios could be measured ..and yet that process can only be done with two cameras or a stereoscopic camera with two
lenses, set apart and at angles to each other..yes?. NASA does mention 1 stereoscopic camera...I will go and find the link if asked...in the
perhaps the best arbiter of what photographic equipment was taken to the moon is not Kodak, the film-maker but Hasselblad who made the cameras.
here's what thye have to say:
The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:
(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body,
extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately
calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The
crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.
[* Shai's note..bear that in mind when you see the pics below!']
(2) The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially.
Careful calibration tests were performed with the lens fitted in the camera in order to ensure high-quality, low-distortion images. Furthermore, the
lens of the camera was fitted with a polarizing filter which could easily be detached.
[* Shai's note..do you mark the reference to a polarizing filter..that in itself would eliminate the cross-hairs fading in overexposures]
(3) The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping
maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a
tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander
standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.
(4) ...The Reseau plate, or register glass, is not a new development in photography. What is most remarkable, however, is that the group of Hasselblad
staff working on NASA camera projects in collaboration with Carl Zeiss was successful in applying the idea to a small camera - like the Hasselblad
500EL Data Camera. This camera is not only useful in space photography, it is particularly suitable for all kinds of aerial photography. The special
cameras produced in the past for aerial photography were large and intended for a large negative-format - frequently meaning high prices. The
Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera with its Reseau plate produced a small and comparatively low-cost camera which gave satisfactory results in aerial
Do you see any mention of a stereoscopic camera?
But anyway, my point is not that the astronauts didn't make it to the moon, my point is that the official record of the trip..most of it
photographic, has flaws that are unanswered by the 'believers'
here's another one that no one from the debunking the moon hoax theorists wants to comment upon
And this one, too:
There are two astronauts reflected in the visor plus the one being photgraphed..2+ 1 =3..so who was the 'fourth" cameraman?
Now if we all could confine our responses to just answering these photos perhaps we could settle the argument.
Awaiting the debunking of these photos..not a spin-off into other angles or subjetcs...