Hasselblads On The Moon

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 



NOW..

there's the kettle calling the pot black~!!


Are you implying that I keep repeating the same emotionally charged phrases? Could you provide an example? Or are you implying that I refuse to answer questions? Again, please provide an example.


To DJW001: Why were the 12 Hasselblads dumped on the surface of the moon? Give us a straight answer. Please
edit on 10/16/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: direct question to DJW001




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 



NOW..

there's the kettle calling the pot black~!!


Are you implying that I keep repeating the same emotionally charged phrases? Could you provide an example? Or are you implying that I refuse to answer questions? Again, please provide an example.


To DJW001: Why were the 12 Hasselblads dumped on the surface of the moon? Give us a straight answer. Please
edit on 10/16/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: direct question to DJW001



Here's your straight answer on the Hasselblad site for years!!!!!!!


The journeys home from the moon made very special demands on what could return regarding weight, etc. So, having fulfilled their mission, a total of thirteen cameras were deemed as an encumbrance and therefore left behind. Only the film magazines containing the precious latent images were brought back


Underlined the important part of the camera.

That MUST be simple enough even for YOU


Knowing and looking at your logic you would have left the film behind claiming the camera was more important your holiday snaps must be interesting for the person that finds them
edit on 17-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The cameras were left there to allow for the 25kg of lunar rock samples that were brought back instead.
www.petapixel.com...
www.eyescoffee.com...
fotoshutter.com...
edit on 17-10-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



To DJW001: Why were the 12 Hasselblads dumped on the surface of the moon? Give us a straight answer. Please


To allow them to bring a few extra rocks back, obviously. As has been pointed out over and over again, it was the film. not the cameras that carried the information.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
"Sayonara logic"




posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
... As has been pointed out over and over again, it was the film. not the cameras that carried the information.


Exactly.

- Just like the personal life support systems (PLSS) backpacks that allowed the astronauts to breathe on the Moon -- those were left there too.
- Just like the descent stage of the LEM that carried the astronauts down to land on the Moon -- it's still there.
- Bags of feces and bags of urine expelled by the astronauts while on the moon -- those bags are still there.

...so why are you (Sayonara Jupiter) so fixated on just the cameras? Lots of things were left on the moon to save weight. All of the things left behind had one thing in common -- they served their mission purpose, and were no longer necessary for mission success. Is the fact we don't have -- say, for example -- the PLSS backpacks that were used on the moon evidence that they never went?

The cameras also served their purpose, and there is no reason to bring them back, except maybe for their historical value (although an extra Moon rock brought back in place of a man-made camera is much more valuable than the camera).

You (Sayonara Jupiter) mentioned before that the cameras may have had some moon dust on them that would be worth studying. Well, the film magazines may also have moon dust, and they came back with the astronauts. And not just the Hasselblad magazines, but the DAC film magazines, also.

edit on 10/17/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

You (Sayonara Jupiter) mentioned before that the cameras may have had some moon dust on them that would be worth studying. Well, the film magazines may also have moon dust, and they came back with the astronauts. And not just the Hasselblad magazines, but the DAC film magazines, also.


It's a very good question : Was lunar dust still clinging to the film magazines when the magazines were first examined back on Earth? Does anybody have a good source link for fact checking this?

Those lol film magazines ended up in the hands of CIA photo experts Richard Underwood and Farouk El Baz, the Bellcomm geologist and, coincidentally!, a photo expert!, hired at Bellcomm by none other than Richard Nixon's younger brother, Ed, who held a degree in geology but ironically could not find work in geology.

Just sayin'.
edit on 10/18/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: degree n geologeee wizz
edit on 10/18/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: geolllooogeee



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



To DJW001: Why were the 12 Hasselblads dumped on the surface of the moon? Give us a straight answer. Please


To allow them to bring a few extra rocks back, obviously. As has been pointed out over and over again, it was the film. not the cameras that carried the information.


As has been pointed out over and over again, the camera weight is a b*S* excuse from NASA. Ed Mitchell smuggled his camera back to Earth.

NASA ordered that the lunar Hasselblads be left on the surface of the "moon" because they never wanted the cameras to be examined - by anyone, ever.

The lunar Hasselblads contained reseau plates which could also be examined closely that could reveal evidence of a photographic hoax. But since all 12 of the 500 EL's are still located on the "moon" nobody will ever know. Maybe that's why NASA is now fervently engaged in removing the reseau pattern marks (the black crosses) from Apollo images?

Bringing back 1 or 2 lunar Hasselblads will in no way endanger a mission because of weight and it has no bearing on the amount "moon rocks" that can be returned to Earth.

The cameras were dumped because they were the best evidence of constructive fraud in the Apollo images.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


How exactly could those reseau plates reveal evidence of a photographic hoax?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


The lunar Hasselblads contained reseau plates which could also be examined closely that could reveal evidence of a photographic hoax.


Right explain your warped logic on this I need a good


jra

posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
As has been pointed out over and over again, the camera weight is a b*S* excuse from NASA. Ed Mitchell smuggled his camera back to Earth.


He didn't smuggle it. They didn't need to dispose of the DAC on the Moon since it was still needed to document things like the ascent from the Moon.




NASA ordered that the lunar Hasselblads be left on the surface of the "moon" because they never wanted the cameras to be examined - by anyone, ever.


I don't get why the camera's would be examined if they were brought back.


The lunar Hasselblads contained reseau plates which could also be examined closely that could reveal evidence of a photographic hoax.


Count me in with the other above. What could one possibly get out of examining a piece of glass with etched in crosshairs on it. That has got to be one of the more absurd things I've heard in a while.


Maybe that's why NASA is now fervently engaged in removing the reseau pattern marks (the black crosses) from Apollo images?


Only on this site: Apollo Image Archive and that's the Arizona State University, not NASA. And the original negatives will still have the crosshairs.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Back on topic. Hasselblads On The Moon

What happened to Jim Irwin's Hasselblad?

Specifically, the one he was using at Dune Crater on August 1, 1971. Specifically, the camera that jammed up when he was taking his panorama.

You know should all know about the camera because ALSJ revealed that Jim's Hasselblad was brought back to Earth and analyzed by experts.

Citations can be found in this thread by ATS wildespace Apollo 15 panorama - matching the rocks to the hi-res LRO image www.abovetopsecret.com...

And nobody can answer the question today : Where is Jim Irwin's Hasselblad today?
edit on 12/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: forgot link, added link



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
And nobody can answer the question today : Where is Jim Irwin's Hasselblad today?


UPDATE:Jim Irwin's Hasselblad 70mm has been found at is currently scheduled for an auction.
Source www.collectspace.com...

According to Robert Pearlman, editor of collectspace.com, both Jim Irwin and Dave Scott brought back Hasselblad cameras from the "moon".


Conclusion: Yes, also the Apollo 15 CDR's HEDC was brought back. Source www.collectspace.com...


After 43 years we found out these facts of these cameras from spacecollectors, not from the Apollo Defenders.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



After 43 years we found out these facts of these cameras from spacecollectors, not from the Apollo Defenders.


Obviously, the collectors believe that the space program was real or their collections would have no value. Now, all YOU have to do is outbid them so you can acquire the cameras and have them tested as you have been demanding they be. Well? Are you going to start bidding, or does it turn out that it's not really that important after all?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



After 43 years we found out these facts of these cameras from spacecollectors, not from the Apollo Defenders.


Obviously, the collectors believe that the space program was real or their collections would have no value. Now, all YOU have to do is outbid them so you can acquire the cameras and have them tested as you have been demanding they be. Well? Are you going to start bidding, or does it turn out that it's not really that important after all?


Seriously, would you bid on that camera if you had the money in the bank? Wouldn't you like to run that camera through a battery of forensic testing... to include... paying for specially engineered film stock that would be comparable to the film stocks used on the Apollo 15 missions?

I don't have any money DJW. So
on your suggestion.

But Mythbusters has money from Discovery Channel, Phil Plait probably has some money rolling in from Discovery Channel, and I'll bet Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't a poor man either. It may take a full forensic analysis to prove that this Jim Irwin's Hasselblad is a fake, an imitation, a fraud.

Having this camera being out in the wilderness of freako-auctionland doesn't do Apollo Defenders one bit of good. You've got a camera here that nobody can authenticate but people are claiming it's from the Apollo 15 "moon" landing. Sucks to be you.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Seriously, would you bid on that camera if you had the money in the bank? Wouldn't you like to run that camera through a battery of forensic testing... to include... paying for specially engineered film stock that would be comparable to the film stocks used on the Apollo 15 missions?


