Hasselblads On The Moon

You're arguing that it was a cover story and the fact that cameras were in fact returned is suspicious.

I'm arguing (and anyone who understands human nature is arguing) that they were supposed to leave the cameras (and any other items no longer needed) on the lunar surface, because they had in their possession a whole bunch of other stuff to bring back. Their official instructions were to leave the cameras behind.

As it happens, some astronauts appear to have made a judgement call and keep some souvenirs. As someone who has ventured outside his basement and met real people I don't find this in the least bit surprising.

Accepting the official version that unwanted equipment was discarded without any evidence to the contrary is not unreasonable. Making stuff up without evidence is unreasonable, which is what the Apollo deniers do all the time. Making stuff up to explain something that they have no evidence happened is what Apollo deniers do.

Just to clarify a point raised earlier, Irwin's camera was brought back under instruction from the ground so that they could examine it after it malfunctioned. It malfunctioned while operating magazine 90 at the end of the final EVA, but was revived in the LM (there is a post-EVA panorama taken using that magazine) and was used to take photographs from lunar orbit.

Its existence on Earth was never in doubt and was not a secret. What was not clear was where it was. Sayonara Jupiter argued on several occasions that its disappearance was some sort of conspiracy and proof of a cover up. He is now arguing that its appearance is some sort of conspiracy and evidence of a cover up. The only real mystery here is how it came to be for sale after its examination by NASA, if indeed it is the genuine article. All the time SJ was claiming some sort of evil wrong-doing, the camera had already been up for sale and bought for a private collector. Because he didn't know about it, it never happened. That's kind of symptomatic of the entire Apollo denier argument.

Apparently it is deeply suspicious that people who defend the Apollo legacy aren't scrabbling the cash together. This is nonsense. If I had the money and it was genuine I would buy it, just as someone who believes Apollo happened surely will. The fact that I don't have the money to buy it is not a conspiracy. You can bet that the science deniers of the conspiracy world won't go near it because they never go near anything that is likely to prove their worthless opinions wrong.

Also, no-one at the ALSJ is 'going gangbusters' to try and distort the historical narrative - that's SJ's job. The ALSJ have actually said nothing at all - it's the Collectspace forum that has been querying it. The ALSJ is not a group of people, it's effectively one person and you can email him and ask him for his opinion if you like - his address is easy to find.

What people who are space enthusiasts are doing is trying to find out if what is being presented as the truth is actually the truth. If the camera up for auction is genuine it adds significantly to its value. If it's not Irwin's camera you can take at least one zero off the estimated value. People who collect space memorabilia want genuine articles, not fakes.

and here's a little allegory for you.

At a recent talk by Alan Bean, I purchased from a Space memorabilia stall a small limited edition badge replica of Buzz Aldrin's famous footprint on the moon. It was cheap!

It was created using a small amount of material from a Command Module that flew in lunar orbit during Apollo.

I am under no illusions that there will be one molecule of some piece of tinfoil crap in it, but that's not the point. It's material that flew to the moon in Apollo.

It has disappeared. It was on the sideboard over Christmas, and somehow when all the Christmas junk was cleared away it disappeared.

There is, of course, a global conspiracy to remove all these badges as they contain the smoking gun that proves Apollo was a lie, and somehow the government invaded my home and removed it to ensure that the truth never comes out.

Or my wife threw it away be mistake with some old biscuit wrappers and an empty tube of Pringles.

Which is more likely?

PS I bought a new one.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

You're arguing that it was a cover story and the fact that cameras were in fact returned is suspicious.

I'm arguing (and anyone who understands human nature is arguing) that they were supposed to leave the cameras (and any other items no longer needed) on the lunar surface, because they had in their possession a whole bunch of other stuff to bring back. Their official instructions were to leave the cameras behind.

As it happens, some astronauts appear to have made a judgement call and keep some souvenirs.

I like how you tip-toed around the Apollo 15 envelope scandal calling it a "judgement call" to "keep some souvenirs". I don't see how you can defend astronauts selling gear for personal gain. Around my parts we call that smuggling. When it comes to Hasselblad cameras those were not personal property in the first place. Around my parts we call that embezzlement.

What will happen to the Apollo narrative when it turns out that the part numbers of the camera at auction don't match the part numbers in NASA records? I'll tell you what it will mean.

It will mean that the camera at auction is a fake, and consequently, it would mean that Jim Irwin's Hasselblad is still "missing". Don't forget, Dave Scott's Hasselblad was brought back and it remains to be accounted for. So that's 2 cameras in the wild.

