Jump to content
The Education Forum

Apollo 12 Faked Photographs


Duane Daman

Recommended Posts

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.

If the magazine never came into contact with the surface then it was never sujected to the intense heat of the surface, was it?

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 .

Any figures for this? Or are you just going to handwave it? Surely it wouldn't be at its max temperature yet. Not that it matters as you've admitted the film magazines never came in direct contact of the surface anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 ?

You continuing to embarrass yourself is getting painful to watch Duane. A bit of study on the workings of the Hasselblad camera might be in order on your part.

Pay close attemtion to exactly WHAT a film magazine for the lunar Hasselblads is and how it works. Once you havbe done so you will see that this post of yours is so off base its not even funny anymore.

And YES the magazine alone could protect the film. In fact that exact WHAT DID protect the film....not the camera body.

Try again next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not surpised Duane, even the basic of principals seem to be quite beyond you. Enjoy your continuing ignorance of this subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth.

"If NASA film footage was actually taken on the moon, then it would be a tremendous scientific story. One would expect new physics books trumpeting an incredibly new physical reality: atmosphere has nothing to do with diffusing light! Therefore, and forever thereafter, a new scientific principle would be taught in schools: where there is no atmosphere, light will react exactly the same as light in atmosphere. What was wrong in the world of science? Why were the scientists silent about such an important discovery? Why was the major media mute on the subject?

I called Kodak, in Rochester, NY, the company that supplied the film for the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts used on the moon. "At what temperature does film melt?" I asked.

"One hundred and fifty degrees."

But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees.

"The film, in the uncooled cameras would melt," Kodak said. So the duck was quacking."

NASA disinformation .

"But the film was not exposed to the heat of a full lunar day. While the heat of mid-day is around +250 degrees F, the lunar night is about -250 degrees F. The Apollo landings were timed so that they occured within a day or two of local sunrise and the ambient temperatures were quite moderate. Also, the film was in containers that offered some degree of protection, even in direct sunlight."

It just depends on who you want to believe .

I'm not surpised Duane, even the basic of principals seem to be quite beyond you. Enjoy your continuing ignorance of this subject matter.

Craig ... I'm beginning to think that you don't like me . :lol:

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when did they put the cameras down on the lunar surface at high noon?

The cameras and film wouldn't have to be sitting directly on the surface to be exposed to the extreme temperatures that would have melted the film.

"Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective plates were added to the case and film magazine.

An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat is transferred by three methods:

CONDUCTION

Convection

Radiation

The latter two do not work in a vacuum.

But any object in sunlight in a vacuum will become hot by CONDUCTION.

Put a camera in the sun in a vacuum, and all parts of it will become hot

by conduction. Metal is a good conductor of heat.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy, the film was never in full sunshine. The only time the film was exposed to sunshine is the fraction of a second while the shutter was open

I don't know of you are aware of this fact or not Kevin, but the use of the word "easy" at the beginning of a sentence usually implies that the statement is not true, but only an excuse being used in an attempt to explain away something that is not easily explained .... Crimimals often use this tactic after being accused of a crime and are trying to explain away their criminal actions .

Here's more proof that the Apollo photographs could not have been taken in the harsh enviornment of the lunar surface .

(My apologies for not posting the source link for this post or the ones above ... My virus protection server found 18 viruses in my computer and did a full system restore last night ... They have changed the search engine tool bar to one that doesn't show the URL , so at this time I have no way to copy it ... As soon as I have this problem corrected, I will add the source links to my posts.) .. I have included the title of the article where this information comes from..

Exposition & Argumentation Paper 2

Exposition & Argumentation 1 · Exposition & Argumentation 3

Did NASA Really Land a Man on the Moon?

Authors: Christopher Paul, Emily Phillips, Chris Bennett, and Steve Ross

Last Update March 23, 2004

"A debate still rages about what type of film was used in these cameras. NASA claims that the high quality images were possible due to the fact that the astronauts used a "top secret" XRC film developed by Kodak. However Kodak stated in 1969, and again in 1997, that the film used by the astronauts was actually ordinary, high speed 160ASA Ektachrome film - nothing "top secret" or hi-tech ( http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm).

While NASA has tried hard to argue the use of "top secret" film, they have yet to truly justify how the cameras were able to perform under the harsh conditions of space. Factors of light exposure, intense cold, and solar radiation were never truly discussed by NASA until skeptics began to question the authenticity of the photos - especially considering the big difference between the live camera images and the still shots. The photos take by the still cameras represented vivid and astonishing images, far more beautiful than the grainy black and white images sent by television camera. Why, if the technology existed, did NASA not use similar "top secret" equipment to make the live camera feeds appear vivid and astonishing?