Why would I? I might use it to take photos, though.


I don't have any money DJW. So on your suggestion.

But Mythbusters has money from Discovery Channel, Phil Plait probably has some money rolling in from Discovery Channel, and I'll bet Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't a poor man either. It may take a full forensic analysis to prove that this Jim Irwin's Hasselblad is a fake, an imitation, a fraud.


You know who does have the money? Someone who wants to prove that Apollo was a scam so badly that he has dedicated his every waking hour to it? Someone who clearly has the resources to produce thousands of hours of television, someone who has actually started a find to fly to the Moon himself. You know, that world famous young Aussie genius:

JARRAH WHITE!

Finally, a chance for you and Jarrah to put the last nail in Apollos coffin! All you need to do is use the same persuasive arguments you have been spamming making here to Jarrah and I'm sure he will help you out.


Having this camera being out in the wilderness of freako-auctionland doesn't do Apollo Defenders one bit of good. You've got a camera here that nobody can authenticate but people are claiming it's from the Apollo 15 "moon" landing. Sucks to be you.


No-one but you has ever claimed that the actual Hasselblads are in any way relevant to the materiality of the Moon landings. You finally have a chance to prove why. If you don't, I will point out your hypocrisy at every opportunity.

PS: I'm feeling generous this morning. If you describe exactly which tests you would run, and exactly what results you would expect to find, perhaps I will acquire that camera and run those tests to settle things one way or the other. Well? Do you have the courage of your convictions?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



PS: I'm feeling generous this morning. If you describe exactly which tests you would run, and exactly what results you would expect to find, perhaps I will acquire that camera and run those tests to settle things one way or the other. Well? Do you have the courage of your convictions?


The narrative the provenance of Jim Irwin's camera is highly suspect. This camera is so unusual that even Apollo spacecollectors are worried about the origins of it and they DO NOT know how it came it came to be in private hands.

The very existence of Jim Irwin's camera could be explosive for either side of the debate. I think you underestimated the value of Jim's camera... it's very existence could pose a lot of problems for the official narratives. We have learned from collectspace.com is that Dave Scott's camera was also returned to earth from the surface of the "moon". Was Dave Scott a camera smuggler or wasn't he?

Dave's camera smuggling is really going to be fun times. The fellows over at the ALSJ are going gangbusters trying to figure out how that happened so they can manipulate the historical narrative.

In response to your question about what tests I would run? I would have all the testing be done blind, by a forensic lab made up of a team of various camera experts.

Think about it this way DJW... this camera is a priceless relic of the Apollo program. Why isn't the Apollo Defender community scrambling to raise the monies to get this camera into their own custody?

I wish for a moment that you could put away the condescending "why don't you buy it yourself" attitude. I told you I don't have the money. I doubt Jarrah has the money either his video productions budgets are nothing compared to Mythbusters and Discovery Channel. But I told you that the Apollo Defender community has the money... big $$$ Discovery Channel $$$.

The Apollo Defender Community should buy this camera and use it to prove that this camera was on the "moon". This would be a great opportunity for Jay Windley and Phil Plait and Mythbusters to capitalize on a very rare opportunity... a lunar Hasselblad.

You said "perhaps I will acquire that camera" and that's a bluff.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



The narrative the provenance of Jim Irwin's camera is highly suspect. This camera is so unusual that even Apollo spacecollectors are worried about the origins of it and they DO NOT know how it came it came to be in private hands.


So you admit that the ALSJ may have been correct when it said that the camera was left on the Moon.


The very existence of Jim Irwin's camera could be explosive for either side of the debate.


Why? So Irwin didn't throw it out the hatch like he was supposed to. Doesn't affect anything, really.


I think you underestimated the value of Jim's camera... it's very existence could pose a lot of problems for the official narratives.


You keep saying that. Please explain how, exactly, or stop saying it.


We have learned from collectspace.com is that Dave Scott's camera was also returned to earth from the surface of the "moon". Was Dave Scott a camera smuggler or wasn't he?


I don't know. Again, what difference would it make?


Dave's camera smuggling is really going to be fun times.


Why?


The fellows over at the ALSJ are going gangbusters trying to figure out how that happened so they can manipulate the historical narrative.


What? The only person attempting to 'manipulate the historical narrative' is you and you are doing a bloody awful job of it!


In response to your question about what tests I would run? I would have all the testing be done blind, by a forensic lab made up of a team of various camera experts.


