Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

It is a well-established fact that airport security damaged film.

According to whom?

 

[JayUtah]

This proves you don't actually know anything about the film used by Apollo11.

Actually he is correct. You are wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

Not really. FIAT makes a tiny fraction of its overall profits from Ferrari sales. The prime value of the high-value niche market is the prestige that it offers, making more people want to buy the more affordable, pedestrian automobiles FIAT sells in massive quantities.

Grumman built 712 F-14 Tomcats total. Grumman also built 4,532 city transit buses during the same time frame. Guess where they made their money.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's not how it works. It's like saying you smoked hundreds of times and never had a cough, therefore it cannot be true smoking causes harm.

Of course that's how it works.

 

[Smock]

That's not how it works. It's like saying you smoked hundreds of times and never had a cough, therefore it cannot be true smoking causes harm.

Meanwhile, you havent even proven that your metaphoric form of smoking even causes harm. So let's start with that. Please cite the source(s) that state the Apollo film would be fogged when exposed to the radiation present on a trip to the moon that is not a shyster conspiracy theorist. Show the math, please. While you are at it please state how a "pressurized container" could possibly block that exposure when the aluminum container cannot.

 

[Axxman300]

The entire camera and film arguments made by the Apollo Hoax loons is pathetic.

Cameras are a known entity, and a well-established technology that date back to 1816, and if you throw in the camera obscura we're talking the early 1500s. They make a camera for everyone and today with cell phones everyone has a camera. Want a cheap camera? Boom, no problem. You want to spend some money? Hasselbald has you covered with their Phase Ones running between $45K and $75K. You need IR? FLIR makes a wide range. Need highspeed to film bullets, and other fast things? No problem. You have a specialized environment you need to reliably image? Someone makes a camera or imaging system for you...all you need is money.

The claim about the Apollo missions being fake based on the absence of stars in the thousands of photograms and motion picture footage all die with the basic explanation about lenses, and preset exposure time that Jay Utah and others provide. There is literally NOTHING to debate, no counter point to be made. This is because photography's parameters are well established. Optics is a science. Log onto any photography message board, or just track down a chart with exposure times per lens size for low-light pictures, and specifically for those wishing to take pictures of the stars.

No reasonable person can claim stars should be visible in the Apollo photos with the technical information provided.

 

[Axxman300]

Oh gosh. The same time LBJ and Nixon who were sending kids to needlessly die in Vietnam.

Mao and Brezhnev sent their "kids" too. Kind of a party.

 

[Vixen]

Here are your exact words, coming back to haunt you as so many times before:

"Anyone who put film through airport security, even in protective camera bags, discovered their snaps were invariably ruined by the X-Ray machine."

Notice your word "invariably"? Do you understand what that means. The fact that so many people have managed to pass through check-in X-ray machines without invariably having their film ruined is proof that your claim is histrionic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Your claim doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

The short answer is yes, airport x-ray scanners can damage 35mm film, particularly high-speed film (ISO 800 and above) or film that has been repeatedly scanned. While newer CT scanners used for carry-on luggage are the primary culprit, even older x-ray machines can inflict cumulative damage.

Airport X-Ray Scanners and 35mm Film: Separating Fact from Fiction - Dark Skies

The short answer is yes, airport x-ray scanners can damage 35mm film, particularly high-speed film (ISO 800 and above) or […]

darkskiesfilm.com

"Understanding the Threat: How Airport X-Rays Affect Film
The sensitivity of photographic film to radiation is a well-documented phenomenon. Film relies on light-sensitive silver halide crystals to capture images. When exposed to x-rays, these crystals can be prematurely activated, leading to various forms of image degradation, including:

• Fogging: A general veil of density across the film, reducing contrast and sharpness.
• Grain Increase: Makes the film appear noticeably grainier than it should.
• Color Shifts: Unpredictable alterations in color balance, especially noticeable in color film."

ibid.

Must have been written by an overweight 'ninja' who thinks he's clever but is really quite stupid.

 

[Smock]

Dr. Daffy's special elixir cured my Rheumatism, so all the others saying it didn't work, along with the entirety of available scientific evidence, is all wrong. Dr. Daffy and I are smarter than them. He's a clerk and I'm an accountant, but 999, 0.1% ZOMG!!!!!!

 

[Axxman300]

Must have been written by an overweight 'ninja' who thinks he's clever but is realy quite stupid.

No, just a fat ninja.

