Hasselblads On The Moon

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Much obliged, Pinke.

It is indeed a niche subject, but, then, I'm a niche subject kind of individual (thus, my presence on ATS). In this context, just something that has been niggling-naggling in the back of my mind since high school. Info provided by other members has been helpful regards this topic, but if anything else pops up, I'll gladly take you up on your offer.

No one can ever claim to know everything about...something? (Laughs.) Least of all me.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
 


It does look fake, because the camera is so good. It's a 50+ megapixel camera, that costs over $20,000 each. I would hope that the pictures were that good.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not the moon, but one of the most amazing pictures I've seen yet out of a camera. Taken with a Hasselblad 4D camera (starting price is very obscene but from this pic, well worth it).




They get that info from Flicker. Whoever put that post on Flicker could have been lying. I can't help but think that picture looks like CGI. There are too many things wrong with that image.. too many flat dimensions for it to be a real plane IMO.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


It's quite real. If you read up on the technical specs of the H4D, you'll see why it looks fake.

photorumors.com...
www.hasselbladusa.com...

Some more images from the cameras:

www.hasselbladusa.com...
media.photobucket.com...
farm5.staticflickr.com...

The lighting also doesn't help with the F-22 picture. It would look more real, if it was outdoors, under natural lighting.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lokomotiv23
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yes, I know...I've read this. Repeatedly. It says nothing about how the cameras were modified to deal with radiation. Friction, static electricity, loss of lubricant, etc...but nothing about radiation on the lunar surface. Fortunately, other ATS members have supplied me with information that was adequate to my needs, and I thanked them for this.

What are you selling here? Regards what I have stated (I, me, no one else), you've contributed nothing that assists my desire to research this matter. You have stated that others are weary of having to fend off claims that the moon landings were faked; well and good, but that is no concern of mine, as I have no horse in that race.


The camera bodies don't need to be modified for radiation that has been already stated, what exactly do think would have been affected by the radiation



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The camera bodies don't need to be modified for radiation that has been already stated, what exactly do think would have been affected by the radiation


I think he asking how the film in the magazines were protected from radiation.

However, the answer to that question was given a few times, by different people to different degrees. The short answer (as stated by you and others yesterday) is that the radiation on the moon was not so bad that it would necessarily ruin the film.

More recently, someone else gave the answer that the film was always in the metal magazine, and that was enough protection, because (as I mentioned above) the radiation levels were not that great.

edit on 10/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post 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. And the moon rock inventories never had adequate controls.


You have yet to explain what information the empty camera housings might contain that would be pertinent to any investigation. Why not?


Because the Holy Hasselblads, are not empty camera housings?! Duh. Why are you now saying they are "empty camera housings"??

These alleged cameras allegedly contained the unique reseau plates, the unique Biogon lenses and probably some small amounts of voodoo moon dust still clinging by static electricity to the silvery paint job, all of these details which could be studied in a laboratory by a real non-NASA affiliated forensic examiner.

Certainly, your attempt to downgrade the lunar Hasselblads as simply "empty camera housings" is actually the sound of you scraping the bottom of the barrel of ideas on this one, DJW. You'd better go check in with your buddies at http:\\Apollosadface.org/forums/secretconference/login?

Science demands proof not photomagical propaganda. This thread has officially debunked every NASA Apollo image taken with a lunar Hasselblad. This is pure scientific obkectivity and we need to have these cameras examined in the manner that I outlined. There is no other way to validate the authenticity of the Apollo lunar Hasselblad images. You know that.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



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?


That would depend, wouldn't it? I wouldn't waste any time looking for your camera, I would look for a rubber Sasquatch suit in your garage. Why are you obsessing about the camera? Is it because you can't find the rubber Sasquatch suit in NASA's garage?


I never claimed to have a garage. How did you know the suit was made of rubber? And why are you so obsessed about a rubber suit and a garage??

^^I'm using DJW's favorite mirror/reflector debate technique.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You say the lunar Hasselblads are useless weight; I say they should be considered missing evidence in a fraud investigation.

The photos are just one small part of a large collection of evidence for the reality of the Apollo missions.


And the missing lunar Hasselblads are just one small part of a larger collection of missing evidence for the unreality of the Apollo missions. It works both ways, doesn't it?

Accession #69A4099 ....
Numerous reports of missing or unaccounted for lunar materials at the LRL ....
The switcher-oo with Sample Bag 196 and the missing Genesis Rock ....
The missing 18 1/2 minutes of transcripts from the Apollo 12 Secret EVA ....

edit on 10/5/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: missing in action


jra

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These alleged cameras allegedly contained the unique reseau plates, the unique Biogon lenses and probably some small amounts of voodoo moon dust still clinging by static electricity to the silvery paint job, all of these details which could be studied in a laboratory by a real non-NASA affiliated forensic examiner.


And what could be learned from doing that exactly? Oh and by the way... Smithsonian collection


There is no other way to validate the authenticity of the Apollo lunar Hasselblad images. You know that.


I still don't get how examining the camera will validate the photos. But there are some Apollo Hasselblad's here on Earth, so go find yourself a forensic examiner and get cracking.


I never claimed to have a garage. How did you know the suit was made of rubber? And why are you so obsessed about a rubber suit and a garage??

^^I'm using DJW's favorite mirror/reflector debate technique.


That's nice, but you completely missed DJW's point. You may not have a garage or a rubber Sasquatch suit, but his point was that he wouldn't go looking for your camera to find out if your photos were authentic or not. He'd be looking for other evidence that would have been used in faking the photos, if they were indeed fake. Understand?


