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.

 

Caution: They know much more!!

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I have so much to say about this, but I honestly don't want to waste my time with someone like harok. This is about the most illogical and unfounded group of stories I have ever heard.




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns

Originally posted by Shai

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FILM?

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?



As I've already explained at length (see above post) in a vacuum there is no ambient heat just radiative heat and the temp of the surface (and objects on it) would have reached nothing like those extremes.

The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The best way to reflect radiative heat is to wrap the object (like a camera or person) in layers designed to reflect as much heat as possible, usually by simply being white.

This is enough to very efficiently direct heat away from the both the astronauts and the camera film.





The film ALLEGEDLY used on the moon was not and never has been shown to be able to withstand anything like that amount of temperature variation and deliver even one usable image..so how do you explain the phenomenal quality of the pictures taken with that hasselblad?



Quite the reverse is true, as a simple bit of research would reveal.

This was no ordinary "Ektachrome" film, and, as I've already explained, it was never exposed to those kinds of temperatures in the cameras.

The 70mm film used in the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts carried was a very special transparency film designed specifically (under a NASA contract) for hostile environments like the Moon.

According to Peter Vimislik at Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200° F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500° F. So, a worst case scenario of 250-280° F for a totally uninsulated, non-reflective camera would still be well within the film's operational parameters.

The film itself, in terms of its light-gathering abilities, was also quite amazing (in striking contrast to the uninformed claims of the debunkers). It was a special "extended range color slide film" called "XRC," that allowed the astronauts to take perfect quality pictures on the lunar surface.

So advanced was the film that it is only now that many of these major features are beginning to be used in the commercially-available colour emulsions used in today's modern day 35mm and 70mm non-digital cameras

Regarding radiation, the same argument applies. The biggest danger to the astronauts and their equipment was the van allen belts. The NASA solution was simple -- to send the crew through the belts at high speed (25,000 miles per hour) to reduce exposure to well below 1 rad/rem both on the way out and on the way back.

Conspiracy theorists can check this (if they can be bothered, which they usually can't) by referring to NASA Technical Notes - NASA TN D-7080, Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation by Robt. English, Richard E. Benson, J. Bailey, and C. Brown, --Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, March, 1973.

Hasselbad provided additional protection against radiation for both camera and internal film magazines, and of course, the film was not removed from its magazines until back on earth.

www.clavius.org...

In short, in my personal experience, those who try to dish astonishing achievements like the moon landings are usually people who have achieved nothing in their own lives.


Dear Harris Johns,

I give you the link to the site which debunks totally everything you had to say about the 'special film', and several other points in hopes you will find it most objective and most clear in its forthright rebuttal to your rebuttals.
www.aulis.com...

Now then, if you find fault with the argument and the evidence on this site please let us know..I went and checked everything quoted and can't find the flaw..maybe you can.
I must say, I find it hard to believe that you find no problem whatsoever in NASA''s explanation that the 'special film'was so advanced that only now is something similar being used in the high end of photography...are you seriously suggesting that it has taken Kodak/NASA more than 35 years to find a civilian application for a film so advanced? At that rate we'd still be waiting for the first super-computer to come on-line...not to mention velcro...
Jusst treat yourself to this website..FROM NASA..all about the commericla/civilian spin-offs which they list to justify the continued exploration of space:
www.thespaceplace.com...

Do you see anything about 'special film' or photographic applications anywhere on that page?

As for your last, and most gratuitous comment..I take it you never took a self-defense lesson in your life or you would know that the guy next to you may know as much or more about the art than you do..so you should not provoke people in that way. i take it that..much in the manner that you supposedly checked your facts about the moon landings..you also failed to check my profile on ATS. But that's o.k., it's a rather limited entry anyway.
So let me help you out with this..
My name is Shai Shahar...go look me up on Google.

Finally, although i am not in the least offended by the comment I would ask that in future you don't underestimate me, it's not polite.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
If I was able to fly you to the moon and show you the flag and the footprints you'd still come up with a story that Nasa had faked it with a robot wearing a boot or somesuch.

The argument cannot be won conclusively by either side, but, I think it is fair to say, that anyone who views the subject with objectivity, a modicum of scientific knowledge, and an open mind, will soon come to the conclusion that the mission was entirely genuine and that man has walked on the moon.

The fact is that the arguments and evidence put forward by the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists are usually based on bad science or ignorance. Some of these arguments are so preposterous as to have me, and many others, rolling around on the floor with mirth - the piece about Nasa sellotaping a picture of earth to the window of the shuttle, as outlined in the ludicrous cosmicapollo site, must go down in history as the final nail in the coffin of credibility for the moon hoax camp.

There is not one argument or piece of 'evidence' put forward by the conspiracy theorists that has not been, or cannot be, explained rationally.

As for my comments about the state of mind of the conspiracy theorists, I stand by it completely, although I hasten to add that this was meant generally and not targeted at you as an individual.

Regarding your personal credentials, I congratulate you on your career as a singer and gigolo - www.gigolo.com... - if this is indeed you, but fail to see how this should make you a sage authority on the subject of the moon landings.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   


Regarding your personal credentials, I congratulate you on your career as a singer and gigolo - www.gigolo.com... - if this is indeed you, but fail to see how this should make you a sage authority on the subject of the moon landings.


All I can say is WOW!



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
If I was able to fly you to the moon and show you the flag and the footprints you'd still come up with a story that Nasa had faked it with a robot wearing a boot or somesuch.

The argument cannot be won conclusively by either side, but, I think it is fair to say, that anyone who views the subject with objectivity, a modicum of scientific knowledge, and an open mind, will soon come to the conclusion that the mission was entirely genuine and that man has walked on the moon.

