Apollo 12 Faked Photographs

[Duane Daman]

Sheesh, I dont care about the video or the "temp" in space because the discussion you started was about the A12 photos. Your sorry atempt to move the discussion in another direction has been duly noted. I did not outfox you Duane. I simply presented evidence that showed your "belief" was wrong. If you want to move thedisscussion along why not close out one segment first, like the topic of this thread...that YOU started.

And that would be more Craig speak for " I can't answer any question that isn't about photography, as that's where I can play my game the best ... and for sure wouldn't want to attempt to answer any questions which might make it obvious that the Apollo astronots can't get their stories straight about what it's like to be in the vacuum of space. "

Why do I have this nagging feeling you are going to embarass yourself on this topic as well......

The only thing that I would be embarrassed about at this point would be continuing to reply to you ... Your hateful insults to everyone you target on this forum makes my skin crawl.... Too bad nobody has the ability or the courage to stop you ... You should have been put on permanent moderation a long time ago for your insulting comments .

Sorry, but I haven't seen any proof that the almost invisible little bump in Bean's visor reflection is the LM ... When the visor reflection photo is enlarged, the LM should be there instead of becoming even more invisible.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

As I learned more than 60 years ago in high school physics...

the VACUUM OF SPACE HAS NO TEMPERATURE.

The values we call hot and cold must have molecules activated

to become heated or cooled. By definition a vacuum is void of

all matter. There are no particles whose energy can be measured.

Only objects within a vacuum can have a temperature.

Therefore on the moon, the surface would be very hot, activated

by sunrays; rocks would be hot. But anything in the shade would

be cold, except for conducted heat from contiguous matter. The

dark side of the moon would be extremely cold.

The LEM, LRV and the spacesuits would be extremely hot with

no atmosphere to filter the suns rays. A metal tool would become

too hot to handle.

Jack

I quite agree. That's why they wore gloves. (As well as to protect them from the vacuum of space of course.)

The LEM had plenty of thermal protection.

Spacesuits had a cooling system built-in to stop astronauts from overheating.

Incidentally, it's not stricly true to say the vacuum of space has zero temperature, although the point is a subtle one. The temperature of space is actually around 3 K, believed to be caused by microwave energy left over after the Big Bang.

By definition, a vacuum is void of all molecular matter. Energy must activate

molecules to produce measurable temperature. No molecules, no temperature.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

By definition, a vacuum is void of all molecular matter. Energy must activate

molecules to produce measurable temperature. No molecules, no temperature.

Jack

Jack

You're quite right, the vacuum itself doesn't have a temperature. The 3 K I referred to is the minimum temperature an object in the vacuum of deep space could be cooled down to. I've noticed I've been getting a little sloppy with one or two of my statements recently, I put it down to rapidly approaching the big "40". Curse you, age and failing memory organ.

"If we put a thermometer in darkest space, with absolutely nothing around, it would first have to cool off. This might take a very very long time. Once it cooled off, it would read 2.7 Kelvin. This is because of the "3 degree microwave background radiation." No matter where you go, you cannot escape it -- it is always there."

Source

"The coldest temperature that anything can realistically reach is 3 K. This is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Because the CMB permeates all of space, and can penetrate even dense gas clouds, essentially everything is exposed to it. So, if no other heat sources are present, gas will come into equilibrium with the CMB."

Source

"...if you put a physical object into space, it will reach a temperature that depends on how efficiently it absorbs and emits radiation and on what heating sources are nearby. For example, an object that both absorbs and emits perfectly, put at the Earth's distance from the Sun, will reach a temperature of about 280 K or 7 C. If it is shielded from the Sun but exposed to interplanetary and interstellar radiation, it reaches about 5 K. If it were far from all stars and galaxies, it would come into equilibrium with the microwave background at about 2.7 K."

Source

Edited February 12, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Jack White]

By definition, a vacuum is void of all molecular matter. Energy must activate

molecules to produce measurable temperature. No molecules, no temperature.

Jack

Jack

You're quite right, the vacuum itself doesn't have a temperature. The 3 K I referred to is the minimum temperature an object in the vacuum of deep space could be cooled down to. I've noticed I've been getting a little sloppy with one or two of my statements recently, I put it down to rapidly approaching the big "40". Curse you, age and failing memory organ.

