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 Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.
Adjacent frame pairs were simultaneously exposed, through 500 mm and 200 mm objective lenses, onto 35 mm aerial-reconnaissance film (obtained from American spy balloons, according to one Russian account). The system cycled through four exposure times, 1/200 to 1/800 sec, as it photographed the Moon.
After photography, the film was automatically developed, fixed and dried in chambers of chemicals, and then scanned by a flying spot CRT and a photomultiplier tube...
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.
Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.
All I asked for was a comment. To educate myself. Can you not ask a simple question like this on ATS? Here is what I asked...
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.
What's the problem with asking a question like that?
Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.
Then the apollo film travelled back through the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts to finally arrive on earth. The Imax film didn't.
And how did the final apollo pictures look after that enormous journey ?
Answer: Better than most taken on earth.
So what technology did they have in 1969 that the producers of Space Station 3D in 2002 lacked ?
Also I should add, the alleged apollo astronauts used 70mm film, the same dimensions as IMAX is shot on.
Because of limitations on the amount of film - each pound in weight costs millions of dollars to blast into space - the astronauts were limited to shooting less than two minutes of film at a time.
Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.
Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.
Well I imagine that poster speaks for more people than yourself at the moment FoosM. Most of your current supporters mostly just post useless one liners at best.
I'd prefer if you didn't join them and actually added to the debate and closed off this radiation issue.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by FoosM
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.
Well I imagine that poster speaks for more people than yourself at the moment FoosM. Most of your current supporters mostly just post useless one liners at best.
I'd prefer if you didn't join them and actually added to the debate and closed off this radiation issue.
Oh so now you are in charge of determining which posts are good and which are not?
Since you want to butt into this conversation, why don't you take a position on the SPE question I have asked awhile ago? Because at this point, your post is useless at best.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by FoosM
Stop trying to avoid punishment, Foo. You've been cornered on the radiation issue. You have been shown to be wrong and ignorant of basic facts on several occasions. Now you're just desperate and it shows. There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong.
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.
Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.
All I asked for was a comment. To educate myself. Can you not ask a simple question like this on ATS? Here is what I asked...
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, can you comment on Eleanor Blakely's statement from Jarrah's video that aluminium shielding would cause particles to fragment, and rather than shielding it would exacerbate the problem.
What's the problem with asking a question like that?
Regardless, here is another point I find very interesting.
Toni Myers, producer and director of 'Space Station 3D' had this to say about radiation affecting the film they took in low earth orbit.
"We had to get the film up to the station, throw it across from the shuttle, shoot it, throw it back to the shuttle, and take it back, all on the same flight to the space station, or it would have been ruined,"
The full article is here
www.telegraph.co.uk...
So how did the Apollo missions avoid this film fogging problem 40 years ago, when producers in 2002 ran into these very issues?
Now, we have to consider that Apollo film went through the extremely intense radiation of the Van Allen belts on it's way to the moon. The Imax film didn't.
Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.
Then the apollo film travelled back through the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts to finally arrive on earth. The Imax film didn't.
And how did the final apollo pictures look after that enormous journey ?
Answer: Better than most taken on earth.
So what technology did they have in 1969 that the producers of Space Station 3D in 2002 lacked ?
Also I should add, the alleged apollo astronauts used 70mm film, the same dimensions as IMAX is shot on.
Jarrah White (who this thread is about) also has a video about this issue here.
Space station section starts at about 5 min, but it's worth watching from the beginning.
[edit on 7-9-2010 by ppk55]
A lead-lined bag was tested to determine its effectiveness in shielding spaceflight film against the radiation
The shielding bag used in DSO 318 was a lead-vinyl-lined Kevlar bag designed to hold one film sample canister. Both a protected and an unprotected sample were placed in the "Return to Houston Bag" at the start of the experiment. The differences noted between the protected and unprotected sample were used to determine the usefulness of the shielding bag. The bag afforded very little protection from the penetrating space radiation.
Of the types of radiation encountered during Shuttle missions, low LET or soft radiation is the most damaging to photographic films. Low LET types of radiation, such as electrons, x-rays, and gamma rays, are more efficient in transferring energy (in the form of photons) to the grains in photographic emulsions. Soft radiation may be described as the least massive particle form of radiation. X-rays and slow-moving ionizing particles ionize during collision and/or interaction with all matter including air. High LET or hard radiation is more penetrating than softer radiation due to the mass and velocities of the particles themselves.
Apollo 17 CSM pilot Ron Evans performs a deep space EVA (en route to Earth) to retrieve film cartridges. 17 December 1972.
