• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

Jack by the hedge said:
The main argument about that album at my school was when anyone called the Boomtown Rats a punk band, all the cool kids would pile on to scoff at the idea. (I mean, reluctantly, I think they kinda had a point, but the main point was to be a dick about it.)
Click to expand...

I now have an Aria guitar. (From 1982.)

My mum dropped the Hoover down the stairs and broke my Strat. In a teenage manner: 'MUM!'

When I used to live near Guilford, my mother and I used to visit a schoolmate's family on Christmas day, in Gomshall. The Rats's Gerry Cott now lives there. Apparently. Anyway, one reason I have an Aria is 'cos of Gerry's blue one in whatever video it was.

Back in the day, I was into Abba, ELO and Queen; my school year was more into punk.The older years were fans of NWOBHM! (Hah! Decade's later who was right, eh?)

Sadly, I had a head injury in 1989. Head, cricket ball. So, my right side doesn't work too well, any more. Can't feel the strings or hold a plectrum. So, I bought a bass from Argus. Fewer strings, further apart. Good idea, waste of money.

:cool:

PS Listening to Sabbath at the mo. Heaven and Hell. Maybe NWOBHMs were right, after all.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Please give it a moment's thought. If back in the day your holiday snaps were ruined just by going through airport security, think how much more annoying to have taken your Hasselblad to the Moon, attached to your chest so you can't turn the lens to focus on your subject; radiation raining down like crazy, light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves and the whole shebang isn't stored in a pressurised unit throughout the entire 300,000 mile trip: to discover - oh no! - your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Moon snaps are such rubbish that even the film has disintegrated and pitifully so.

You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.

JayUtah will be along soon to confirm said camera had a 'special coating' and was wrapped in foil...
Click to expand...
". . . what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
 
Vixen said:
Please give it a moment's thought.
Click to expand...
Please follow your own advice. And I'll add to it an additional suggestion: please reread for comprehension the responses you have already gotten in this thread.

You should have already learned from those responses that the camera found in Neil Armstrong's effects was not a Hasselblad, that the radiation environment on the moon is not the film frier that Marcus Allen suggests, that the challenges to taking photos on the moon without a viewfinder and while wearing space mittens were both understood and dealt with by NASA at the time, and that non-NASAns, including some posting to this very thread, have replicated the methods they supposedly used to do so.

I'll give you a third suggestion: consider reallocating some of the time you currently spend posting to this thread to actually learning about the Apollo mission and some of the disciplines related to it, from sources other than conspiracy theorists looking to sell you their trashy sensationalist books. It's much cooler and more enriching, and with time you might actually approach being as smart and knowledgeable as you want people to think you are.

Experience does not give me much hope that you will take any of the above advice, but I offer it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves
Click to expand...
How would they control “contrast and glare” with OR without gloves? And what are “light settings”. You mean settings like aperture and shutter speed that COULD be controlled with gloves on (because the cameras were heavily modified to accommodate for things like that)?

Do you imagine that cameras have “contrast” or “glare” settings that can be activated via dials or buttons, or lens rings?

What exactly could do they about contrast and glare with gloves that they couldn’t do without?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Please give it a moment's thought. If back in the day your holiday snaps were ruined just by going through airport security...
Click to expand...
This has literally never happened to me, or anyone else I know. Airport security X-ray machines aren't intense enough to damage unfixed film without numerous exposures.
Vixen said:
...think how much more annoying to have taken your Hasselblad to the Moon...
Click to expand...
You mean with all the X-rays? Wait... What X-rays? Do you need a basic primer on different types of ionizing radiation, and what can be expected in the cislunar environment? And the engineers who planned the missions were, believe it or not, much smarter than you regarding photography in the space environment. The film magazines were adequately shielded, even when they were on the lunar surface.
Vixen said:
...attached to your chest so you can't turn the lens to focus on your subject...
Click to expand...
They didn't need to focus the lens. The lenses they were using were almost always set to ∞. As long as the subject wasn't within two or three feet it would be in focus. Ever used a disposable film camera? Same idea. Ever had to stop and focus it? Ever been physically able to adjust the focus on one? And, believe it or not, some camera/lens systems can't be focused by eye. Sometimes photographers with use the distance settings on the focus ring, usually in meters, to adjust focus for nearby objects, often bracketing the focus to assure the desired effect. And pretty much every film movie you've ever seen has relied on a focus puller, someone who adjust the focus to compensate for movements of the camera, subject or both, or racks the focus between different subjects, all without actually seeing what the camera is seeing.
Vixen said:
...radiation raining down like crazy...
Click to expand...
Remind us again what the flux values were on the lunar surface. You're being very histrionic, but the word "radiation" doesn't mean "certain death". And you never explained how we have this photograph. That room has orders of magnitude more particle flux and energy than the lunar surface.
anh-mo-ta.jpeg
Vixen said:
...light settings, contrast and glare not controllable by your thick airfilled gloves...
Click to expand...
Actually, the camera's were fully adjustable. Because, again, the engineers involved weren't the idiots you think they were compared to your intellectual brilliance, and they actually thought about how they would use the tools they brought while wearing their suits. The lenses were fitted with tabs that made them easy to adjust.