Some critics believe that NASA, embarrassed by the low quality photos and live video produced, wanted to re-create images of higher quality to leave a greater lasting impression on the American public - to further implicate a greater pride grounded in our achievement. NASA wasn't necessarily trying to trick us, but rather increase the American standard - to bring gratification to a society that felt lost within the political confines of the Viet Nam War. Maybe NASA believed that beautiful pictures would execute greater satisfaction and patriotism in America and allow them briefly to forget the harrowing deaths of many fellow citizens in Viet Nam. Or maybe it was to get the American public on NASA's good side to ensure continued federal funding for other space flight projects. This would be hard to justify in the American psyche if all NASA had to show for its efforts was a bunch of grainy photographs and a handful of rocks, regardless of where they came from.

Unfortunately, photographic technology was not at its height and the original photos were disappointing at best. In order to accomplish their patriotic goal and ensure their continued survival, these lunar pictures needed resuscitation - with the only source of life being that of an Earth-based studio. "

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?"

There's another thing to factor in, as well as the fact that the film was protected by the magazine itself. Moving into shadow doesn't mean that everything suddenly cools down to -180F (or whatever the ambient surface temperature is). All that happens is that the film magazine is no longer being heated directly by sunlight. It would gradually start to cool down by radiating heat away. The effect on the actual film inside the cartridge would be even less marked, since it is only heated by conduction from the body of the cartridge itself, along the internal spindles etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat is transferred by three methods:

CONDUCTION

Convection

Radiation

The latter two do not work in a vacuum.

But any object in sunlight in a vacuum will become hot by CONDUCTION.

Radiation is the only mechanism for heat transfer between two separate bodies that are in a vacuum. How else do you explain the Sun heating the Earth? An object in sunlight in a vacuum becomes hot by radiation, not conduction. If that object is connected to another object that is in shadow, then the second object is heated by conduction.

Put a camera in the sun in a vacuum, and all parts of it will become hot

by conduction. Metal is a good conductor of heat.

Jack

No, it will become hot by radiation. Heat will be conducted onto anything in contact with the metal body. How hot the body becomes, and how quickly, depends on various factors such as what colour it is, what material it's made of, how much IR radiation it is exposed to etc.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C004/018.html

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photos take by the still cameras represented vivid and astonishing images, far more beautiful than the grainy black and white images sent by television camera. Why, if the technology existed, did NASA not use similar "top secret" equipment to make the live camera feeds appear vivid and astonishing?

I find this argument ludicrous. It's an apples and oranges comparison. It's like saying "Why isn't the image from the 640x480 pixel webcam on my cheap laptop as sharp as the pictures I can take with my Canon EOS 1-D with a 10.1 MB sensor?"

Is that actually an argument you believe? Or is it just something you copied and pasted from an article without properly reading it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is more from the same article quoted above about how NASA faked the Apollo photography.

"The Apollo Missions: A National Conspiracy or Campaign for Public Pride?

Arguably, one of the greatest achievements in American history was the 1969 Apollo mission, which successfully put the first man on the moon. Reflected both in reports and visual media, the lunar landing was a groundbreaking event that promoted America's superior technological capability and sealed the word of the Presidential Administration. The mission meant more than just exploring foreign and uncharted territory; it also included the instillation of American pride and scientific innovations. Additionally, it provided a more positive backdrop for the current times, allowing citizens to divert attention from the atrocities of war and international unrest. Apollo 11 was a mission that subtly suggested triumph as the great superpower of the world. NASA captured features of this incredible accomplishment through an array of still photographs and live video feeds; images that continue to spark cheerful nostalgia or presence of pride for a nation was important to NASA, maybe more so than the experiments and analyses performed on the moon. With people's personal stake in the lunar landing, NASA needed to produce results.

But the Apollo missions are drenched in controversy. NASA needed to produce results, and the greatest proof of these results would lie in the photographic evidence depicted in the live feed television footage was a weak and not something America could attest to as a cause for satisfaction in a job well done. The black and white images sent to televisions all over the world were grainy, blurry and often caused the bright white objects to appear seemingly transparent in the path of the sun's light. The live feed couldn't be corrected but the still photographs could undoubtedly be altered or cleaned up before being released to the public. At the time of the Apollo lunar mission, camera technology was not at its peak and was limited in its production quality based on the existence of light conditions. Yes, pictures could be taken on the moon, but the clarity was compromised by an overbearing light source, the sun. For this reason , people started to talk, questioning the superb quality of the photographs, wondering whether or not they had been doctored. Most photographers and producers deal with the challenge of lighting as it affects the subject being submitted to film. However, there are a variety of resources which can be used in correcting dark shadows and unflattering illumination patterns. Studio lights and other false illumination devices can remarkably remedy the problem of poor image quality. As noted earlier, each still photo of the moon looks completely crisp and unblemished, appearing as though the pictures were exposed to advanced processing and finishing techniques.

With the photographs as kindling, many issues are fueling the curiosity of conspiracy theorists. Many argue that with Nixon in office, this cover-up would not be unexpected, but rather endorsed by the Presidential Administration. In retrospect, following the infamous Watergate scandal, it seems America would not put any scheme past this former President.

There is also fuel found in the supposed "whistle-blowers" that exposed the conspiracy years later. During a conference in Hawaii, in September of 1999, journalist Graham Birdsall spoke with Dr. Brian O'Leary, a former NASA astronaut. O'Leary who worked with Armstrong and Aldrin during the 60's, specifically in 1967 and 1968, says of the Apollo photographs, "If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment" ( http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm). This is a pretty bold statement coming from an insider; this statement suggests that the Apollo mission photographs may have been altered, however, not in an attempt to lie but to save face.

When foul play or doctoring is brought up, NASA denies any alteration of the photos. The believers make the claim that it is just standard operating procedure to clean up photographs before they are released to the press and any evidence pointing to a conspiracy are just "anomalies" and "inconsistencies."

"We don't have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs."

- NASA spokesman

( http://www.aulis.com/nasa3.htm)

Yes, the truth "is" in the photographs, and there is enough photographic evidence of "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" to legitimize the argument that NASA is guilty of doctoring or re-creating Apollo photographs. While, individually, these "anomalies" may appear coincidental, as a whole they may point to something larger.

The problem is not in the intent behind the changes, but rather the attempts to cover up the changes. Certainly, to construct and support a mission that never actually happened would be taking a very big risk. But it is clear that the environment of the times, with the political and economic instability coming from many different angles, there were justifiable motives for NASA's actions. Certainly America would prefer images that were amazing and beautiful, images that represent the strength and perseverance of our nation, however, the underhanded way in which NASA made the modifications creates the concept of deceit and shifty motivations that have become so prevalent in organizations today.

Why has NASA been so defensive when the question of photo doctoring is brought up? Why are there so may different "anomalies?" and why can these anomalies be so easily explained when doctoring or studio re-creation is argued?

During the time of Apollo, America did not need the idea of a lunar conspiracy added to the current issues going on, so they were willing and eager to believe the truth as it was told to them. But thirty years later, in a different time and social climate, the pictures can be examined with more objectivity then one starts to wonder, are those photos real and did we really land a man on the moon?"

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this argument ludicrous. It's an apples and oranges comparison. It's like saying "Why isn't the image from the 640x480 pixel webcam on my cheap laptop as sharp as the pictures I can take with my Canon EOS 1-D with a 10.1 MB sensor?"

No, it's your twist on it the meaning of it that would be ludricrous.

Is that actually an argument you believe? Or is it just something you copied and pasted from an article without properly reading it?

It's an argument I believe and "properly" read also ... If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy, the film was never in full sunshine. The only time the film was exposed to sunshine is the fraction of a second while the shutter was open

I don't know of you are aware of this fact or not Kevin, but the use of the word "easy" at the beginning of a sentence usually implies that the statement is not true, but only an excuse being used in an attempt to explain away something that is not easily explained .... Crimimals often use this tactic after being accused of a crime and are trying to explain away their criminal actions .

Well then let me be more verbose. You said the temperature in full sunshine was >200F and asked how the film could survive that. I answered that the film was never in full sunshine, so it didn't have to survive that. My use of the word 'easy' was because the question was incredibly easy to answer.

The temperature of the moon is irrelevant, since the film NEVER came into contact with the moon. It was heated through conduction from the film magazine, which was only heated through radiative heating, which is controled by choice of materials and color. Why do you think white is such a popular color for spacecraft & suits? In terms of environmental temperature, the conditions were no different than they were for any camera taken into orbit. Are you disputing all film-based orbital photography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...