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.
I was wondering if anybody here could provide technical exemplars explaining how the Hasselblad cameras used on the Apollo missions (and the film they contained) were shielded against radiation on the lunar surface.
Originally posted by wildespace
Apparently, radiation on the Moon isn't that bad. And the Hasselblad cameras were very, very good.
answers.yahoo.com...
sterileeye.com...edit on 26-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
yes.. the moon has a special atmosphere .. that keeps the radiation in space from destroying the film..
NOT~! the Moon HAS NO ATMOSPHERE !!!
NASA Claim: NASA ordered the Apollo astronauts to leave all the lunar Hasselblads on the moon because of weight considerations.
Yet, Ed Mitchell, smuggled a 16-mm Mauer DAC from the "moon" and the weight consideration did not endanger the Apollo 14 mission. And when Mitchell tried to auction the camera NASA came swooping down with law suits and legal attacks.
Where do the Apollo believers stand on these facts?
Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by Zaphod58
When I run across a couple hundred thousand in loose change, now I know what to spend it on.
Indifferent. The cameras were useless weight after they served their purpose. Here's the real question: Where do hoax believers stand on these facts? What dark secrets could the cameras possibly hold?
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation.
Just like the telemetry tapes went missing.
One Hasselblad unit weighs only 4 pounds and I say that your argument about weight is debunked by Ed Mitchell's smuggling of a 2 pound camera. Every Apollo crew could have returned with two Hasselblads with no added danger to the mission.
When NASA shows us "moon" images from the Apollo program we must first surrender our reason
we must forget about the cameras left on the moon
we must forget about the top secret negatives
we replace our reason with a believe in NASA that the reproduced images are proof of a claim.
The Apollo photographic evidence cannot be scientifically validated because 1, all the cameras were left on the moon...
...and 2, all the negatives are locked down in a climate controlled vault because they are incredibly delicate and priceless.
Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by DJW001
Sir/ma'am, you must see conspiracy theorists in every nook and cranny.
Where did I imply that 'they' were cheating? I simply asked for some pertinent information regards the Hasselblads on the moon (specifically how they might have been modified regards dealing with radiation on the lunar surface), and what said radiation levels might be. Nothing more, nothing less, and, there were a couple of fellow board members that were happy to oblige. Of course, I thanked them.
You seem very touchy
You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation. Just like the telemetry tapes went missing. And the moon rock inventories never had adequate controls.
One Hasselblad unit weighs only 4 pounds and I say that your argument about weight is debunked by Ed Mitchell's smuggling of a 2 pound camera. Every Apollo crew could have returned with two Hasselblads with no added danger to the mission.
The lunar Hasselblads were very special cameras, equipped with very special lenses and took very special film stock; The film stocks required a very special development process that was supervised by only specially trained Kodak, CIA and NASA employees.
When NASA shows us "moon" images from the Apollo program we must first surrender our reason - we must forget about the cameras left on the moon, we must forget about the top secret negatives - we replace our reason with a believe in NASA that the reproduced images are proof of a claim.
Here is an example:
What if I travelled out into the woods, no man has ever stepped foot to these woods before me, and I take 24 real photographic images of a Sasquatch.... I get safely out of the forest but I left the camera behind in the woods! .... I put all my negatives in a locked vault that only I have access! .... and I only allowed the curious people to see my "special" prints. Would you believe in my Bigfoot pictures?
The Apollo photographic evidence cannot be scientifically validated because 1, all the cameras were left on the moon, and 2, all the negatives are locked down in a climate controlled vault because they are incredibly delicate and priceless.
Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by wmd_2008
...and as I stated earlier, some of the pages available (which you, incidentally, posted links to) provide nothing in the way of, you know, the "nuts-and-bolts" of how the Hasselblad cameras were set up to work on the lunar surface. As it turned out, there were members that were able to produce documentation that helped me along a bit in my endeavors...and they did so without casting aspersions, or otherwise conducting themselves in a dismissive manner.
If, as you have stated, there are board members that are weary of all the BS, then why linger here? Why not take their expertise to forums pertaining to Hasselblad cameras and/or lunar exploration where said expertise is matched by that of the other members? Given my experiences just in this thread, there is no need to go on the offensive by being defensive...a trait which in of itself is certain to cause suspicion in some quarters.
Hasselblad SWC
With a Biogon 38mm lens, made its space debut on 3 June 1966, on a voyage in Gemini 9. The camera was largely standard: Only the lining had been removed and the viewfinder was specially designed. The camera was used on four voyages in 1966.
These differences include the removal of the TTL flash function, and the replacement of conventional lubricants, which would evaporate in a vacuum, with low friction materials. The leatherette covering is also removed and replaced by metal plates.
Originally posted by lokomotiv23
I was wondering if anybody here could provide technical exemplars explaining how the Hasselblad cameras used on the Apollo missions (and the film they contained) were shielded against radiation on the lunar surface. I'd assume that such measures must have been implemented given the effect of radiation on emulsion-type film (just based on terrestrial effects I've seen), but have no way of knowing first-hand (the pertinent information seems absent from the interwebs).