 

[threadworm]

Your claim doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

Airport X-Ray Scanners and 35mm Film: Separating Fact from Fiction - Dark Skies

The short answer is yes, airport x-ray scanners can damage 35mm film, particularly high-speed film (ISO 800 and above) or […]

darkskiesfilm.com

"Understanding the Threat: How Airport X-Rays Affect Film
The sensitivity of photographic film to radiation is a well-documented phenomenon. Film relies on light-sensitive silver halide crystals to capture images. When exposed to x-rays, these crystals can be prematurely activated, leading to various forms of image degradation, including:

• Fogging: A general veil of density across the film, reducing contrast and sharpness.
• Grain Increase: Makes the film appear noticeably grainier than it should.
• Color Shifts: Unpredictable alterations in color balance, especially noticeable in color film."

ibid.

Must have been written by an overweight 'ninja' who thinks he's clever but is really quite stupid.

Your claim doesn't become true because you wish it so. "Can" is not "invariably". Space is not full of x-rays.

 

[Smock]

Number of Scans: Repeated exposure to x-rays accumulates damage. A single scan might cause minimal noticeable effect on lower ISO film, but multiple scans can significantly degrade image quality.
Type of X-Ray Machine: The CT (Computed Tomography) scanners increasingly used for carry-on luggage are far more powerful than the older x-ray machines used for checked baggage. CT scanners produce a 3D image by emitting a significantly higher dose of radiation.

So it greatly depends on the type of x-rays (carry-on vs checked baggage) and how many exposures, like was discussed.

And funny, I don't see one mention of a "pressurized container" needed to protect film on that page. As usual, @Vixen's citations of "proof" agree with the rest of the posters. Stick to making ◊◊◊◊ up, sweetie.

 

[Axxman300]

Your claim doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

Airport X-Ray Scanners and 35mm Film: Separating Fact from Fiction - Dark Skies

The short answer is yes, airport x-ray scanners can damage 35mm film, particularly high-speed film (ISO 800 and above) or […]

darkskiesfilm.com

"Understanding the Threat: How Airport X-Rays Affect Film
The sensitivity of photographic film to radiation is a well-documented phenomenon. Film relies on light-sensitive silver halide crystals to capture images. When exposed to x-rays, these crystals can be prematurely activated, leading to various forms of image degradation, including:

• Fogging: A general veil of density across the film, reducing contrast and sharpness.
• Grain Increase: Makes the film appear noticeably grainier than it should.
• Color Shifts: Unpredictable alterations in color balance, especially noticeable in color film."

ibid.

Must have been written by an overweight 'ninja' who thinks he's clever but is really quite stupid.

Google AI should send you flowers. considering how many times it's screwed you.

You need to keep scrolling to get a complete and accurate answer.

Taking Film Through An Airport X-ray Machine? Here's Everything You Need To Know - Film Processing

If you're travelling throughout the year and are new to film photography, it's likely you will have seen posts on social media crop up about taking

www.filmprocessing.co.uk

The key part of this here is the multiple exposures to X-ray machines. A similar analogy is having a one off X-ray on your leg, yes, it emits radiation, but it would require multiple x-rays over and over again for there to cause any kind of lasting damage. The same goes for travelling through X-rays with films. A one off trip through one is unlikely to cause any issues, and you probably won't notice any difference on your developed shots.

In fact, Michael Fil put this to the test by taking Kodak ColorPlus 200 on a trip which passed through 10 different X-ray machines, and the result? The shots looked great still. He added that if X-rays did cause damage to photos, it’s nearly impossible to tell.

Note that he tried this on a lower ISO film. If you are shooting for an important project, then you may want to take additional care when travelling.

I can also vouch for this. I recently travelled to Japan and took Fujifilm 200, Fujifilm 400 and Kodak Ultramax 400 which passed through a X-ray machine twice during the journey. The shots were developed and came out perfectly with no signs of fogging detected.

However, there is a complete mix of opinions and anecdotes of people across the internet, but the general rule of thumb tends to be, if it's ISO 800 or below, then you'll be okay.

A quick review of a dozen websites show a mixed bag of results, but most are negative.

 

[Smock]

I guess we can add the word invariably to the long list of things @Vixen doesn't understand. . .

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your claim doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

Airport X-Ray Scanners and 35mm Film: Separating Fact from Fiction - Dark Skies

The short answer is yes, airport x-ray scanners can damage 35mm film, particularly high-speed film (ISO 800 and above) or […]

darkskiesfilm.com

"Understanding the Threat: How Airport X-Rays Affect Film
The sensitivity of photographic film to radiation is a well-documented phenomenon. