Len Colby Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) Len ... Both Dr. Neville Jones ( who so far no one has even pretended to debunk ) and Dr. Nathan Jones have offered all the evidence you should need to prove that Apollo was a hoax .Why should I continue to defend their claims when I already stated that I agree with their analysis of the Apollo evidence ? That’s a rather odd question, we presume that when people post other people claims they agree with them. A good reason for offering evidence to back them up is that nobody but you and Jack seem to be buying his bill of goods. Why should you offer evidence to back you claims? What silly question! Please provide us with the exact Lundberg quote and a link to a credible source. Would you like to pretend to debunk them , or don't you know how to do anything but xxxxx ?Don’t you have anything to offer but insults and repeating the claims of others? I think Craig, Dave, Evan and Kevin are doing a good job and are more knowledgeable than I am, there’s not much I could add. Odd that you equate asking someone to back their claims with trolling.As far as their credentials go ... Dave already posted another article from Dr. Nathan Jones that he was stupid enough to disagree with .... And if either one of the Jones' were as non-existant and as bogus as the disinformation agent Charles T. Hawkins , I have no doubt that I would have heard about it by now ... I never implied they were non-existent, where did you get that from? If he really were a physicist and professional photographer you should easily be able to back that claim. It’s hard to believe someone who believes that the earth is at the center of the universe and doesn’t rotate and doesn’t believe in evolution has a PhD in physics from a credible university. Funny that he never seems to getting around to telling anyone where he got the alphabet soup of degrees after his name from. http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl...amp;btnG=Search As for your claim that he is a professional photographer, he never seems to make such a claim on his site* do you know something about him that he doesn’t know himself?. * http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl...amp;btnG=Search As for your claims that the others are professional photographers, as with Jones providing evidence of such should be easy if true. Do they have studio experience? The only other person besides Jack and Jones I’ve heard of is Percy who is a film and video producer, how extensive is his studio experience? Edited January 30, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) Len ... It's not a question of "buying a bill of goods" from anyone ... It's a question of the fact that no one here can refute either of the Dr. Jones' claims about Apollo being a hoax , so they try to attack him personally instead by questioning his credentials .... It's a tactic known as attacking the messenger because you don't like the message ... and this tactic is an old one, used by those who can't disprove someone's evidence . Jan Lundberg's claims about the Kodak Land film can be found in the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon ?' and also the book 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett ... Both authors travelled to the Hasslebald Company and interviewed Mr. Lundberg in person .... That's how they found out what type of film was used in the Apollo Hassleblad cameras... Regular Kodak Land film . If you bothered to read Dr. Neville Jones' article , I think it's very obvious how extensive his photographic experience is ... He was able to blow his opponent right out the water and prove that the Apollo photography was faked right here on Earth .... That's all the credentials I need to see . Edited January 31, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Len ... It's not a question of "buying a bill of goods" from anyone ... It's a question of the fact that no one here can refute either of the Dr. Jones' claims about Apollo being a hoax , so they try to attack him personally instead by questioning his credentials .... It's a tactic known as attacking the messenger because you don't like the message ... and this tactic is an old one, used by those who can't disprove someone's evidence .Jan Lundberg's claims about the Kodak Land film can be found in the documentary 'Conspiracy Theory: Did we Land on the Moon ?' and also the book 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett ... Both authors travelled to the Hasslebald Company and interviewed Mr. Lundberg in person .... That's how they found out what type of film was used in the Apollo Hassleblad cameras... Regular Kodak Land film . If you bothered to read Dr. Neville Jones' article , I think it's very obvious how extensive his photographic experience is ... He was able to blow his opponent right out the water and prove that the Apollo photography was faked right here on Earth .... That's all the credentials I need to see . Just a quick note before I continue burning your toast. Polaroid made LAND film, named after the inventor Mr. Land. Kodak has never used the term LAND in relation to their film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 lamson .. To be able to burn someone's toast , you would first have to know how to use a toaster.... and so far you have shown no sign of burning anything , much less the toast of Dr. Neville Jones . Here's a web site link that seems to think some Kodak film uses the term "land" in it .. "See Sponsored Links For: Kodak land film, underwater camera , camera batteries , wholesale cameras , camera lens ..." http://search.aol.com/aolcom/search?invoca...k%20land%20film And here's some even more interesting info about the Kodak film that went to the 'moon' , copied from the book 'Dark Moon'. "KODAC KARE AN EASTMAN KODAK BROCHURE FROM THE 1950's Protection from x-rays In hospitials , industrial plants and laboratories, all films , regardless of the type of packing, must be protected from X-rays, radium ,and other radioactive materials. For example ,films stored 25 feet away from 100 miligrams of radium require the protection of 3 1/2inches of lead around the radium . AN EASTMAN KODAC BROCHURE FROM THE 1990's Protect film from x-rays X-rays can fog unprocessed film when the level of radiation is high or when the film receives several low-level doses , because the effects of x-ray exposures are cumulative ." ................................. Yet we are suppossed to believe that the regular Kodak film which was taken to the radioactive moon could be changed while on the lunar surface , without any special protection from the radiation and then take unfogged , perfect studio quality photos without any signs of radiation exposure ..... Right . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) lamson .. To be able to burn someone's toast , you would first have to know how to use a toaster.... and so far you have shown no sign of burning anything , much less the toast of Dr. Neville Jones . Here's a web site link that seems to think some Kodak film uses the term "land" in it .. "See Sponsored Links For: Kodak land film, underwater camera , camera batteries , wholesale cameras , camera lens ..." http://search.aol.com/aolcom/search?invoca...k%20land%20film And here's some even more interesting info about the Kodak film that went to the 'moon' , copied from the book 'Dark Moon'. "KODAC KARE AN EASTMAN KODAK BROCHURE FROM THE 1950's Protection from x-rays In hospitials , industrial plants and laboratories, all films , regardless of the type of packing, must be protected from X-rays, radium ,and other radioactive materials. For example ,films stored 25 feet away from 100 miligrams of radium require the protection of 3 1/2inches of lead around the radium . AN EASTMAN KODAC BROCHURE FROM THE 1990's Protect film from x-rays X-rays can fog unprocessed film when the level of radiation is high or when the film receives several low-level doses , because the effects of x-ray exposures are cumulative ." ................................. Yet we are suppossed to believe that the regular Kodak film which was taken to the radioactive moon could be changed while on the lunar surface , without any special protection from the radiation and then take unfogged , perfect studio quality photos without any signs of radiation exposure ..... Right . Wow...you found an AOL link! ROFLMAO! Ignorance to the max! So how many X-RAY are found on the moon? ROFLMAO! AGAIN! Oh and they didn't "change" film on the moon, they simply changed preloaded magazines, just like you can do with a Hasselblad here on earth. What a morron! You are so burnt Duane.... BTW Duane, do you still believe Neville is correct about a three light setup casts NO shadows? Edited January 31, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I proved you wrong again ...( Kodac land film ) ... The regualar Kodak film was allegedy exposed to lunar surface radiation and all of the important and informed photographers know that radiation would have fogged the Apollo film , and had an adverse effect on the photos taken on the lunar surface .... If you want to pretend that I'm ignorant , then go right ahead ... but I really doubt that you are fooling anyone but yourself ... but when it comes to those with sociopathic personality disorders , I guess that's all that really matters , isn't it ? ... Fooling yourself that you are alway right and everyone else is wrong ... Oh , and that you are more important than you really are ... You definately have that little personality problem also . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 I proved you wrong again ...( Kodac land film ) ... The regualar Kodak film was allegedy exposed to lunar surface radiation and all of the important and informed photographers know that radiation would have fogged the Apollo film , and had an adverse effect on the photos taken on the lunar surface ....If you want to pretend that I'm ignorant , then go right ahead ... but I really doubt that you are fooling anyone but yourself ... but when it comes to those with sociopathic personality disorders , I guess that's all that really matters , isn't it ? ... Fooling yourself that you are alway right and everyone else is wrong ... Oh , and that you are more important than you really are ... You definately have that little personality problem also . No Duane, you found a worthless link that was GENERATED BY YOUR SEARCH WORDS. You are simply unable to understand why you just hosed yourself. WHAT KIND of radiation Duane...and more importantly HOW MUCH? I don't have to "pretend you are ignorant" you show all of us every time you post. Like...look I found a link that says Kodak Land Film...ROFLMAO! SO why not write to Kodak as ask if they ever used the term Kodak Land Film to describe thier products? Lets eee if you really DID prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) lamson ... What is worthless here is your meaningless off topic nonsense about nothing ... You can't refute the Apollo hoax evidence and you can't prove the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , so instead you play psycho games and nit pick things which are not even important .... Who gives a crap what the Kodac film is or isn't called ... The point is , it would have fogged under the radioactive conditions on the moon .... And how would you expect me to know the radiation levels on the moon , when nasa and their astro-actors don't even know the answer to that very important question . This is what scientists DO know today though ... The entire lunar surface is radioactive and not condusive to supporting human beings ... They also know that for humans to ever walk on the moon , they are going to need a boat load of radiation shielding and the kind of spacesuit protection which didn't exist for the Apollo astroNOTS . They also know that nasa doesn't have the technology to land humans on the moon today and most likely won't have it until they make several UNMANNED trips there first .... First, according to a recent nasa article , to crash rockets into the lunar surface ( too funny ) .... Second, to send robots to test the radiation levels on the lunar surface , and then maybe send humans , if the conditions will allow . Yet we are supossed to believe that nasa soft landed six manned missions there with 38 year old conventional technology ... That is so ludicrous it is laughable . Edited January 31, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 You play the HB game very well Duane. You make a claim, then ignore the evidence that disproves that claim. You wait a while, then reintroduce that claim and want people to give you the evidence over again (which you will continue to ignore in your own drug-induced fantasy). Still, so people can judge for themselves, let's go through this again. Films were discussed in this thread. Let's go over it again. The photographic system had the following requirements: 1. Acceleration up to +/- 20G for 3 minutes in any direction. 2. A shock of 30G for 11 milliseconds. 3. Air pressure variation of sea level to less than 10^10 mm/Hg. 4. Temperature range of -186C to +114C. 5. Solar flare radiation of 600 rads. 6. Possibility of 100% RH, including condensation for 5 days in a temperature range 80-160F. The films used were of a special high strength polyester-film base, allowing for thinner film (and thus more shots with a regular magazine). It gave good dimensional stability, and had less of a tendency to give off vapors in low pressure environments. A test section at the beginning of each film magazine was exposed, on Earth, to a series of precisely controlled exposures of an exact quantity of light at a specified colour (known as sensitometric strips). After the missions, these test exposures were analysed and compared to standards to determine any variation in the film's light response. The films used on the surface included SO-168 Ektachrome EF 70mm high speed colour reversal (ASA 160), SO-368 Ektachrome MS 70mm colour reversal (ASA 64), and SO-267 Plus-XX 70mm high speed B&W thin-base film (ASA 278). The cameras had a dull silver finish to help with thermal properties. (Source: PHOTOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES - A survey of NASA developments, Albert J. Derr, 1972, NASA SP-5099) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 (edited) I have a theory that Kodak owns an theme park called Film Land. Here`s my proof LOL http://search.aol.com/aolcom/search?invoca...odak+film+land+ The way you configured your search it would turn up any page that had the words (NOT the phrase) Kodak, land and film anywhere on the page. In addition you link is to an ad and it is in AOL’s interest to provide ad links when ever possible. Go ahead go to the sponsored links and show us where any of them mention “Kodak land film”. That is how you should have formatted your search; I did that on your search engine and got the following message. Your search for ""Kodak land film"" returned no results, no results except for the same sponsored links you search did that lead to pages that don’t have the words Kodak land film together in that sequence. http://search.aol.com/aolcom/search?invoca...ak+land+film%22 A Google search only turns up a link to a British forum called “The Supernatural World” it leads to a posting by someone with the username ‘straydog’, was that you? http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl...amp;btnG=Search The only thing you’ve proven is that you don’t know how to do internet research very well. Edited January 31, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 This is what scientists DO know today though ... The entire lunar surface is radioactive and not condusive to supporting human beings ... They also know that for humans to ever walk on the moon , they are going to need a boat load of radiation shielding and the kind of spacesuit protection which didn't exist for the Apollo astroNOTS .They also know that nasa doesn't have the technology to land humans on the moon today and most likely won't have it until they make several UNMANNED trips there first .... First, according to a recent nasa article , to crash rockets into the lunar surface ( too funny ) .... Second, to send robots to test the radiation levels on the lunar surface , and then maybe send humans , if the conditions will allow . Yet we are supossed to believe that nasa soft landed six manned missions there with 38 year old conventional technology ... That is so ludicrous it is laughable . What's more ludicrous is your continued refusal to acknowledge the difference between the kind of radiation dosage expected on a short lunar mission (2-3 days) and a long term lunar mission (six months). Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Phillips Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's. Dave! I wonder weather these `new techniques` will also analyse the effects of radiation on kodak film after all nasa claims the film they used is impervious to a range of different radiations and a very wide range of temperature variation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Also - new techniques have been developed that enable scientists to test the interaction of various types of ionising radiation on human flesh, as opposed to a blanket figure in rads. I think that is what part of the proposed British lunar trip (Moonraker) will do - use new techniques to analyse lunar radiation more accurately than they could in the 1960's. Dave! I wonder weather these `new techniques` will also analyse the effects of radiation on kodak film after all nasa claims the film they used is impervious to a range of different radiations and a very wide range of temperature variation. Steven Interesting question. I think the point you raise re variations in temperature has been answered several times. I don't know enough about the type, level and duration of ionising radiation exposure to offer much insight. For example, I don't think levels of xrays on the moon are high, and I don't know how the gamma exposure would have affected the film, nor cosmic rays. Until someone produces empirical evidence to show it would have been a problem, I'm not sufficiently motivated to research it. If you are, then feel free to post your findings here for discussion - but it will take more than an unscaled gamma photo of the moon to convince me! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Phillips Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 what I have a problem with Dave is that during all the so called `moon landings`the astronauts were hit several times by high energy particles (re: the flashes in eyes)but the cameras managed to evade being hit even on the more exposed lunar surface where we know high energy interactions take place. Now that I just dont get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 what I have a problem with Dave is that during all the so called `moon landings`the astronauts were hit several times by high energy particles (re: the flashes in eyes)but the cameras managed to evade being hit even on the more exposed lunar surface where we know high energy interactions take place. Now that I just dont get. Another good point. I suspect they were - which may account for a number of exposures I've seen which show star-like objects in the lunar sky (which I think we're all agreed aren't actually stars). Whether this is the right explanation or not I don't know. What effect on the Apollo films a cosmic particle would have - I don't know that either. I don't have any image numbers at hand but can hunt some down if required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now