Protons, alpha particles (helium ions), heavy ions (heavy Z), and interation products of fast neutrons are examples of hard radiation. This type of radiation is more difficult to shield against. Once they are slowed these particles release energy in incident mediums such as shielding, human tissue, bone, and photographic film. Secondary forms of radiation (daughter radiation) often result from this interaction and can be even more damaging to film than the primary radiation (parent radiation). Ionizing particles are the most abundant source of radiation during Shuttle missions and are the principal cause of photographic damage
This is the video of the very last moments of Neil Armstrong's EVA. Buzz Aldrin is in the lander with cable taking in the lunar sample boxes. The camera magazine "S" had fallen off and is near the foot pad. Armstrong leans down and retrieves it. It is coated with moon dust and it is packed in a lunar lock box for transport.
Space radiation is very penetrating and difficult to shield against... The ideal would be to shield for all energized particles, but that is not a reasonable solution. However, the damage to the photographic materials can be minimized by simply shielding out a large enough percentage of incident particles.
For most films, the bag afforded no protection. The bag was designed to shield against softer and less penetrating x-rays. However, the film was exposed to high energy particles which passed through the bag quite easily.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
Seems like someone else has access to your ATS password, again....style and tone have returend in FULL force.
Of course, no one could possibly be THAT desperate, to make such an embarrassing post....guessing it is only the anonymity of the Internet which has "embiggened" you?? Since, being so anonymous, there really is no "Piper to Pay", no actual embarrassment and ridicule to face....
....unless you count the collective opinions of everyone who bothers to pay attention to the nonsense, ditractions, and just downright WRONG assertions, each and every time.
Apparently, you may have missed THIS vital bit of knowledge, history, and information......
You really should take time to read through it, very carefully and fully, for complete comprehension.
It would be a welcome change......
Originally posted by ppk55
Hello, I think this is quite rude.
Originally posted by Phage
ppk55 has once again demonstrated his ignorance about the nature of radiation and its different characteristics.
Originally posted by ppk55
So how did the Apollo missions avoid this film fogging problem 40 years ago, when producers in 2002 ran into these very issues?
Now, we have to consider that Apollo film went through the extremely intense radiation of the Van Allen belts on it's way to the moon. The Imax film didn't.
Then it was exposed to the full radiation of space as the earth's magnetic shield was no longer offering any protection. The Imax film wasn't.
"We had to get the film up to the station, throw it across from the shuttle, shoot it, throw it back to the shuttle, and take it back, all on the same flight to the space station, or it would have been ruined," said Myers.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Originally posted by FoosM
I appreciate the wonderful self-serving things man has accomplished in his short existence on this planet... but there is one thing man has not been able to accomplish, world peace and landing a man on the moon and bringing him back home safely.
For those who do not believe we landed man on the moon, I want to know, do you think a major SPE occurred during the dates of any Apollo missions?
Its an important discussion to et into, because radiation is the show-stopper. Whether or not your follow J.W., Ralph R, or whoever.
We all know, even people who believe in Apollo, that going to Mars is impossible because of the radiation obstacle. So if we end up landing people on Mars in 8 years time, who here will believe it?
And so it goes with Apollo. Landing man on the moon (and returning him home safe) was impossible back in 1961, it will be near impossible in 2011 or 2019.
So making small mistakes here and there is no bother for me, cause I know I'm right about the hoax and many aspects of the hoax,
I and others are just piling on the evidence.
"...we're talking about increased cancer rates as being the show stopper, not ear piercing screams as some poor guy melts in his spacesuit. "
Originally posted by AgentSmith
[
For those who do not believe we landed man on the moon, I want to know, do you think a major SPE occurred during the dates of any Apollo missions?
As we keep saying, that depends on what you define a 'major' SPE to be. As you have been asked on numerous occasions please give your own specification of a 'major' SPE. Preferably with some useful data such as energy and flux of the particles involved with links to the data sources.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by zvezdar
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by zvezdar
reply to post by FoosM
Where's your SPE data?
We're waiting
And Im waiting for people to state whether or not a major SPE occurred during an Apollo mission. What do you say?
Yes or No?
My position has been made clear, as has that of others on this thread. There was no major SPE during an Apollo mission.
I've asked repeatedly in this thread for you to post up data if you believe otherwise. So post it. Stop beating around the bush.
And when i say data, i do mean data. Measurements. Numbers. Not words. I am more than happy to be wrong if you can actually provide data that demonstrates it, something you have not done a single time in this thread.
[edit on 7-9-2010 by zvezdar]
So you speak for everyone on this forum?
I had no idea.
Originally posted by FoosM
LOL, I'm surprised any you guys haven't found it yet.
Or maybe a couple of you have and are preparing a response to spin the evidence.
"...they dont mean the 'major' you are talking about, they mean 'major' as in 'general' ummm... army..."
LOL