The fact is that the arguments and evidence put forward by the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists are usually based on bad science or ignorance. Some of these arguments are so preposterous as to have me, and many others, rolling around on the floor with mirth - the piece about Nasa sellotaping a picture of earth to the window of the shuttle, as outlined in the ludicrous cosmicapollo site, must go down in history as the final nail in the coffin of credibility for the moon hoax camp.

There is not one argument or piece of 'evidence' put forward by the conspiracy theorists that has not been, or cannot be, explained rationally.

As for my comments about the state of mind of the conspiracy theorists, I stand by it completely, although I hasten to add that this was meant generally and not targeted at you as an individual.

Regarding your personal credentials, I congratulate you on your career as a singer and gigolo - www.gigolo.com... - if this is indeed you, but fail to see how this should make you a sage authority on the subject of the moon landings.



Dear Harris Johns,

Well, at least you are softening your view somewhat by saying you don't think the argument can be won...
As a concession to you I will go so far as to say I believe the astronauts may, indeed have made it to the moon..the second time..in 72...but I stand by my convictions that the film is phony...
And that brings me to my main point, and the one inspiring this thread..They know much more'...because if they would risk using faked footage they must have a highly sensitive reason...could it be that the 'real' footage did indeed show artifacts that weren't supposed to be there?

I only mention this in light of the audio picked up by ground observers in which astronauts are saying extraordinary things before switching to code or being reminded by NASA that they were on an oipen channel...also from astronauts fixing the Hubble...

But back to the links...did you go to the NASA site and di you see anything about pioneering new photographic films or cameras as spin-offs from the space program?
Do you find a mention of that 'special film' anywhere in any trade mag or maufacturer's brochourre?
The film question was the trap I hoped you'd fall into..and you did..and you have my rebuttal.

Yes, the link you have for me is one where I am mentioned..here's another:
www.hm/shaishahar.com, where you can read a more detailed bio and even hear me sing.
Before gaining notoriety for myself and changing the sexual staus quo of an entire nation..in fact an entire continent... I served in the Israeli IDF and later one of their internal security agencies as analyst and liason..before that I was serving in the US Army as one of the very first recruits into the newly formed Psy_ops battalion, lalter a brigade and dtationed in what was then the front lines of the Cold War..in Germany.
Before that I studied appiled behavioral science and comparative religions at UCSC.

It is a matter of record that I was involved in 'rehabilitating the image of Arafat'after the first Gulf War and at a time when the Bush administration had designated him personna non grata in response to his outspoken support of Saddam ......this was at a time when the secret Oslo accords were starting to bear fruit.
My suggestion at the time was to get Yasser married, and an interview was set up with an independent documentray company run by Peter Forbes, cousin of Senator Kerry [D-Mass] in which that specific question was asked of Arafat; if he ever intended to marry..the reply to that question was aired on CNN just a few months later when Yasser Arafat announced his intention to marry after all.
In my time I have met and corresponded with many well-known figures such as George Schultz, Casper Weinberger, et al...and even today I maintain contacts with individuals still serving in your government who once upon a time served as my counterparts in the Reagan whitehouse.

In 1992 I had had enough of the [in my mind ] rather pointless games all governments play on each other and their own people and walked away from the Life I had been leading..since it had cost me my health, my marriage and a good part of my idealism..and since I wanted no more blood on my hands, nor secrets to keep.

Thus you see me today, an entertainer, an off-color character to be sure, but one who has held three passports, speaks three different languages fluently apart from English, and who has authored a book, had his own nationally broadcast radio show, as well as having been interviewed by Penthouse Playboy, Esquire, Heeb, mags in the US , as well as by HBO and your own morning talk radio shows....oh yes, and stars in a critically acclaimed documentary called Hell's Angel.

None of this makes me an expert by any means on UFO's or faked landings per se...but please understand that having spent 15 years working in, for or with the military/intelligence community I have a nose for what's kosher and what's not kosher as far as things go..and this 69 moon-landing story and its attendant 'footage' as captured on 'special film'stinks to high heaven.

If you had it in in 69 we Israelis would have had it by 79..or 89..and would have used it on Ofeq 1.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   


Before gaining notoriety for myself and changing the sexual staus quo of an entire nation..in fact an entire continent...

Thus you see me today, an entertainer, an off-color character to be sure, but one who has held three passports, speaks three different languages fluently apart from English, and who has authored a book, had his own nationally broadcast radio show, as well as having been interviewed by Penthouse Playboy, Esquire, Heeb, mags in the US , as well as by HBO and your own morning talk radio shows....oh yes, and stars in a critically acclaimed documentary called Hell's Angel.


And yet, you seem so humble and grounded. It's obvious your ego has remained in tact thru it all


[edit on 28-1-2005 by mpeake]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai


But back to the links...did you go to the NASA site and di you see anything about pioneering new photographic films or cameras as spin-offs from the space program?
Do you find a mention of that 'special film' anywhere in any trade mag or maufacturer's brochourre?
The film question was the trap I hoped you'd fall into..and you did..and you have my rebuttal.



I'm more than happy with the information in my original comment about this and the verification provided by Peter Vimislik at Kodak
that special film was used.

If you like, you can verify it with him yourself.

He's at:

Kodak Professional
800 Lee Road Door C
Rochester, NY 14650-3109

1-800-242-2424 ext. 19

As far as spin-offs are concerned, there is still much technology used in the aerospace and military environment which has not made its way into the wider, commercial market. Obviously, this is sometimes down to secrecy, but more often its simply down to commercial viability. It's quite common for a 30 or 40-year gap to elapse before these technologies make their way into commercially available, mainstream products. The uses for this film would most likely be for the relatively niche market of industrial/professional photography so I doubt it was a top priority for Nasa or Kodak.






