Even the readers are complaining that you are not providing links just blah blah assertions.
You say things have been disproven hundreds of times..not by you and not with quotes or links which relate directly to my questions.
To say that aulis has been debunked is no good without the link which debunks it or the quote.
You do not comment on the two seperate photos I gave you to explain the background of as asked..and you do not comment on the unanswered problem about
the physics of the moon and its distance, density, calling all the NASA data into doubt.
Nor do you comment on Neil Armstrong's assertion that once on the moon they were warned off by ET's.
On three seperate points there are fundamental flaws with the 'official story' is reported on what I would think even you found an objective
As for the outstanding quality of echtchrome 160...especially placed aginst the comments of Arnold who swears that the quality of film was so good
that it rivals digital fotos of today...here's a quote from Kodaks'website you might find relevant:
"[Kodak']...introduced improved emulsion technology with its Eastman EXR color negative film products in 1989. These gave cinematographers
significant creative flexibility, providing more underexposure latitude; truer colors in fluorescent light, and greater sharpness. "
Meaning it was far superior to anything previous..and it took them 20 years to do it AFTER the moon landings..indeed it is the first mention in the
company archives of such a film base and the first mention of EXR with capabilities anything like what the 'special film' on Apollo was supposed to
You don't answer the problem of there having been two different [and maybe 3 or more different] film stocks on board.
And neither do the sites which claim to explain everything..like this one..
which goes to great lengths to give details like shutter speeds and focus points
but gives not one detail of the films used in any one of the cameras..it's brand name or if it was specially made.
In my old biz these are the details we looked for in analyzing info...the absence of details..the reptition almost verbatim of 'the official story'
meaning they must be quoting from a common source..and most importantly, a recent source, superceding the original or contemporary accounts.
It never crosses HJ's mind to be in the least suspicious that to date no independent researchers have been given access to the negatives..all
requests go through NASA and they do the reprints...leaving us to take NASA''s word, and only NASA's word for it. Nor does NASA allow moon-rocks to
be tested by outside agencies....
You don't find it odd that film of such quality must be "updated"..and what would a reason be to update a historical photograph anyway?
No one has answered to any satisfaction how a camera mounted at belt level could capture an eye level image of a standing astronaut from less than 1,5
And the whole idea of the moon's surface being so reflective as to hide the stars is blown away by the fact that moon's surface has the reflectivity
You seem content to sweep away arguments of the sort with grand statements and no supporting evidence, using the same old tactic the Soviets used to
relish..starting off every blatantly false statement about the West with the catch phrase 'as is well known'..or'..ás we all know'
And so far you haven't posted one creative thought of your own about this on this thread..even using other people's words as your own without credit
or providing links to your sources.
I HAVE written Mr. Vimilslik and await his reply..but still find it beyond annoying that you prefer to take the word of someone like a public
information hack over a world-reknowned photgrapher and former senior executive at the time of the Apollo mission...in other words you prefer to
accept hearsay over direct evidence.
Unless and until you can account for the discrepencies as I listed them in previous threads..the two moonscape photos in particular, which are
official NASA releases mind you...i will consider your posts unworthy of rebuttal.
Also you will have to reconcile NASA's recent statement that the EVA was modified to allow astronauts to leave and enter the vehicle while wearing
their pressure suits and cooling packs with the statement by the astronauts themselves that the EVA was not modified in that way..and instead was only
different to the the 'model'they trained on in that it was given powered ascent and descent.
If you had even bothered to read the links you would have seen that clearly.
Oh and here's another quote from Kodaks'press office packet..
"Kodak technology also went along on Apollo 11, with the first astronauts to walk on the moon. A special stereoscopic color camera built by Kodak
enabled astronauts to photograph extreme close-ups of rocks, dust, and minute features of the Moon's surface. The camera, about the size and shape of
a large shoebox, was easily operated using a trigger on an extendable handle. This enabled an astronaut to operate it despite the limited mobility,
dexterity and visibility caused by their pressure suit and heavy gloves. Photos of the lunar soil taken by Neil Armstrong enabled scientists to see
soil particles smaller than two one-thousandths of an inch. "
Here's another quote..from Kodak...
"" In the mid sixties, NASA launched a series of five Lunar Orbiter spacecraft that collectively photographed 99% of the moon's surface in
preparation for an Apollo moon landing. Each carried an ingenious photographic system, designed and built by Kodak. The system took photographs,
processed and scanned the film, and converted imagery into a continuous video signal for pickup by Kodak-built receivers on Earth. At that time, it
was the most complex instrumentation payload ever launched aboard a spacecraft. In addition to medium-resolution images that were taken to analyze the
moon's surface topography, the system took a number of high-resolution pictures that were clear enough to show objects the size of a card table on
the surface. "
To date no one outside Kodak has been given access to these films..and since when did Kodak build radio receivers?
Another quote from Kodak..
"1971 - Kodak introduced KODAK EKTACHROME 160 Movie Film (Type A) and two new super 8 movie cameras which, in combination, made possible "existing
light" movies for home use. ♦ The Marketing Education Center (also known as the Riverwood site), opened as a training facility that offered a
variety of educational services to professionals who used Kodak products."
So the ektachrome 160 movie film comes on the market more than two years after Apollo 11.
"Here's what NASA has to say about the film/camers and Apollo 11:
Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.
Two of the Hasselblad cameras were identical to those carried on the earlier Apollo 8 and 10 lunar orbit missions. During the Moon landing one
Hasselblad was left aboard the Command Module Columbia, which remained in lunar orbit. Two were taken on the Lunar Module Eagle to the Moon's
The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A
transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately
in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm.