Take a look at "Inventing the American Astronaut" By Matthew H. Hersch page 108 & 109 where he uses the word smuggling twice and he explores the inner politics of the Astronaut Office under Deke Slayton. These are details that the ALSJ must deal with very cautiously... because... they are on a .gov server.

books.google.com... l=en&sa=X&ei=U9H5UrK2HIG-qwGOpoDIBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=apollo%2015%20controversial&f=false

Also, no-one at the ALSJ is 'going gangbusters' to try and distort the historical narrative - that's SJ's job. The ALSJ have actually said nothing at all. The ALSJ is not a group of people, it's effectively one person.

ALSJ is a website totally dedicated to controlling the Apollo narratives. What ALSJ is doing is they take the Apollo mission transcripts and merge them with the post-mission briefing reports. The ALSJ also adds narrative commentaries. The ALSJ runs on a .gov server. What is ALSJ doing? Repeat after me...

Controlling The Narrative!

I have seen many Apollo Defenders say "go read ALSJ" but you are saying that ALSJ is effectively one person. How can one person effectively know all the facts about Apollo?

I have also seen many Apollo Defenders argue that Apollo was the best documented human event ever recorded! Well, what happened to Apollo 15's Hasselblad's bro?? This sad state of affairs is like dynamite for the official narratives.

In my view these missing cameras from Apollo 15 are part of the real, ongoing, historical narrative of Apollo 15 which we are still trying to understand 40+ years later. From my perspective it's very interesting to see how Apollo Defenders react to such obvious inconsistencies, especially, in this thread, you can see proof, how the Apollo Defenders avoided certain truths which were revealed. One of those truths was that Apollo Defenders don't know for sure how many Hasselblad cameras came back from the "moon".

As a final note, the story of the missing Apollo 15 Hasselblad's is connected to the story of NASA/ASU performing CGI on the Apollo pictures. When NASA/ASU work together to remove the cross-hairs from Apollo images they are controlling the visual narrative. Anyone interested in how NASA/ASU works like the Ministry of Truth should read my thread:

NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What is ALSJ doing? Repeat after me...

Controlling The Narrative!

And what are you doing? Repeat after me...

failing to control the narrative!

Isn't this getting old?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What is ALSJ doing? Repeat after me...

Controlling The Narrative!

And what are you doing? Repeat after me...

failing to control the narrative!

Isn't this getting old?

NEWS ALERT: NASA DOES NOT CONTROL THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF APOLLO!

So the question is, why do Apollo Defenders and the ALSJ both try to control the historical narrative of Apollo? We all learned something important in this thread DJW, it was that 2 Hasselblad's came back with Apollo 15.

How does Dave Scott's smuggled camera fit into your narrative, DJW?

Where does the Apollo 15 press conference fit into your narrative?? You see. There are many narratives. My purpose is to explore them all not to control them like NASA or ALSJ.

I like how you tip-toed around the Apollo 15 envelope scandal calling it a "judgement call" to "keep some souvenirs". I don't see how you can defend astronauts selling gear for personal gain. Around my parts we call that smuggling. When it comes to Hasselblad cameras those were not personal property in the first place. Around my parts we call that embezzlement.

Who's tiptoeing? I was specifically referring to the cameras and probably lunar rocks that were brought back. The stamps issue is well documented and not at all secret. The astronauts were reprimanded. So what? The cameras were being thrown away. Around my parts we call that recycling. It doesn't prove they weren't on the moon.

I can also defend astronauts selling stuff from their career because I don't begrudge them their money. They earned it.

What will happen to the Apollo narrative when it turns out that the part numbers of the camera at auction don't match the part numbers in NASA records? I'll tell you what it will mean.

It will get you off the hook won't it? It will mean we are back where we were before the camera went up for sale, which is you making vague accusations about conspiracy because of missing cameras. Doesn't prove we didn't go to the moon.

It will mean that the camera at auction is a fake, and consequently, it would mean that Jim Irwin's Hasselblad is still "missing". Don't forget, Dave Scott's Hasselblad was brought back and it remains to be accounted for. So that's 2 cameras in the wild.

See? Doesn't prove we didn't go to the moon. Add Al Shepard and Gene Cernan's cameras to that list too.

Take a look at "Inventing the American Astronaut" By Matthew H. Hersch page 108 & 109 where he uses the word smuggling twice and he explores the inner politics of the Astronaut Office under Deke Slayton. These are details that the ALSJ must deal with very cautiously... because... they are on a .gov server.

books.google.com... l=en&sa=X&ei=U9H5UrK2HIG-qwGOpoDIBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=apollo%2015%20controversial&f=false

The ALSJ doesn't need to deal with those issues, it's a site documenting what happened on the moon and on the journey there and back. it is not there to discuss the politics. It might be on a .gov server, but it is written and maintained by Apollo enthusiasts, not NASA employees.