Yes, the link you have for me is one where I am mentioned



Mmmm ... personally, I wouldn't have worn those socks.



www.hm/shaishahar.com



Most interesting, thanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns

Originally posted by Shai


But back to the links...did you go to the NASA site and di you see anything about pioneering new photographic films or cameras as spin-offs from the space program?
Do you find a mention of that 'special film' anywhere in any trade mag or maufacturer's brochourre?
The film question was the trap I hoped you'd fall into..and you did..and you have my rebuttal.



I'm more than happy with the information in my original comment about this and the verification provided by Peter Vimislik at Kodak
that special film was used.

If you like, you can verify it with him yourself.

He's at:

Kodak Professional
800 Lee Road Door C
Rochester, NY 14650-3109

1-800-242-2424 ext. 19

As far as spin-offs are concerned, there is still much technology used in the aerospace and military environment which has not made its way into the wider, commercial market. Obviously, this is sometimes down to secrecy, but more often its simply down to commercial viability. It's quite common for a 30 or 40-year gap to elapse before these technologies make their way into commercially available, mainstream products. The uses for this film would most likely be for the relatively niche market of industrial/professional photography so I doubt it was a top priority for Nasa or Kodak.






Yes, the link you have for me is one where I am mentioned



Mmmm ... personally, I wouldn't have worn those socks.



www.hm/shaishahar.com



Most interesting, thanks.


It was HJP (“Douglas”) Arnold, who was the Assistant to the Managing Director of Kodak Ltd. He was also the representative Kodak appointed to answer our questions back in 1997. Arnold clearly stated that essentially the film used for the lunar photography was ordinary high speed Ektachrome emulsion, 160 ASA (as it was then), on a thin base. You might ask: “was HJP Arnold misinformed?” Because if his recollection is correct, then the claimants for the use on the Moon of this special XRC film must surely be incorrect. But if this XRC film was used on the Moon without the knowledge of those at Kodak charged with the promotion of Apollo in the UK, as HJP Arnold was, then he must have been given erroneous information. And in turn the public must have been unwittingly misinformed through Kodak’s publicity machine.


www.hamrick.com...
This is a link listing all known emulsion based films as produced by every major manufactuer.
Before I turn to Mr. Vimilslik..might I remind you that with all these competitors on the market don't you find it odd that not one, upon hearing that Kodak used special film on the moon ever tried to make some of their own similar emulsions..or that no one approached NASA to say we'd like to bid on the contract for supplying film for your projects?

Or how about this....don't you find it odd that NO mention of special film is made until almost a decade after the 'moon-landings'?
And isn't it strange that we are now told that Mr. Vimilslik knows all about that film in 2005, when the assistent director of Kodak and special liason to the NASA project claimed it was Echtachrome in 1969.
Do you even know anything about CYA stories?
or do you go about your business by blithely quoting from self-serving websites posting information decades AFTER the fact to explain the inconsistencies or anomalies regarding the official story of the time?

here is a link to the Kodak site listing all their [current] senior executives in all dept's..do you see Mr. Vimilslik's name anywhere on THIS list?

www.kodak.com...

So how senior a source can he be? How credible?
Furhtermore..to date, other than blamket staements affirming the existence of such a film..no single piece of XRC film matching the psecs as quoted has vever been submitted for testing..nor has any patent for said film been registered at the US Patent office by Kodak or NASA
[GO CHECK!]
So what do we have as evidence to support the claim that there was indeed a special film used on the moon in 1969?
Nothing..zip..nada..bupkiss

I have one, and only question for MR VIMILSLIK..when did he start working for Kodak and what post, if any did he hold in the company in 1969?
Frankly, I believe he is the chosen spokesman for the party line and had nothing at all to do with the original Apollo mission. And yet you'd rather believe him than a senior executive who WAS directly involved with that mission..and why?
Why is Vimilslik more credible, in your mind, than the assisting managing director of Kodak at the time? That is the one question you would delight me enormously in answering.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai




It was HJP (“Douglas”) Arnold, who was the Assistant to the Managing Director of Kodak Ltd. He was also the representative Kodak appointed to answer our questions back in 1997. Arnold clearly stated that essentially the film used for the lunar photography was ordinary high speed Ektachrome emulsion, 160 ASA (as it was then), on a thin base. You might ask: “was HJP Arnold misinformed?” Because if his recollection is correct, then the claimants for the use on the Moon of this special XRC film must surely be incorrect. But if this XRC film was used on the Moon without the knowledge of those at Kodak charged with the promotion of Apollo in the UK, as HJP Arnold was, then he must have been given erroneous information. And in turn the public must have been unwittingly misinformed through Kodak’s publicity machine.



I don't regard this website as in any way authoritative or credible and I cannot find independent verification of what Arnold is supposed to have said on this occasion.

However, he is on the record as stating that any suggestion that the moon landings were fake is preposterous and demeans the achievement.

This is all a bit of a red herring, though, because if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that coping with the lunar environment would have been quite within the operational paramaters of a normal Ektachrome film used in this type of camera.

Personally, however, I don't doubt that XRC was developed and used for this mission.





www.hamrick.com...
This is a link listing all known emulsion based films as produced by every major manufactuer.



These are all commercially available films and so are unlikely to include those produced under special contract from Nasa.




don't you find it odd that not one, upon hearing that Kodak used special film on the moon ever tried to make some of their own similar emulsions..or that no one approached NASA to say we'd like to bid on the contract for supplying film for your projects?