The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on
the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and
aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the
When film is normally wound in a camera, static electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity is dispersed by metal rims and rollers,
which guide the film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided by the Reseau plate's raised
edges. As glass is a poor electrical conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air, the charge built up between the glass surface and the film
could become so great that sparks could occur between the plate and the film. In order to conduct the static electricity away and prevent sparking,
the side of the plate facing the film was coated with a thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited on the edges of the conductive layer.
The electrical charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera body by contact springs.
The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and
cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional
lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.
Two film magazines for the lunar surface Hasselblad 500EL data camera were carried for use on the Moon's surface. Thirty-three rolls of the same film
types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. The film used for Apollo 11 was loaded and several test shots exposed
prior to flight. When the film magazines were returned for processing after the mission, the test shots were cut off and processed first. These were
compared against accurate color charts to ensure that there would be no defects in processing the remainder of the film and that the colors would be
[ let me highlight this for ya.. "Thirty-three rolls of the same film types as used on the earlier missions were carried on the Apollo 11 mission. "
so, did the other missions use 'special film" or ektachrome 160? NO! In fact, after much digging I did come up with what films was 'officially
used' on the Apollo flights....and here it is:
"Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new
films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film,
two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100
color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission. "
Each film magazine was finished in the same silver color as the camera body. The film magazines were each fitted with a tether ring. To the ring, a
cord was attached that permitted the entire camera to be lowered from the lunar module cabin to Neil Armstrong on the surface using a clothesline-like
arrangement. The exposed film magazines were lifted from the surface in the same manner. The camera and lens were left behind and still rest on the
Moon's surface at Tranquility Base.
The Apollo 11 Kodak Stereo Close-Up Camera
Seven months prior to the Apollo 11 mission, a new camera was commissioned by NASA. The camera would be used by the crew to take close-up stereo views
of the lunar soil and rocks. The camera had a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, an aperture of f/22.6, film was held approximately 10 inches from
the lunar surface, and lighting was provided by an integral electronic flash.
The camera was designed for ease of use by the astronaut in his bulky pressure suit. The camera was rested on the soil and the astronaut would simply
press down on a trigger on a long handle to expose the frames. Each exposure resulted in two side-by-side photographs of the same area of the surface.
The surface photographed measured three inches by three inches. The size of the exposed film was one inch square.
After Apollo 11
Five more flights landed on the Moon after Apollo 11. On all, the photographic equipment and films were similar to that taken on the first landing. On
Apollo 15, the 250mm telescopic lens was added to the Hasselblad lunar surface complement. By the time of Apollo 17, a total of 18 rolls of film were
taken to the lunar surface.
Astronaut Training for Lunar Photography
The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions,
scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the
camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the
scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted
with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to
those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was
attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras.
Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results.
From December 1968 to December 1972, twenty-seven astronauts traveled to the Moon and twelve walked upon its surface. There were nine voyages across
the quarter million miles. The treasures of Apollo included the samples of the lunar surface and the photographs the astronauts took. The photographs
of Apollo, today, three decades later, help us to relive the experience.
Many of the photographs taken by astronauts are available at the GReat Images in NASA photo database and in the galleries associated with the Apollo
Lunar Surface Journals. We also have a page devoted to more general information about the Apollo Program."
AND all of that sounds great except, again, no mention of special film for the still shots, nor what kind of film...BUT..heres' a NASA produced copy
of the special camera...and it is a Minolta.
Hassleblad has its own version of the story..
and maintains the film was special-thin coated 7omm double perforated...but gives no
ASA ratings or specific film-types
Another site tells us just how many cameras and films were on the moon...
but makes no mention of the film used except to say it was 16mm and 70mm
That Mr. Sibrel was punched for asking questions of our moon-walking astronaut could be just the reaction of an old man on a bad day reacting to a
nuisance who iimpuned his integrity..or it could be the natural reaction to a man about to have his reputation sullied by cold hard facts..or the
frustration with not being able to speak the truth and settle the issue without giving away the real truth..that something DID happen on the moon
which no one wants to discuss. As some wag put it....if you're catching flak it means you are over a sensitive target.
Here again is the senior personnel listings for Kodak..
And Mr. Vimilslik is nowhere to be found..NOR IS HIS OFFICE...as it would seem he has a 'special office' which is unlisted in the company's main
So along with a letter to Mr. Vimilslik at Kodak I will be forwarding a copy to
Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian, to see how he responds to some pointed questions.
And they will relate to the following:
"Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near
space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way
outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which
took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective
gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted
cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of
Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing.
"The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step
on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes
me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a
lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the
space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their
capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In
fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were
incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the
sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA
public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had
been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the
enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience
to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply
have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to
be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the
safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later. "
HERE'S anothjer unanswered question you've been avoiding or ignoring...
In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound
of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the
surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust. "
The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the
Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links
from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be
normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.
When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has
landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust
20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out. "
About THE FOOTPRINT, which you mentioned in your post...according to every scientist asked...if you were to take me back to the moon to look for the
print we wouldn't find it...and the main reason? IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO LEAVE A FOOTPRINT IMPRESSION in moon dust
with ZERO moisture.
Lastly I give you a site which I find most informative...
Where you can all look at the recently released [and tweaked] Apollo 11 images..a couple of which are alarmingly anomalous, and I leave you to
In the meantime I will go looking for Vimilslik..