Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by CatherineD

They used the Hasselblad 500 ELs beginning with Apollo 8 and as best i can tell, never took a one out into the cold of space until Apollo 11. Note my link above how some of the photographers commented cold created problems for their batteries.

This was used on Apollo 9 and 10 too

Your own source.

Examples of the Hasselblads being used in the "cold of space" :

www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by CatherineD


Shutter was fixed at 1/250th. Now that you've chosen the career of photography you should know that it was quite fast. Even if it was slowed down due to cold it would have to basically jam to have any effect. Also you ignore the fact that these cameras had been used quite extensively and that they had plenty of them available back on earth.
I was wondering when you'd show up.

Originally posted by CatherineD

The most important tool by far that the astronauts brought was the camera, and the photos were as important as the rocks themselves in understanding the moon they claimed to explore.

Not even remotely true. If any kind of scientist wants to find out about something do they take a picture of it, or do they take a sample of it and analyse it at the molecular level? If you went to see a doctor with a questionable mole and he just took a picture of it to study later would you trust him? No, because he should do a biopsy to find out what it is

The laser reflector was more important than the camera, the seismic device? That is laughable.

The retroreflectors confirmed Einstein's theory of relativity and we wouldn't have GPS without them, so yes, i'd say it's more important than the pictures.

And the shutter could have EASILY got stuck, I don't care if the camera cost $100,000. the temperature in the shade was effectively absolute zero. I know that much.

Yes, but the camera would have to be left in the shade for hours (if not days, I don't feel like doing the required calcs to figure out the actual time) for it to get very cold, and since they had the cameras on them, they wouldn't have spent much time in the shade at all, so there was no issue. They went during the lunar day so it was heat they had to protect against, not cold.

The part about condensation of course applies here, cameras.about.com...

Condensation isn't an issue on the moon because there's no atmosphere so there's no moisture to cause it.

You keep applying Earth conditions to lunar photography, it's not the same thing.

reply to post by DJW001


My view is the camera was not tried in space and so its function is suspect.

reply to post by captainpudding


Gravity waves have not been found. I know that much. Do you take me for a fool? I am no fool. Get your facts straight.

I think the Apollo missions were meticulous simulations that were documented as though they were real.

Originally posted by CatherineD

Gravity waves have not been found. .

Can I ask for clarification on this statement? Gravity waves can't exist in a vacuum because they require a medium, why would they even be looking for them on the moon?

The Soviet government worked together with the U.S in the space race (unwittingly) when they realized at that time it was impossible to get a man to the moon, it was faked. It was the only way to guarantee 'success'

We have to stop viewing most world conflicts such as the cold war as a war between nations, but instead it is merely deception by the elite against the public. They were experimenting with the best ideology that they could use to control us. If there had been a Communist revolution in the United States, the same elite Rothschild's bankers would have been in control.. they funded both sides.
Have you ever wondered how the U.S managed to overtake the Soviets in the space race?

Because they worked for the same people.. This is why the Russians never revealed the hoax. Double agents were entrusted to carry out this process.

"In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild's identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring's handler, went on the record. Perry writes:

"According to ...Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British intelligence. 'He had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office...who controlled Mi-6." (p.89)

You can understand the reluctance. The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world's central bank system. Victor Rothschild's treason confirms that these London-based bankers plan to impose a "world government" dictatorship akin to Communism.

It adds credence to the claim they were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the bogus "Cold War" and more recently the phoney "War on Terror" to advance their world hegemony."

rense.com...


The cold war was just a land grab, you get two choices communism or capitalism.. Most like the Vietnamese just wanted both to leave them alone to live in peace. The apparently opposing ideologies are very similar both transfer wealth to an Elite and industrialize and brutalize foreign nations.

Take this example technology was shared, like the Soyuz spacecraft plans..

"The Russian Soyuz spacecraft has been the longest-lived, most adaptable, and most successful manned spacecraft design. In production for over thirty years, more than 220 have been built and flown on a wide range of missions. The design will remain in use with the international space station well into the next century.

But did the Russians steal the design from the Americans? When the configuration was first revealed in 1968, some industry insiders immediately noticed a strong resemblance to General Electric's losing Apollo spacecraft proposal. The resemblance was openly discussed by Phillip S Clark and Ralph F Gibbons in 1983. After the Soviet lunar program was declassified, and information on the design of the Soyuz lunar orbiter version was revealed, the similarities seemed even more marked."

www.astronautix.com...

"The nature of the Cold War began to change in the 1960's. Neither the East nor the West remained a monolith (united bloc). Communist China challenged Soviet leadership. China accused the Soviet Union of betraying Communism and being secretly allied with the United States. Some Communist countries followed China's leadership, and others remained loyal to the U.S.S.R."
www.laughtergenealogy.com...

When the United Kingdom began work on the atomic bomb it took only days for details of the project to get to the Soviets. I propose that this was done through secret society networks.

" Within days of Britain's highly classified decision in 1941 to begin research on building an atomic bomb, an informant in the British civil service notified the Soviets." How come we apparently kept the D-Day landings a secret but virtually nothing else.. It does not make sense.