No, I don't find it odd. A competitor would be unlikely to invest in developing such a film without a space agency contract to make it worth their while. Kodak worked with NASA long before the moon landings and for a long time afterwards (and still do).




Or how about this....don't you find it odd that NO mention of special film is made until almost a decade after the 'moon-landings'?



Again no, because the conspiracy theory didn't really gather momentum until after the 1978 release of Capricorn One, about 10 years after the landings.



And isn't it strange that we are now told that Mr. Vimilslik knows all about that film in 2005, when the assistent director of Kodak and special liason to the NASA project claimed it was Echtachrome in 1969.

or do you go about your business by blithely quoting from self-serving websites posting information decades AFTER the fact to explain the inconsistencies or anomalies regarding the official story of the time?



But this is exactly what you have done but with straight lifts from the unreliable aulius website.

I look at the evidence and base my opinions on these.

Unlike you, I base my research on credible scientific sources, rather than the mumbo jumbo spouted by cranky conspiracy theorist websites.





here is a link to the Kodak site listing all their [current] senior executives in all dept's..do you see Mr. Vimilslik's name anywhere on THIS list?

So how senior a source can he be? How credible?



So what? Kodak's a huge company. Just because he's not on the board, doesn't mean that he is an unreliable source. He is currently employed by Kodak and has the authority to speak publicly on their behalf - hardly a job that you'd entrust to the janitor. I have no reason to doubt his word or believe him to be anything else but a credible source. What evidence do you have to suggest that he is not?





Furhtermore..to date, other than blamket staements affirming the existence of such a film..no single piece of XRC film matching the psecs as quoted has vever been submitted for testing..nor has any patent for said film been registered at the US Patent office by Kodak or NASA



Why should it be? It was a piece of technology commissioned for a specific purpose.



So what do we have as evidence to support the claim that there was indeed a special film used on the moon in 1969?
Nothing..zip..nada..bupkiss


We have an on the record statement from Kodak, which made the film. Also your fellow conspiracy theorist (although he doesn't dispute the moon landings), Richard Hoagland, has also said on the record that he had access to the film and has used it on many occasions.



I have one, and only question for MR VIMILSLIK..when did he start working for Kodak and what post, if any did he hold in the company in 1969?
Frankly, I believe he is the chosen spokesman for the party line and had nothing at all to do with the original Apollo mission.


Errr, well ask him then. I've provided you with his contact details.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shai

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?


Uh, why yes it was vacuum sealed (in a manner of speaking). There isn’t much of an atmosphere on the moon, and the relative humidity is probably so close to zero as to be un-measurable.


Besides, a little condensation wouldn’t “spoil” the film. It might degrade the image quality, but the film would still be usable. Millions of people take cameras outside in the winter, then bring them inside of a nice warm humid house. The lenses may fog up, but the film isn’t ruined.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Shai

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?


Uh, why yes it was vacuum sealed (in a manner of speaking). There isn’t much of an atmosphere on the moon, and the relative humidity is probably so close to zero as to be un-measurable.


Besides, a little condensation wouldn’t “spoil” the film. It might degrade the image quality, but the film would still be usable. Millions of people take cameras outside in the winter, then bring them inside of a nice warm humid house. The lenses may fog up, but the film isn’t ruined.



The point about the film..and those who believ there actually was such a 'special film'is that it could not have survived solar flares..which NASA admits were constantly occuring ...and with no atmosphere on the moon for prtoection that fim would have been exposed to gamma and X-ray radiation which no 'emulsion'based film could have withstood. Period.

Anothe rpoint which I cannot help but mention, to both you and other critics..like toolmaker..is that for some reason you would take the word of someone who you have not, who is not listed as being as member of the original Apollo project, who has no senior position with Kodak about a film, no sample of which has ever been provided for analysis, and which despite its amazing versatility has never been used since..in all of 35 years no one has seen another use for it....as if industries and medical labs, engineering institutes wouldn't have been grateful for such a film base to photograph processes involving radiation, say....
And this is the evidence you are using to refute the assistant managing director of Kodak who was involved in the Apollo mission.
You ignore the fact the 'special film'excuse was only pulled out of the hat 20 years after the original declarations from both NASA and Kodak that it was Echtochrome...preferring to believe it never crossed their minds to correct their mistake about which film was used, even after the extraordinary lengths they must have gone to to produce it...which I would have guessed would be a point of pride with them.
And this is your solid ground to stand on in debunking those who maintain the photos and film evidence we see from the ist landing is a fake?

If you've gone over this threead you must see the links posted and again I defy you to come up with the irrefutable refutation of any fact quoted on :
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Notice the fotos of the moonscape which despite being from two different mission and miles apart on the surface of the moon are absolutely identical. Do you ahve an explanation for that?
www.aulis.com...

I spent years learning the ins and outs of analysing reports to see if they were credible...on what basis should I believe Vimilslik or whatever the guy's name is...type in the name on Google and the ONLY links which come up are ones which give his statement about the NASA film...no mention anywhere of his background, conferences he attended, no personall website..and note that no popsition or title is even ascribed to him giving us any indication of what kind of expertise or responsibility he has within Kodak.
And that's enough 'evidence' for you is it?

Well not for me...and believe me if I went running to my bosses with such a claim they'd fire me on the spot and without apology.

Here's a site I do hope you and every other skeptic reads ..it explains the difference between critical thinking, skepticism and plain old thick-headedness...maybe you'll find it useful.

www.victorzammit.com...

Although Winston is dealing with skeptics of paranormal phenomena, the points he makes are relevant to this argument as well.

Looking forward to your next post

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Peter Vimilslik is an information officer at Kodak.
A Google search of his name brought up three links of note, provided below;
The first is a blanket statement about the 70mm 'Special film'supposedly used on the moon..one which several members here are fond of quoting...

www.exscitec.com...

This next is relevant only in that here the NASA film expert is cited giving evidence by which to judge if Star Wars models were photgraphed on Kodak paper or not at the time that is claimed...great article if you are in to that kind of thing..but agin nowhere on site is Mr. Vimilslik crediterd with any experise..he is a spokesperson..an information officer. What credentilas or expertise does one need to say what the company tells you to say, i wonder?...

www.toysrgus.com...

And here is a thirs site with a quote directly lifted from it which readers of this thread will find familiar...

www.scribblers-inc.fsbusiness.co.uk...

"According to Peter Vimislik at Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200° F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500° F. So, a worst case scenario of 250-280° F for a totally un-insulated, non-reflective camera would still be well within the film's operational parameters. The film itself was extended range colour slide film" called "XRC"

This was posted without the quotes as the ultimate rebuttal to my film question...and note that no mention is made of this special film's ability to withstand solar flare radiation...nor is any mention made on any site which talks about a special filter on the lenses to block out said radiation.

And it is his word we are supposed to believe rather than H.J. Arnold, the assisting managing director of Kodak in 1969, and one who is on record as having been a member of the NASA/Kodak Apollo collaboration..

"Who told you that the photos on the Moon were taken with normal Ektachrome film?

It was HJP (“Douglas”) Arnold, who was the Assistant to the Managing Director of Kodak Ltd. He was also the representative Kodak appointed to answer our questions back in 1997. Arnold clearly stated that essentially the film used for the lunar photography was ordinary high speed Ektachrome emulsion, 160 ASA (as it was then), on a thin base. "

In other words even as late as 1997...a full 28 years after the moon landings Mr. Arnold was still not aware that the film used on the moon was not Echtochrome 160 but 'special'[XRC] film....but somehow Mr. Vimilslik knows better....hmmmm.

The idea that people of intelligence could even swallow such an argument , based on zero evidence is beyond comprehension to a mere mortal like me..

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai



The point about the film..and those who believ there actually was such a 'special film'is that it could not have survived solar flares..which NASA admits were constantly occuring ...and with no atmosphere on the moon for prtoection that fim would have been exposed to gamma and X-ray radiation which no 'emulsion'based film could have withstood. Period.



As ever, this is absolute nonsense and your lack of scientific research is glaringly obvious.

X-ray astronomers say the x-rays from celestial sources radiate at energy levels of less than 5 keV (thousand elecron-volts).

To give you an idea of the penetrative abilities of X-rays, 3 keV x-rays, for example, will not even penetrate air for more than a dozen centimeters.

The film magazines were shielded and could have coped with radiation levels far higher than the 5 keV on the surface of the moon.

Radiation, barring a serious solar flare, was really not a big problem. If a major solar flare had occurred (and remember that there's a big difference between a detectable and event and a major one) the cameras would have been protected in the same way as the astronauts, by using the engines and fuel tanks of the lander as cover.

This should have provided adequate protection, but no-one's saying that there wasn't a risk that it could have gone horribly wrong.

Of course there was danger from a major solar flare (and a thousand and one other variables) but that doesn't mean that the moon landings were fake - in fact it emphasises the achievement and bravery of the astronauts.





Anothe rpoint which I cannot help but mention, to both you and other critics..like toolmaker..is that for some reason you would take the word of someone who you have not, who is not listed as being as member of the original Apollo project, who has no senior position with Kodak about a film, no sample of which has ever been provided for analysis ..... blah, blah, blah



You are going round and round in circles, asking the same questions, which have already been answered, time and time again. Kodak is on the record about the special film and there's no reason to doubt the credibility of their spokesman.

It's all a red herring anyway, because 'normal' film would have operated satisfactorily in the lunar environment.

The conspiracist argument presumes that only two possibilities exist: either NASA and Kodak's story (as the moon hoax camp recounts it) must be perfectly consistent down to the smallest detail, or else there is a huge conspiracy including a falsification of the evidence!

In logic, this is a false dichotomy.






If you've gone over this threead you must see the links posted and again I defy you to come up with the irrefutable refutation of any fact quoted on :
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...



This site is one of the least convincing of the many 'moon landings hoax sites' and no sane person would give it house room.

The ludicrous allegations on here have been answered on numerous occasions and many of them are so laughable (Nasa sticking pictures of earth on to the shuttle window with sellotape, for example) as to be beneath contempt.




Notice the fotos of the moonscape which despite being from two different mission and miles apart on the surface of the moon are absolutely identical. Do you ahve an explanation for that?
www.aulis.com...



1, you've misinterpreted what this site says - it does not say that the photos were taken on separate missions 'miles apart'.

Anyhow, the so-called background 'anomalies' are easy to explain.

Quoting Phil Plait's badastronomy.com

"On the Earth, distant objects are obscured a bit by haze in the air, and we use that to mentally gauge distances. However, with no air, an object can be very far away on the Moon and still be crisp and sharp to the eye. You can't tell if a boulder is a meter across and 100 meters away, or 100 meters across and 10 kilometers away!

That's what's going on here. The lander is close to the astronaut in the first picture, perhaps a 20 or 30 meters away. The mountain is kilometers away. For the second picture, the astronaut merely moved a few hundred meters to the side. The lander was then out of the picture, but the mountain hardly moved at all! If you look at the scene carefully, you'll see that all the rocks and craters in the foreground changes between the two pictures, just as you'd expect if the astronaut had moved to the side a ways between the two shots. It's not fraud, it's parallax."