hassel4.jpg
And contrast is dependent on film, rather than the camera, and "glare" isn't something you control with camera settings either. It's so obvious that you're trying to act like you know far more about photography than you actually do.
Vixen said:
...and the whole shebang isn't stored in a pressurised unit throughout the entire 300,000 mile trip: to discover - oh no! - your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Moon snaps are such rubbish that even the film has disintegrated and pitifully so.
Click to expand...
Film doesn't need to be stored in a "pressurized unit". And at any rate, for the vast majority of the Apollo missions, the film was stored in a "pressurized unit", because it was stored in either the CM or the LM, and thus spent most of its time under atmospheric pressure. Are you claiming that all film photographs taken in space are fake. Do you know how many that is?
Vixen said:
You tell the world you left the camera on the Moon but then when you pop your clogs, the wife discovers your dusty old Hasselblad in the back of the wardrobe, together with the all-American trinkets you were supposed to have left on the Moon. We have all been there.
Click to expand...
Again, THAT WASN'T A HASSELBLAD. Not shouting, just thought you might be having some difficulty with those four words, as it was explained to you some time ago.

Again, all the Apollo crews were issued the mission used camera types to take home with them, and were encouraged to practice with them. The camera pictured in that article is a Maurer 16 mm movie camera, which could shoot at various frame rates. The article never says it's a Hasselblad, and it clearly states that the Smithsonian investigation determined that most of the objects in question had never been to space. But you must not have read the article for comprehension, just skimmed it and jumped on something you erroneously thought would help you, which is yet another common trait amongst conspiracy theorists in general. There's no evidence that the camera shown was anything other than one given to Armstrong to practice with, and that it "should still be on the moon".

You also seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Apollo 11 had a Hasselblad 500-EL. In fact, each mission took several of each type of camera.this, and not all were left on the moon's surface. Here you can see the NOT A HASSELBLAD Maurer DAC cameras configured for different uses. The one on the left remained aboard the CM, and it would have been very inconvenient to get it to the lunar surface seeing as it was used to film the rendezvous and docking with the LM. The one on the lower right was used in the LM to film the landings, surface activities from inside the LM, the launch, and rendezvous and docking. The LM DACs were, therefore, not left on the surface. The one on the upper right shows the surface configuration for the EVAs, and is not, and I feel I need to be very clear about this, a Hasselblad.
16mm2b.jpg
Vixen said:
JayUtah will be along soon to confirm said camera had a 'special coating' and was wrapped in foil...
Click to expand...
Well the coating part is correct, for the surface cameras, anyway. They we're silvered to reject heat energy. They had other modifications as well, such as lubricants that wouldn't boil off in a vacuum. They were not, however wrapped in foil*, so you don't need to worry about that.

But if you don't like having people tell you you're wrong, maybe you should stop doubling down on so many wrong ideas.

*Most of the "foil" people speak of was actually Kapton film.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
How would they control “contrast and glare” with OR without gloves? And what are “light settings”.
Click to expand...
The notion that a film camera has a contrast knob is only one example of @Vixen's colossal ignorance on the subject of photography (among all the other things). It's not as if she displays any interest in being correct or corrected. Protesting along the lines of, "But my actions are reasonable!" fails miserably in light of her latest fact-free screeds that don't even try to get things right. I suspect she's copying them from somewhere; those tirades cannot be the product of an ordered mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom