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