Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Steve]

I beg to differ. In 1969 people would have eagerly lapped it up.

Why?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That is not the version used by Apollo11.

It is the same emulsion, the base was Kodak Estar polyester. It was first introduced in 1955.

 

[Vixen]

Yes it is. The emulsion is exactly the same. The base is polyester. The only difference is that for Apollo the roll was longer and the polyester base was thinner. You have no idea how film works.

And now you're off and running on the distraction. I want you to focus (pun intended) on Marcus Allen's blatant lie regarding exposure—the lie you agreed was a lie.


"Because I say so."


The contact-print rolls were not on thinbase. They were on regular polyester base.


"Because I say so."


Nothing about being "pressurized" protects film from radiation.


No.


No.


No.

"Fogging" does not occur from being exposed to particle radiation such as in the Van Allen belts. The Apollo photographs do show effects of cosmic rays (which are actually particles). Protection against UV is child's play, since UV cannot penetrate even a sheet of paper. Protection against x-rays is also trivial, since the natural x-rays in space are "soft" x-rays at much lower energy than the "hard" x-rays produced in diagnostic and security x-ray machines.

I explained all this before, but you never understand and you never remember.

I'll revisit. For now I'm preoccupied with a project.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Speculation has never been accpeted as fact.

@Vixen accepts speculation as fact. That's pretty much all she does. It appears to be all she is capable of doing.

The entirety of Weaver & Allen's grift is speculation. They have no evidence. The Soviets had tracking of the missions. The Chinese have their own photos of the landing sites.

 

[JayUtah]

Not the Apollo11 version.

Asked and answered.

The Apollo version differed only in the thickness of the polyester base. Thinbase has always been commercially available too, but unpopular because it's hard to thread into the magazines. It differed in the length of the roll. Longroll has aways been commercially available. The company that made the Apollo magazines got the contract because of their experience making longroll backs for the Hasselblad cameras.

There is nothing "magical" about the Apollo photo film. There is nothing they took to the Moon that wasn't commercially available.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I beg to differ. In 1969 people would have eagerly lapped it up.

What would they have done with it?

 

[Mojo]

@Vixen accepts speculation as fact. That's pretty much all she does. It appears to be all she is capable of doing.

No, she also accepts fact as speculation.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll revisit. For now I'm preoccupied with a project.

If you're busy then perhaps you shouldn't have brought up an irrelevant topic and written two pages on it before being corrected by your betters.

Answer me now. Do you stand with Marcus Allen and his lies about photographic exposure, or do you stand with the truth as expressed by me, others here, and thousands of photographers all over the world—and agreed to by you until you realized your mistake?

 

[Andy_Ross]

IMV his claim that radiation would have fogged up the film is a reasonable one. That particular film has never put on sale to the public so we have to ask why not.

Not true

 

[Mojo]

What would they have done with it?

Put it on a roof rack, apparently.

 

[threadworm]

I have various diplomas on running an enterprise and I can assure you, people would have been queuing around the block, as with the latest Nike and IPhone. Likewise, the foldaway Moon Buggy.

Muriel, Frank and the kids could have stashed it on the car roof as they set off for their summer hols on the beach.

And again, I don't care about you appealing to your alleged authority.

As a young man I worked as a tourist photographer. Your business model would either have me wasting half a film roll every day or making customers wait too long.

People were interested in the photos Apollo took, not how or with what they were taken.

 

[Mojo]

I'll revisit. For now I'm preoccupied with a project.

Is it already the end of another year?

 

[Vixen]

Why would it need to be pressurised? Wasn't the capsule pressurised?

And how does a pressurised environment protect against radiation? Do you imagine that airport scanners operate in a vacuum?

Read NASA experts for yourself. All film is recommended to be put in a pressurised container when in space.

 

[Steve]

I have various diplomas on running an enterprise and I can assure you, people would have been queuing around the block, as with the latest Nike and IPhone. Likewise, the foldaway Moon Buggy.

Muriel, Frank and the kids could have stashed it on the car roof as they set off for their summer hols on the beach.

It has been said many times - an education does not make a person smart. You are the walking, talking personification of that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly this. The photos are glossy magazine quality (from transparency film) yet anyone who put film through airport security, even in protective camera bags, discovered their snaps were invariably ruined by the X-Ray machine.

So a journey though 30,000 miles of the Van Allen belts with no pressurised container protection and the spacecraft itself made of thin aluminium, of course the photos should have been ruined. The gelatin backing being organic would have suffered radiation damage, toegther with the silver halides being messed up.

That is all bollocks.
I've had film through airport security and it hasn't fogged.

What difference would a pressurised container make?
What fogging would result from going through the VAB?
The film backing was Estar polyester in use since the 1950s. The Apollo film used a thinner than standard backing.

The Apollo CM was not just "thin aluminium" as has been explained a number of times.

 

[Mojo]

Read NASA experts for yourself. All film is recommended to be put in a pressurised container when in space.

How does a pressurised container protect against fogging?

And have you finished your project already?

 

[Steve]

How does a pressurised container protect against fogging?

And have you finished your project already?

Vixen's memory necessarily results in very short projects.

 

[Mojo]

Read NASA experts for yourself. All film is recommended to be put in a pressurised container when in space.

I think it was also recommended that the crew be in a pressurised container.

 

[threadworm]

Read NASA experts for yourself. All film is recommended to be put in a pressurised container when in space.

Citation required

 

[Vixen]

And again, I don't care about you appealing to your alleged authority.

As a young man I worked as a tourist photographer. Your business model would either have me wasting half a film roll every day or making customers wait too long.

People were interested in the photos Apollo took, not how or with what they were taken.

Modern day paparazzi happily take two hundreds snaps of the same shot within seconds. The average person using camera film had to make do with 24 snaps or 30 or whatever it was. Of course people would have lapped up 200+photos per roll of film.