I spent years learning the ins and outs of analysing reports to see if they were credible...



You've spent years reading pseudo-scientific conspiracy theorist rubbish more like, and you've been taken in by the loonies hook, line and sinker.

Where's your personal independently researched, scientifically objective evidence then?



[edit on 29-1-2005 by harrisjohns]



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
Peter Vimilslik is an information officer at Kodak.


Yes, we can all do a google search on someone's name. Well done, I prostrate myself before the feet of the world's greatest investigator - all your secret agent training has obviously paid off handsomely.

I repeat my questions:

You have his contact details. If you doubt him, why don't you contact him and question him directly?

He has the authority to speak publicly on the record for Kodak and there's therefore no reason to doubt his credibility. What evidence do you have to suggest that he's not a credible source?

Why are you so obsessed with the film issue in particular? It's a red herring, because normal Ektachrome would have worked anyway?

Again, you and the other conspiracy theorists, come to the illogical conclusion that tiny inconsistencies over minor matters must mean that there was a huge $40-billion conspiracy involving the falsification of evidence. Why, as someone who claims to have worked as an intelligence officer, are you so completely blinkered and unwilling to accept credible scientific research or at least an occam's razor approach?

Another question, you evidently believe wholeheartedly in a hoax, despite the substantial evidence against this.

At what point, in your opinion, did the hoax begin?

From Alan Shepard's short flight that made him the first American in space to the Apollo moon landing, many many missions were flown to try out new technology, gain experience and learn exactly how to get to the moon.

The Mercury missions extended the amount of time and earth orbits the astronauts were spending in space.

The Gemini missions developed the astronauts ability to manoeuvre and dock space craft and the Apollo missions took the astronauts, first into moon orbit and finally to its surface. Everything was done in small steps.

At what point did NASA and the US government decide that rather than land on the moon it would be far easier to con the population of the world with the biggest, most complicated, costly and risky hoax the world has ever known?















posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
POINTS UNANSWERED BY SHAI

Points that Shai has so far failed to answer, preferring to concentrate instead on the minutae of the red herring film issue:





Shai said:

The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.


Answer: It's been calculated that travelling at speed of the apollo crew through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild. Outside rthe belts, the dangers would have been much reduced.

Where's your response?







Shai said:

please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum



Answer: You have got mixed up between temperature and heat. Temperature is how fast atoms are moving within a material and heat is how much total energy those atoms have.You can stick your hand in a 400-degree oven without injury, but touch any solid object in the oven and you'll burn.
So it may be plus 200 degrees in the lunar sunlight and minus 200 in the shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat. It doesn't take much insulation to protect an astronaut in a vacuum. Also, it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight. The sun would strike an astronaut no more fiercely than on earth. The only reason the lunar surface gets hot is that it gets continuous daylight for two weeks at a time and there's no atmosphere to conduct the heat away. In short, the surface would take a while to heat up and cool down.

Where's your response?





Shai said:

the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon


Answer: This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.

Where's your response?





Shai said:

That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?


Answer: in a vacuum there is no ambient heat just radiative heat and the temp of the surface (and objects on it) would have reached nothing like those extremes. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The best way to reflect radiative heat is to wrap the object (like a camera or person) in layers designed to reflect as much heat as possible, usually by simply being white.

Where's your response (irrespective of the type of film used)?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns




Shai said:

the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon


Answer: This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.

Where's your response?



Actually if there were two light sources, there would be two separate shadows!

Shai, take a look at this and this. Can you explain to me how this is different from what you see in the lunar photographs?

Please.



[edit on 29-1-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Despite your valaint attempts to dismiss the film as red herring you come with no links or support evidence to back up the assertion..and again are willing to maintain that Vimislik the spokesman has more credibity than the assistant managing director...no evidence to support your assertion that echtochrome could withstand the radiation from solar flares...and BTW..does this mean that you now believ it WAS Echtochrome and not 'special film'as is claimed by Vimilslik...you can't have it both ways.

As for the film being a detail or red herring...no such sample of the 'special film' has yet to be offered for analysis by NASA...and that to me smacks of the 'special film' being a red herring in itself.

You ask me to explain to phots\os without attempting to explain the moonscape photos..official NASA photos of two seperate missions carried out miles aprt on the surface yet showing the exact same mountains in exactly the same position relative to the astronauts....

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
[ www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...]
In other words you are selective in your choice of 'evidence'and when your evidence doesn't jo,d water you dismiss it out of hand with some blanket assertions based on...even more speculation than the so-called conspiracy theorists.

I don't know how old you are.,..but I suggest you talk top someone whio wwas born in the 50's to understand the Cold War and the Space Race and the stakes involved.....in that light there was every reason to try and fool the public even if the mission failed...
But again we are arguing seperate positions...I do not maintain that we faked a mission or two to the moon..I am saying the evidence used to support the claim is in large measure inconsistent with what we now know to be true...and I suggest that the reason isn't becuae we never made it to the moon, but because when we got there we were astonished to find what we found.

You also overlook the mention of what the Australians saw on live TV and which was reported in Australian newspapers..the fact that an astronaut was seen kicking a coke bottle off camera....
No one has yet come forward to discount that claim..nor explain what the aussies saw 'live'

I have more than a dozen points of conflict still unanswered by the die-hard believers.

Further, you still haven't explained why Vimilslik is more credible than Arnold...a spokesman with no senior position in Kodak over its ass't. mng. director at the time.

But I am indeed writing to Kodak to fins out all about Mr. Vimilslik and will post the letter and its respons, if any , right here for you to see.
In fact i invite anyone reading this thread to do the same..and to ask the relevant questions:
How long has Mr. Vimilslik worked for Kodak, has he ever seen the special film he cites on-line as having been used for Apollo..or is he just repeating the company line...

I chose the film to go into because it is the one thing that we could find the truth of without visiting the moon.
You, have obviously never met Mr. Vimilslik, seen the film nor any hard evidence to support the fact it even exists or ever existed but you stick resolutley to your u tenable position as a matter of personal pride...with little regard for an equally , infact eminently more qualified sourc e..a senior executive officer of Kodak who was on the project.
What motive is there for disbelieving Mr. Arnold..why is he not credible and is Mr. Vimilslik credible?
That is one question we would ask ourselves when evaluating intel from different sources..
I should disblelieve the official story of the time ás told by someone having had a direct role in the Apollo project ..and one unchanged for 20 years..in favor of the 'new official story'delivered by a company mouthpiece who has nor responsibility within the company...and why..because you say so.

Yeah, right.


Here, again is the proof that your proof is bogus...and here again I challenge you to cite a credible refutation of the evidence as seen on this site:
www.aulis.com...

You can start by explaining this picture: www.aulis.com...
[Close up of boot (with hot spot) ‘suspended’ above the top step.]

Then you might explain the flap on the astronauts space suit that is seen here:
www.aulis.com...

And also the virtually identical moonscape photos above, which no one to date has debunked as a fraudtser's fraud....


Meanwhile I will write to Mr. Vimilslik and see what his credentials amount to...BTW, I live in Holland so if there is anyone living closer to Kodak HQ, perhaps you'd like to call and report the details of the conversation here..and we'll compare them with what comes back in my e-mail.

Lastly, although I understand how upsetting all this must be for you, I'd take a deep breath and quit hurling personal insults as a means of trying to win points...my personality, my past and anything else you might try to use against me will not in the least detract from the evidence which you still cannot explain away..in other words, without hard facts and hard evidence to silence the doubters with for once and for all, you are just going to have to deal with our refusal to accept the improbable or the implausible,, which is how I'd characterize your rebuttals to date.

And BTW....what great things have you done in YOUR life anyway? I went out of my way to provide details of who I am and what I've done in life, for good or ill..and you see I am a public person...so who are YOU and what have you done to take pride in..eh?
Since you want us to take your word and that of a ghost named vimilslik I think its a relevant question.

As for my secret-agent experience...your words, not mine...when a claim is made as you made, that the special film by NASA is only now being used in the high-end of photography, you do not supply examples of companies or industries using the film...and Kodak doesn't list such a film on its product list..in fact no company does..[I sent the link..I guess you ignored it].

It begs the question as to what you consider to be a thorough examination of the facts used in order to justify a position or refute one.

Now then , please do me the favor of coming back here with real, cold, undeniable 'facts' instead of some parroted assertions from the NET to try and dismiss my doubts...which, as a good American,,i'd be glad to do..honest....but not based on the paucity of the çounter'evidence you've presented so far.

And stay tuned for the answers about your hero peter vimilslik....

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns




Shai said:

the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon


Answer: This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.

Where's your response?



Actually if there were two light sources, there would be two separate shadows!

Shai, take a look at this and this. Can you explain to me how this is different from what you see in the lunar photographs?

Please.



I asked nicely.


well? What say you?

You have to admit that from the information above, that the whole argument that the shadows pointing in two different directions proves that there were two different light sources is wrong. Come on, concede the point.


[edit on 30-1-2005 by HowardRoark]


E_T

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai
I don't know how old you are.,..but I suggest you talk top someone whio wwas born in the 50's to understand the Cold War and the Space Race and the stakes involved.....in that light there was every reason to try and fool the public even if the mission failed...
Then you should know better that proving to world that US faked moon landings would have been even bigger win for Soviets than making their own moon landing. They would have taken all fun out of it by touting it in all medias for years.


Now I'm really starting to believe how Dubya got his intelligence saying Iraq had WMDs...

"Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms."



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
To Harris Johns and all who believ NASA's official story about the monnlandings film and phots:

Before any skeptic like me will 'believe' the 'official story'you will have to account for the discrepencies and counter the on-the record statements ...

The fairest site I have found on the debate..and one which I am sure Harris Johns has visited is

www.xenophilia.com...

Which lists ten unanswered questions BY SCIENTISTS regarding the Apollo landings and the data given to us by NASA, side by side with the best counters to those claims made by non'believers...I post here the conclusion ver batim:
"Despite several science based web sites intent on countering the conspiracy theorists, it is still possible to find what seem to be significant unanswered questions on the web. A reasonable person may conclude that 1. There are too few scientists willing to answer questions from the public about this historic experience, 2. It is disappointing and curious that NASA does not have an official open question and answer forum as a means of teaching science and generating interest in the US space program, 3. Some unanswered questions cast reasonable doubt on the official story. "

And that is the heart of my argument..there are too many points on which reasonable individuals can disagree..and until such reasonable doubts are addressed the official story' cannot be taken as the TRUE story.

I will start with one major unanswered question which no scientist of any stripe has come forward to address:

"In 1960, before the Apollo missions, Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon. A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said "At a point of 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant" In 1973 Encyclopedia Britannica, gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles. The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%. A moon with 64% of Earth's gravity would require way more fuel and power than was supposedly available in the Apollo missions. "

Now, Harris, if you've got the answer please post it here.

On a side note, here are some other interesting nuggets I've come up with. .


"The Hasselblad cameras that were used by NASA on the missions had many crosshairs in each frame. Keen-eyed sceptics have noticed that in some shots the crosses disappear behind objects in the picture, providing further proof of foolery.