I asked you specifically what tests you would run, not how you would have it tested. Your evasion is your admission that there are no tests that anyone can run that could determine whether or not a camera has been to the Moon. You know it, and now everyone who reads this thread knows it.


Think about it this way DJW... this camera is a priceless relic of the Apollo program. Why isn't the Apollo Defender community scrambling to raise the monies to get this camera into their own custody?


What Apollo Defender Community? Everyone bidding on that camera will tell you that the Apollo missions landed on the Moon. Only delusional idiots believe otherwise.


I wish for a moment that you could put away the condescending "why don't you buy it yourself" attitude. I told you I don't have the money. I doubt Jarrah has the money either his video productions budgets are nothing compared to Mythbusters and Discovery Channel.


Have you asked Jarrah? What did he say? Or are you afraid that he will tell you that there are no tests that can prove whether or not the camera has been to the Moon?


But I told you that the Apollo Defender community has the money... big $$$ Discovery Channel $$$.


Hang on! Why don't you get some of that big History Channel $$$$$? If they're cynical enough to run Ancient Aliens BS, they'll run Moon Hoax BS! Write them right away!


The Apollo Defender Community should buy this camera and use it to prove that this camera was on the "moon". This would be a great opportunity for Jay Windley and Phil Plait and Mythbusters to capitalize on a very rare opportunity... a lunar Hasselblad.


Why? The only people who stand to use it in their favor are Jarrah White and the Moon Hoax Lunatics. Raise the money or STFU.


You said "perhaps I will acquire that camera" and that's a bluff.


Since you have made it perfectly clear that you know there are no tests that can be run on it to prove anything one way or the other, it is perfectly clear that it has been you who has been bluffing all along. You and Jarrah pitch your Moon Hoax series to the History Channel and let us know how that goes.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



What???

You mean to tell me that they left Human Poop on the Moon, in little plastic bags?

The same Plastic bags that, On Earth, deteriorate in about 12 months, due to UV light?.

How quickly would the "Plastic" bags fall apart on the unprotected Moon's surface?

And all those millions of Earth Bacteria left in the urine and feces on the surface, exposed to high levels of gamma rays, uv, and whatever else, that we have been told, can mutate bacteria.

As they live in stomach acids and poo, they are probably already use to no or very low oxygen atmosphere.
The moon may be a cake walk........What if they have mutated on the moon into something else?

Far Fetched?............................................... Is it?

What if they have oozed into the Moons soil, down near some H2O.
What if they have mated with some "Germs" from Meteors/Comets whatever.......

And all this time we have been told that the Moon has no life??

Better tell that to the Human Poo and wee that they lived in.

Nah would'nt happen............Just like they said 4 billion years ago on that little third rock from the Sun.





edit on 7-2-2014 by gort51 because: bad spelling



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



You know it, and now everyone who reads this thread knows it.


Here's what I know.

1.

"All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party," the government suit said, adding NASA had no record of the camera being given to Mitchell. Source www.reuters.com...


2.

I would say its a safe bet that NASA (Office of Inspector General) will be asking to see the "extensive documentation" that WestLicht says will be included with the camera's sale. - Robert Pearlman, editor, collectspace.com Source www.collectspace.com...


3.

Based on the information released publicly to date, no, we do not know how Irwin's camera entered private hands. - Robert Pearlman, editor, collectspace.com


4.

Per Ulli:
"Yes, images on mag 88 were taken with Scott's HEDC after TEI. Also the image descriptions in the Apollo 70mm Image Atlas mention that these pics were shot with a 60mm lens (the 60mm Biogon fits only the HEDC not the HEC). Conclusion: Yes, also the Apollo 15 CDR's HEDC was brought back." - Robert Pearlman, editor, collectspace.com


What it means is that weight was not a factor in the decision making to abandon or keep the cameras, so the number of cameras left on the moon was a cover story, it means the Hasselblad website was wrong about it. It means somebody out there may have Dave Scott's camera.

This is the magazine of official NASA images that proves Dave Scott smuggled his Hasselblad, he did not abandon it in the surface of the "moon" or into lunar module. He took it into the command module and brought it back to Earth.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

It looks like OBMonkey is the discoverer of this fact which was confirmed on collectspace.com by two authorities. See #4, above. So congratulations to OBM, he spotted a nice one!





top topics
 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join