ALSJ is a website totally dedicated to controlling the Apollo narratives. What ALSJ is doing is they take the Apollo mission transcripts and merge them with the post-mission briefing reports. The ALSJ also adds narrative commentaries. The ALSJ runs on a .gov server. What is ALSJ doing? Repeat after me...

Controlling The Narrative!

I have seen many Apollo Defenders say "go read ALSJ" but you are saying that ALSJ is effectively one person. How can one person effectively know all the facts about Apollo?

I'm not sure you've ever seen the site. It does not aim to control the narrative, it aims to give a narrative. the fact that you can't comprehend what's on it doesn't make any of it wrong.

It is maintained by Eric Jones and Ken Glover (OK that's two people). Email him. Ask him questions. It's not hard to find his address. Why is it impossible for you to think that one person might know everything about Apollo? What makes you think he doesn't have help from occasional contributors like me who add new information or additional resources?

Read the AFJ editor David Woods' book 'How Apollo flew to the moon', or listen to his podcasts at Omega-Tau. You'll find he knows what he's talking about. The AFJ is also on a .gov address but Mr Woods is an affable Scottish journalist. It's not difficult to become an expert on something. You just need to actually do research on things and know where to look for other information. Something you fail at repeatedly.

I have also seen many Apollo Defenders argue that Apollo was the best documented human event ever recorded! Well, what happened to Apollo 15's Hasselblad's bro?? This sad state of affairs is like dynamite for the official narratives.

blah blah dynamite bah blah smoking gun blah blah - do you people have a list of stock phrases? Make a bid for the camera, you might find out.

In my view

like it matters

these missing cameras from Apollo 15 are part of the real, ongoing, historical narrative of Apollo 15 which we are still trying to understand 40+ years later. From my perspective it's very interesting to see how Apollo Defenders react to such obvious inconsistencies, especially, in this thread, you can see proof, how the Apollo Defenders avoided certain truths which were revealed. One of those truths was that Apollo Defenders don't know for sure how many Hasselblad cameras came back from the "moon".

and neither did you. Neither did anyone apparently. So what? Doesn't prove they didn't go.

As a final note, the story of the missing Apollo 15 Hasselblad's is connected to the story of NASA/ASU performing CGI on the Apollo pictures. When NASA/ASU work together to remove the cross-hairs from Apollo images they are controlling the visual narrative. Anyone interested in how NASA/ASU works like the Ministry of Truth should read my thread:

NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone interested in the truth really shouldn't bother with that thread's OP. There are multiple sites where the original images are available with no editing at all, and the hard copy originals and copies of the originals are freely available to anyone who is prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NEWS ALERT: NASA DOES NOT CONTROL THE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF APOLLO!

Correct. Unlike you, NASA does not even try to control the 'narrative.' They don't need to. They have facts on their side.

Now, when Jarrah coughs up the money, what tests will you submit the camera to? Or are you going to admit that there are none, and that you have been posturing pathetically for two years?

DJW001

Now, when Jarrah coughs up the money, what tests will you submit the camera to? Or are you going to admit that there are none, and that you have been posturing pathetically for two years?

Jarrah didn't have anything to do with Dave Scott's camera smuggling on Apollo 15. Why are you trying to turn this into a discussion about Jarrah White or me?

I noticed about you Apollo Defenders you always wanna make it personal.... when you are losing the argument.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

See? Doesn't prove we didn't go to the moon. Add Al Shepard and Gene Cernan's cameras to that list too.

So the question to you is, how many Apollo Hasselblad 70mm cameras were smuggled back to Earth by Apollo astronauts during the Apollo program?

At one time in this thread it was the consensus that 12 Hasselblad's were dumped on the moon, then we found out Jim Irwin's camera came back, then we found out Dave Scott's camera came back, then we found out Alan Shepard and Gene Shepard brought back two more Hasselblads. Where does this fit into the historical narratives now and where are those cameras?

This thread is also conclusive evidence that the Hasselblad company is telling false information about the lunar cameras. As you can see here Hasselblad explicitly informs us that ALL 12 HEDC cameras were left on the "moon".

Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong. The camera is equipped with a specially designed Biogon lens with a focal length of 60 mm, with a polarization filter mounted on the lens. A glass plate (Reseau-Plate), provided with reference crosses which are recorded on the film during exposure, is in contact with the film, and these crosses can be seen on all the pictures taken on the moon from 1969 to 1972. The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back. www.hasselbladusa.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Jarrah didn't have anything to do with Dave Scott's camera smuggling on Apollo 15. Why are you trying to turn this into a discussion about Jarrah White or me?

Because the only person who thinks the camera is evidence of one thing or another is you. Therefore, if you really believe that Apollo was hoaxed, which I doubt, and you really believe that 'fact' is important, which I doubt, and you really believe that camera is important evidence, which I doubt, then it is your duty to acquire that camera and test it. You claim you don't have the money. So? Jarrah White does. Call on his resources. You owe it to The Truth.

I noticed about you Apollo Defenders you always wanna make it personal.... when you are losing the argument.

And I notice that you keep changing the subject. Using your standards of evidence, prove to this forum that Richard Nixon existed. You cannot.

DJW001So? Jarrah White does. Call on his resources. You owe it to The Truth.

I noticed about you Apollo Defenders you always wanna make it personal.... when you are losing the argument.

And I notice that you keep changing the subject. Using your standards of evidence, prove to this forum that Richard Nixon existed. You cannot.

Snap out of it DJW! Stay focussed.


Do you have anything to add to the narrative of the Apollo lunar Hasselblads? I have a credible source which says all 12 HEDC cameras were left on the surface of the "moon".

Here is my source www.hasselbladusa.com...

Here is what my source says about the cameras,

Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong. The camera is equipped with a specially designed Biogon lens with a focal length of 60 mm, with a polarization filter mounted on the lens. A glass plate (Reseau-Plate), provided with reference crosses which are recorded on the film during exposure, is in contact with the film, and these crosses can be seen on all the pictures taken on the moon from 1969 to 1972. The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back.

Are you going to refute this source material? And how will you go about refuting it?

You ought to start by gathering your forces for this one battle, DJW. You'd better have an emergency conference call with all your Apollo Defender buddies. You need a new defense strategy because when you start talking about Jarrah White and Richard Nixon *- I know -* that I have you crapping in your pants with regard to the "12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back." and this is from a very credible source, the manufacturer of the Apollo cameras.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Are you going to refute this source material? And how will you go about refuting it?

No need. First, you have to explain why it is RELEVANT!

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Are you going to refute this source material? And how will you go about refuting it?

No need. First, you have to explain why it is RELEVANT!

It's relevant for many reasons.
1. Hasselbladusa.com is wrong about the number of cameras brought back from the "moon". Or,
2. Hasselbladusa.com is correct, which logically means NASA is wrong, and,
3. It presents a controversy about the Apollo narratives that you are unwilling to deal with.

Anyway you look at it-- the Apollo Defenders are in a tough spot with regard to the disposition of these cameras.

Also, it's relevant because,
4. Apollo Defenders use NASA images made from negatives shot from these Hasselblad cameras,
5. The negatives are evidence, just like the cameras are evidence, which were used to take the NASA images, and,
6. Missing evidence is evidence of a cover-up.

TL;DR it's relevant to the discussion because it puts the official narrative in jeopardy of being over turned by other evidence, such as the auctions of the cameras or the anecdotal total of "4" HEDC's that could have been brought back from the "moon" with or without NASA's permission.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

1. Hasselbladusa.com is wrong about the number of cameras brought back from the "moon". Or,

How is advertizing on the web relevant to the materiality of the landings?

2. Hasselbladusa.com is correct, which logically means NASA is wrong, and,

Don't forget, they might both be wrong. No matter what, the exact disposition of the cameras has nothing to do with whether they were taken to the Moon or not.

3. It presents a controversy about the Apollo narratives that you are unwilling to deal with.

I have been dealing with it! You are the one who refuses to explain why it matters.

Anyway you look at it-- the Apollo Defenders are in a tough spot with regard to the disposition of these cameras.

No, it means that you now have the opportunity to prove once and for all the you are right, and you refuse to do it.

Also, it's relevant because,
4. Apollo Defenders use NASA images made from negatives shot from these Hasselblad cameras,

What kind of camera was used to take the photograph of Nixon in your avatar?

5. The negatives are evidence, just like the cameras are evidence, which were used to take the NASA images, and,

The negatives are in storage. There is probably a procedure that you could follow to gain access to them. Yes, the actual negatives, riseau marks and all.

6. Missing evidence is evidence of a cover-up.

There is no missing evidence, hence no evidence of a cover up.