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com...

"Japan’s Kaguya lunar orbiter took several pictures of the site, where Apollo 15 and Apollo 17 supposedly landed in 1971 and 1972. If the astronauts had ever landed there, they should have left a lot of equipment on the site, including the rovers, on which they traveled on the surface of the Earth’s satellite. The pictures, which the Japanese rover took, showed not even the slightest hint of the US presence on the Moon."

www.prisonplanet.com...

reply to post by rolfharriss


I like this!!!!

reply to post by captainpudding


Girls are not so dumb. You tell me how the laser experiment proves general relativity? Every college freshman physics student learned as did I at UCLA that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible. Einstein's general relativity is along way from being proven true and if you had to pick one I think most would go with quantum. I have limited physics knowledge beyond fundamentals. But that much i know.

reply to post by CatherineD


More evidence for this - Kennedy and Khrushchev meeting.


"Their discussion soon turned serious. Kennedy suggested that both nations were responsible to ensure that their competitiveness in the same geographic areas never led to a direct confrontation. Khrushchev jumped at the chance to reprimand Kennedy. He asserted that communism was a viable system that, just like democracy, had a right to develop."

www.netplaces.com...

There was never any danger of power slipping from the Elite it was just ritualized aggression to prove which system was more effective for control.

system uploaded twice

reply to post by DJW001


With Apollo 8, 9, 10, they did not take the camera out into the cold of space, or the hot of space for that matter. Apollo 11 was the first time.

FAKE !

reply to post by rolfharriss


You rock rolfharris. love your perspective.

reply to post by PsykoOps


So? The shutter could have easily frozen and then you would want to know why. This is so revealing posting here. It is the side of the regular story that is fixated on the fantasy of their unreasonable perspective. I'm a beginner and can see how I can help take this thing down with the help of others. People don't be afraid!

Apollo is a joke.

Originally posted by CatherineD
With Apollo 8, 9, 10, they did not take the camera out into the cold of space, or the hot of space for that matter. Apollo 11 was the first time.

Space is neither hot or cold. And I suggest you look a bit further back to the missions prior to Apollo. Check out the Gemini program, specifically Gemini IV.

Also: Hasselblad: Space Camera's

reply to post by CatherineD


You are most correct young lady and a better physicist than you give yourself credit for.

I too have a Pentax K1000, doesn't everyone, LOL.

Seriously, I do have an old Nikon the shutter of which froze regularly in the cold. Batteries of course are most susceptible to heat. You should write up your position in an essay form. You have lots of great spunk and best of all, you are correct. My friends call me "Jiajia". Good luck with your adventure.

reply to post by jra


But objects in space do have a temperature of sorts in that their atoms if you will, are moving. At absolute zero they would be still, no? Perhaps we'd best ask Catherine, the girl that says she knows not a whit of this or that and seems to be a hustler of sorts if you ask me.

In all honestly, seriously if you will, cameras do freeze up in the cold, and would be viewed with a wary eye as goes their mechanism out on the moon for the first time in that "hot" and "cold". I think the girl really hit on something big.

The other poster she referenced was more into making the claim that with photographic forensics one could match a camera with the photos it had snapped and that is why the lost Hasselblads would lead one to cry hoax. I don't believe that poster is quite on the money there, though an interesting thought to be sure. Catherine is arguing that they would want to examine the cameras on the chance the shutters froze, or there was lens flare, or the battery cooked, or what have you. The thing broke and so the pictures did not turn out. So that is a fresh idea, one I have never been exposed to before, pun intended, and I think Catherine really got something there. My old Nikon froze all of the time. Granted, not a Hasselblad, but the argument is nevertheless great.

Touch'e Catherine, touch'e!

reply to post by CatherineD


Could've. Yeah and a meteorite could've hit them right of the surface.

Making arguments without even a touch of logic or evidence is silly.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Cameras freeze up regularly in cold weather. If an object's temperature cannot readily be taken because the object is in space, this does not mean the object is not cold. "Cold" means simply that the object of concern's atoms, its molecules, are moving slowly. At absolute zero, atoms do not move at all. Nothing complicated or tricky about this. Neil Armstrong said the surface of the moon was hotter than boiling water. Nothing complicated about his point.

At the root of it all it is the condition of "cold", simply stated the relative slowing of movement at the atomic level or scale, this is what makes our cameras freeze up. The girl's point is well taken. I assume you have never had a camera freeze up on you? For those of us that shoot under conditions of "cold", where our cameras' atoms and molecules are moving slowly, it is not an uncommon occurrence.

photo.net...

www.largeformatphotography.info...

www.zeisscamera.com...



And on and on. Just a few things to consider. I think Catherine blindsided the group here, and everyone is standing around scratching their head going, "WHAT?", including myself. She's correct. Face it. Bright girl. Wish she'd post some more this evening.

reply to post by Illustronic


That easily could have been taken when they did one of there original robot moon missions before appollo or in 72 using the same concept.