And the missing lunar Hasselblads are just one small part of a larger collection of missing evidence for the unreality of the Apollo missions. It works both ways, doesn't it?


Not really, since I still don't understand how studying the camera will help to authenticate the photos and secondly, there are Apollo era Hasselblad's here on Earth.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



And the missing lunar Hasselblads are just one small part of a larger collection of missing evidence for the unreality of the Apollo missions. It works both ways, doesn't it?


By this line of reasoning, if the police can't find a murder weapon, the victim must still be alive.


Accession #69A4099 ....


www.hq.nasa.gov...


Numerous reports of missing or unaccounted for lunar materials at the LRL ....



"According to the Office of Inspector General, out of the 26,000 samples NASA has on loan, it has lost just 517," Pearlman told SPACE.com. "That's not to excuse the space agency and its curators, but with so many samples spread across the globe, some losses are probably to be expected."


www.scientificamerican.com...


The switcher-oo with Sample Bag 196 and the missing Genesis Rock ....


Discussed at length here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Incidentally, you still have not explained why it would be necessary to perform a "switcheroo" if all of the samples were fake in the first place.



The missing 18 1/2 minutes of transcripts from the Apollo 12 Secret EVA ....


Finally! Something you haven't already beaten to death! What missing 18 1/2 minutes?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Science demands proof not photomagical propaganda. This thread has officially debunked every NASA Apollo image taken with a lunar Hasselblad. This is pure scientific obkectivity and we need to have these cameras examined in the manner that I outlined. There is no other way to validate the authenticity of the Apollo lunar Hasselblad images. You know that.


So what kind of warped logic do you have to apply to make that true



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
SayonaraJupiter --

They also left their life-support system backpacks on the moon. Does that mean you believe their ability to breath using those backpacks is under suspicion?

They also left bags with their urine and feces on the moon. Does that mean you believe their ability to urinate or defecate into these bags is under suspicion?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
...and just like with the Hasselblad cameras, some of their poo and pee is kept here on Earth, in the freezers.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

edit on 5-10-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
SayonaraJupiter --

They also left their life-support system backpacks on the moon. Does that mean you believe their ability to breath using those backpacks is under suspicion?

They also left bags with their urine and feces on the moon. Does that mean you believe their ability to urinate or defecate into these bags is under suspicion?




Let's Try To Stay Focussed, the Hasselblads Are Still On The Moon!

The cameras were not jettisoned because they were too heavy; they were jettisoned because NASA did not want any competent scientist to examine them the cameras closely.


This could explain why NASA has placed KEEP OUT ZONES around the holy Apollo landing sites.

The images are a hoax, the cameras are a hoax and the landing sites are a hoax.
edit on 10/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: jettisoned!



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These alleged cameras allegedly contained the unique reseau plates, the unique Biogon lenses and probably some small amounts of voodoo moon dust still clinging by static electricity to the silvery paint job, all of these details which could be studied in a laboratory by a real non-NASA affiliated forensic examiner.


And what could be learned from doing that exactly? Oh and by the way... Smithsonian collection


Oh, and by the way... I saw the Smithsonian page... which has many examples of Hasselblad "stuff". However, we are only discussing Hasselblads On The Moon".... the page you cited does not show any lunar Hasselblads.

Did I miss something?
edit on 10/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The cameras were not jettisoned because they were too heavy; they were jettisoned because NASA did not want any competent scientist to examine them the cameras closely.


And if a competent scientist were to examine one, what do you suppose they would discover? Name one thing about a camera that was actually on the surface of the Moon, as opposed to the one that was in the Apollo 11 Command Module, which is in the Smithsonian,. that might give the imposture away. Just one thing. Is that too much to ask?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The cameras were not jettisoned because they were too heavy; they were jettisoned because NASA did not want any competent scientist to examine them the cameras closely.


This could explain why NASA has placed KEEP OUT ZONES around the holy Apollo landing sites.

That's just your conjecture, and has zero credibility. What could possibly betray the fakeness of lunar landings if you examine the camera? Until you answer that, you just seem to be clutching at straws.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The cameras were not jettisoned because they were too heavy; they were jettisoned because NASA did not want any competent scientist to examine them the cameras closely.


And if a competent scientist were to examine one, what do you suppose they would discover? Name one thing about a camera that was actually on the surface of the Moon, as opposed to the one that was in the Apollo 11 Command Module, which is in the Smithsonian,. that might give the imposture away. Just one thing. Is that too much to ask?


One thing? The lunar Hasselblad cameras could contain evidence of simulated regolith dust that matched the same type of simulated regolith used by NASA here on Earth.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The cameras were not jettisoned because they were too heavy; they were jettisoned because NASA did not want any competent scientist to examine them the cameras closely.


And if a competent scientist were to examine one, what do you suppose they would discover? Name one thing about a camera that was actually on the surface of the Moon, as opposed to the one that was in the Apollo 11 Command Module, which is in the Smithsonian,. that might give the imposture away. Just one thing. Is that too much to ask?


One thing? The lunar Hasselblad cameras could contain evidence of simulated regolith dust that matched the same type of simulated regolith used by NASA here on Earth.



Did anyone examine they OTHER items that had regolith dust -- the items that DID come back from the moon with regolith dust on them?

If so, what did they discover about that dust that was on the items that NASA says came from the moon?

edit on 10/6/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join