"Perhaps even more bizarre are the pictures with identical backgrounds that are supposed to have been taken at different locations on different days. In two sequences from the Apollo 16 mission, this irregularity is clearly depicted.

"... that the highest ranking official at NASA resigned, without explanation, just days before the first Apollo mission. All three crewmembers of the first historic flight also resigned shortly thereafter.

"Neil Armstrong, the most famous astronaut because of supposedly being the first man on the Moon, refused to even appear in a single still picture on the Moon! Aside from the initial press conference immediately following the event, in which he seems very disgruntled, he has not given a single interview on the subject, in print or on camera, to anyone ever.."

"In October 2004, a Washington newspaper report suggested that the argument was getting ugly too. The Daily News ran a story alleging that one sceptic confronted 72 year old former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, poked him, verbally abused him and demanded that he swear on the Bible that he really walked on the Moon. Aldrin supposedly responded by punching Bart Sibrel in the face."
66.102.9.104...:t8oQSYvk0ccJ:www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm+interviews+NASA+Kodak+1969&hl=nl

Here is the link to an interview conducted with Buzz Aldrin as posted on NASA's website
history.nasa.gov...

In it there are several statements of interest..page 2 paragraph 8 is most intriguing..and it lends to my contention that the alhtough it is not a certainty that the landings were faked.. the footage of the landings has been tampered with and forged...and evidence of said forgery is prima facie reason to disbelieve the 'official story'.
The rubrik we are chatting under is 'caution they know much more...'and that is my assertion also...that evidence of what really happened on the moon or with Apollo us being supressed in order to conceal a truth we are not deemed ready enough to handle...

As For HJP 'Douglas Arnold, I found an interview with him conducted in 2004 in which he affirms the party-line..and I do confess he argues well, except for one thing...he never mentions the kind of film used...But here is a direct quote from the article with Arnold that should have you scratching your heads..

"...you need only to look properly at the thousands of wonderful photographs and movie footage to know that they are genuine; even today, our digital techniques could not match this. As photographer H.J.P. (Douglas) Arnold says: "They are literally out of this world, and to say they are a fraud demeans the achievement"

Get that..even today our digital techniques could not match the film quality....and we're talking about what film..echtachrome 160? Made in 1969?
He explains the cross-hairs being in and out of frame, disappearing behind rocks as resulting from the hairs being etched in the lens and vulnerable to over and underexposure...he does not however, account for the cross-hairs in the panoramic photos being out of place with respect to each other...to close or too wide from each other ..and that speaks of photo-tampering.
NASA has explained several of the anomlaies as having been ciorrected when they were updating their photos of the landing in the mid-90's..curious don't you think, when the film was apparently of such high qulaity to begin with...better than today's digital photos, according to Kodak and Arnold..
Just what needed updating on 30 year old photos? I wonder.
I'm sorry, but i trust the first generation fotos to be more 'genuine'a record of what was snapped on the moon than the air brushed, enhanced, cropped or composited pics produced by the 'update'.
If NASA felt the need to update historical records then it can only be because the originals couldn't bear proper scrutiny and had to be modified....that's my opinion, and it is shared by many.

Here's an interesting transcript in which senior figures of the Apollo program try to determine who held the camera and when while on the moon..there are several interesting points here..again no mention of what kind of film was used..but a neat reference to how they picked the photos for us to see once they got back:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

"My next contact was Brian Duff who was head of Public Affairs at JSC (then MSFC) at the time of Apollo 11. He actually only took up the job ten weeks before Apollo 11. In a letter to me he stated that it was actually necessary to demand that colour film be carried to the Moon on Apollo 11. Only when it was asked if NASA could accept a black and white photo of the first man on the Moon on the cover of 'Life' was it agreed to include a quantity of colour film. Duff remembers being in the photo lab in the LRL when the Apollo 11 film was displayed soon after being developed. 'It was full of self-appointed photograph selectors, many of whom outranked me'."

"Duff was under great pressure to make a selection because the world's media were desperate for the material. Both 70mm and motion picture were laid out on light tables in long strips. 'Everyone was yelling and finally somebody said shouldn't we try to get a picture of the first man on the Moon?' They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong. Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong. Finally George Low or Bob Gilruth suggested that Duff call Armstrong to ask him. Duff clearly remembers the conversation with Armstrong who was sleeping in the LRL. It went like this."

"Duff: 'Neil, this is Brian. When did you give the camera to Buzz?'"

"Armstrong: 'I never did.'"

From the interview I cannot determine whether the color film and black and white film refer to still photography and video film..or whether two seperate 'special film'emulsions were used for the Hasselblad , one for B&W, one for color.
But don't you find it interesting that no mention of the film type is made, given that it was so special?
More to the point..if NASA took video to the moon, wouldn't that film have had to be just as special as the special film for the Hasselblad still fotos? So we'd be talking about 2 special films, not one. Yes?

So when we write Mr. Vimilslik perhaps we should ask what filmS were taken on-baord of Apollo and in what containers. We should also ask for the technical details still not answered by Kodak or the astronauts about shutter speeds, exposure settings, etc...especially for video/motion picture photography..

And one last statement of my position to make it clear:
I am claiming that the 'filmed'evidence' of astronauts on the moon in 1969 and 72 is faked, along with a lot of the supporting the data provided at the time...
If you want to believ the brave men landed..I have no problem with that..really.. What I DO have a problem with is the fotos...

ufologie.net...

And if you don't believe your own astronauts about what they've seen and experienced on their travels, again I'd like to know why...

-Sincerely
-Shai



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join