Give it a rest, Sayanara. Your recent actions have demonstrated that you do not actually believe that the landings were hoaxed or at least that you know that the cameras are irrelevant. If you really believed anything you have been saying for the past few days you would have moved heaven and Earth to get your hands on those cameras. All you have done is make lame excuses. Everyone can see through you now. The game is up.

Here is a Hasselblad collector website. What does it say about NASA's Hasselblad cameras?

Being a collector of Hasselblad cameras for years, I naturally became interested in Hasselblad cameras used by NASA for the Conquest of the Moon. During my initial search, I quickly noticed that documentation related to these cameras was scarce and mostly incomplete.

So I started to collect cameras, lenses, photographs, instruction leaflets and all the data I could gather about Hasselblad and NASA. Source www.clubhasselblad.com...

"I quickly noticed that documentation related to these cameras was scarce and mostly incomplete."

This collector guy agrees with what I have been saying all along in this thread.

I can sense that the Apollo Defenders are in a state of shock about this critical meltdown of one of their favorite pillars of Apollo mythology... the sanctity of the Apollo images. The Hasselbald cameras controversy at present gives all of us a good opportunity to re-evaluate the common historical narratives and maybe to acknowledge some of the myths that might have been built up, over time.

Or am I all alone here?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Yes, you are all alone in this false rewrite of the "Hasselbald cameras controversy", because there really isn't any controversy.

There were cameras that flew with the astronauts to the Moon. SOP dictated that those cameras be left on the Moon's surface for various reasons, one being to minimize weight/mass on the accent module. Some of the astronauts decided it was worth the chance to bring some home.

onebigmonkey said it quite well:

You're arguing that it was a cover story and the fact that cameras were in fact returned is suspicious.

I'm arguing (and anyone who understands human nature is arguing) that they were supposed to leave the cameras (and any other items no longer needed) on the lunar surface, because they had in their possession a whole bunch of other stuff to bring back. Their official instructions were to leave the cameras behind.

As it happens, some astronauts appear to have made a judgement call and keep some souvenirs. As someone who has ventured outside his basement and met real people I don't find this in the least bit surprising.

So, it is not surprising that an astronaut might return from the Moon with a camera when they were supposed to leave it on the surface. You know the ole "this is a nice camera, and since NASA is just disposing of this, I think I will keep it for a souvenir". People keep all kinds of things as souvenirs from places they have visited. What is so controversial about that? It still doesn't change the historical FACT that 12 men from the USA have walked on the surface of the Moon.

post by SayonaraJupiter
I can sense that the Apollo Defenders are in a state of shock about this critical meltdown of one of their favorite pillars of Apollo mythology... the sanctity of the Apollo images. The Hasselbald cameras controversy at present gives all of us a good opportunity to re-evaluate the common historical narratives and maybe to acknowledge some of the myths that might have been built up, over time.

There is no Critical meltdown. It would be the same as if someone said, "Joe never worked for ABC construction company on that new building because he brought home some of the tools that were supposed to be left at the job site." Whether the astronauts did or didn't leave the cameras on the Moon is a moot point. It does not negate that man walked on the Moon.

And to" re-evaluate the historical narrative" is a common practice in many scientific fields. Look how often the evolutionary narrative has changed to accommodate new data. Does that mean dinosaurs never existed? So your argument has no merit. It is moot. It has no weight.

So to summarize:

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Really I have posted this more than once as YOU have no doubt seen!!!!!!

Hasselblad in Space

Plenty of info to find if YOU don't have preset agenda on the subject.

Hasselblad is not an authoritative source for the disposition of the cameras, any more than Volkswagon is an authoritative source for finding out what happened to the car they sold me.

wmd_2008
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Really I have posted this more than once as YOU have no doubt seen!!!!!!

Hasselblad in Space

Plenty of info to find if YOU don't have preset agenda on the subject.

How many Hasselblads were dumped on the moon? 12? 13? 8? From your source:

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.

Did you notice that they spelled out 'thirteen' so it's not a typo? It means Hasselbladusa.com said there are '12' but hasselblad.co.uk says there were '13'. What else do your Hasselblad "authority" have to say?

The demands that were originally made by NASA upon its astronauts are now part of modern mythology.

"..now a part of modern mythology."

"..modern mythology."

Saint Exupery
Hasselblad is not an authoritative source for the disposition of the cameras, any more than Volkswagon is an authoritative source for finding out what happened to the car they sold me.

This is wonderful.

Saint Exupery is saying WMD_2008's source at hasslblad.co.uk is 'not an authoritative source for the disposition of the cameras,".

Saint Exupery, do you know something that we do not know? Please share it!