"If we put a thermometer in darkest space, with absolutely nothing around, it would first have to cool off. This might take a very very long time. Once it cooled off, it would read 2.7 Kelvin. This is because of the "3 degree microwave background radiation." No matter where you go, you cannot escape it -- it is always there."

Source

"The coldest temperature that anything can realistically reach is 3 K. This is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). Because the CMB permeates all of space, and can penetrate even dense gas clouds, essentially everything is exposed to it. So, if no other heat sources are present, gas will come into equilibrium with the CMB."

Source

"...if you put a physical object into space, it will reach a temperature that depends on how efficiently it absorbs and emits radiation and on what heating sources are nearby. For example, an object that both absorbs and emits perfectly, put at the Earth's distance from the Sun, will reach a temperature of about 280 K or 7 C. If it is shielded from the Sun but exposed to interplanetary and interstellar radiation, it reaches about 5 K. If it were far from all stars and galaxies, it would come into equilibrium with the microwave background at about 2.7 K."

Source

I do not disagree with your new detailed explanation. However, IT IS THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT

WHICH REACHES THE INDICATED TEMPERATURES, NOT THE SPACE VACUUM ITSELF. I am no expert

but I would assume that there are MANY sources of energy in outer space besides the sun; I do not

doubt that your CMB radiation is one of them.

The fact you quote that any object in space would "reach a temperature of about 280K" from sunlight

alone indicates the impossibility of Apollo photography. Do you know what happens to film at 280K?

Jack

[Dave Greer]

I do not disagree with your new detailed explanation. However, IT IS THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT WHICH REACHES THE INDICATED TEMPERATURES, NOT THE SPACE VACUUM ITSELF. I am no expert

but I would assume that there are MANY sources of energy in outer space besides the sun; I do not

doubt that your CMB radiation is one of them.

Extry, extry! Read all about it! Dave Greer and Jack White agree on space related topic! Extry!

The fact you quote that any object in space would "reach a temperature of about 280K" from sunlight

alone indicates the impossibility of Apollo photography. Do you know what happens to film at 280K?

Jack

Check the units, 280K equals about 7 degrees Celsius (K = Kelvin).

I assume the point you were making though, is that the film on the moon would be heated to such a temperature that it would melt. I would disagree, since the film itself it contained inside a film canister, which is housed inside the camera: the film itself isn't exposed to direct sunlight. The only method of heating of the film would be conduction from the outer casing, to the spindles on the inside, and then on to the film.

[Matthew Lewis]

Do you know what happens to film at 280K?

I would say not much since it is equal to 7 C or about 44 F.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

...since the film itself it contained inside a film canister, which is housed inside the camera: the film itself isn't exposed to direct sunlight. The only method of heating of the film would be conduction from the outer casing, to the spindles on the inside, and then on to the film.

All of which take time. And since the cameras weren't just sitting immobile in direct sunlight but rathermoved around and moving frequently from sun to shade and back again, it would take even longer.

[Duane Daman]

I assume the point you were making though, is that the film on the moon would be heated to such a temperature that it would melt. I would disagree, since the film itself it contained inside a film canister, which is housed inside the camera: the film itself isn't exposed to direct sunlight. The only method of heating of the film would be conduction from the outer casing, to the spindles on the inside, and then on to the film.

What about the times the astronots were caught on video tape changing the film magazine out on the "lunar " surface? ... There was no film canister or camera casing protecting the film then and it was exposed to direct sunlight .

Edited February 12, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Nonsense. I once put a darkroom thermometer on my car dashboard for

a few minutes. It immediately went to 140F degrees, the maximum. Why

would the inside of a camera be different than inside a car?

Do you know why unexposed film is kept in a freezer by professional

photographers until ready for use? Because heat ruins film emulsion.

Ask Mr. Light to explain. Ask him if he puts his film in his car trunk

on the way to a photoshoot. Ask him to load a camera with color or

bw film and put the camera in a car in the summertime and after

about an hour, shoot some photo and report the result.

When I was young and did not know any better, I put a 35mm camera

in the glove box of my car while I stopped for lunch. I later discovered

that the heat had separated one of the lens elements, and when the

color film was developed it all had a greenish washed out appearance.

Heat + film emulsion = bad exposures.

Jack

[Dave Greer]

I assume the point you were making though, is that the film on the moon would be heated to such a temperature that it would melt. I would disagree, since the film itself it contained inside a film canister, which is housed inside the camera: the film itself isn't exposed to direct sunlight. The only method of heating of the film would be conduction from the outer casing, to the spindles on the inside, and then on to the film.

What about the times the astronots were caught on video tape changing the film magazine out on the "lunar " surface? ... There was no film canister or camera casing protecting the film then and it was exposed to direct sunlight .

First time I've heard of this. Source? Video?

EDIT

The film was stored in easy to load magazines that could be quickly changed while on on the surface. It makes no sense to say the film was exposed to direct sunlight, it would have been rendered useless by the light never mind the heat. Could you specify exactly what you mean?

Edited February 12, 2008 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

Nonsense. I once put a darkroom thermometer on my car dashboard for

a few minutes. It immediately went to 140F degrees, the maximum. Why

would the inside of a camera be different than inside a car?

Do you know why unexposed film is kept in a freezer by professional

photographers until ready for use? Because heat ruins film emulsion.

Ask Mr. Light to explain. Ask him if he puts his film in his car trunk

on the way to a photoshoot. Ask him to load a camera with color or

bw film and put the camera in a car in the summertime and after

about an hour, shoot some photo and report the result.

When I was young and did not know any better, I put a 35mm camera

in the glove box of my car while I stopped for lunch. I later discovered

that the heat had separated one of the lens elements, and when the

color film was developed it all had a greenish washed out appearance.

Heat + film emulsion = bad exposures.

Jack

I've no reason at all to doubt what you say. Difference is, on the moon there is no atmosphere to convect heat. Given that the film is protected against heat transfer by radiation by its protective cartridge, the only remaining mechanism for heat transfer to the film is conduction.

[Craig Lamson]

Nonsense. I once put a darkroom thermometer on my car dashboard for

a few minutes. It immediately went to 140F degrees, the maximum. Why

would the inside of a camera be different than inside a car?

Do you know why unexposed film is kept in a freezer by professional

photographers until ready for use? Because heat ruins film emulsion.

Ask Mr. Light to explain. Ask him if he puts his film in his car trunk

on the way to a photoshoot. Ask him to load a camera with color or

bw film and put the camera in a car in the summertime and after

about an hour, shoot some photo and report the result.

When I was young and did not know any better, I put a 35mm camera

in the glove box of my car while I stopped for lunch. I later discovered

that the heat had separated one of the lens elements, and when the

color film was developed it all had a greenish washed out appearance.

Heat + film emulsion = bad exposures.

Jack

The biggest reason to cool film is to keep the color from shifting. In a professional application when you purchase film by the case and do detailed color tests for that batch of film, keeping it cool prevents even tiny color shifts

That said its not uncommon to use a BLACK professional camera in the hot, bright sun at 100 degrees for hours on end. Much like the black asphalt, a black camera gets mighty hot. I've done many a boat shoot under these conditions with no ill effects to the film or camera.

Nonsense. I once put a darkroom thermometer on my car dashboard for

a few minutes. It immediately went to 140F degrees, the maximum. Why

would the inside of a camera be different than inside a car?

For a lunar Hasselblad, the lack of an atmoshere.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

The film was stored in easy to load magazines that could be quickly changed while on on the surface. It makes no sense to say the film was exposed to direct sunlight, it would have been rendered useless by the light never mind the heat. Could you specify exactly what you mean?

That's what I was referring to ... The film magazines .

The excuse used by the defenders of Apollo is that the film was not exposed to the intenses heat and radiation on the lunar surface because the camera casing was painted white, and that was what kept the film protected from the heat ... but that excuse clearly doesn't make any sense when the film magazine was removed from the camera while out on the surface in direct sunlight .

Are you now claiming that just the magazine alone could have protected the film under those extreme conditions ?

[Matthew Lewis]

When did the magazines ever come into contact with the lunar surface? And how hot was the surface noting that it takes time to get up to max temp and they landed in lunar morning?

[Duane Daman]

When did the magazines ever come into contact with the lunar surface?

I didn't say that the film magazine came in direct contact with the surface itself, but rather that the astronots were allegedly on the surface while exposing the film magazine to the conditions of bright sunlight , intense heat and lunar radiation.

And how hot was the surface noting that it takes time to get up to max temp and they landed in lunar morning?

Hot enough to render the film either damged or completely useless .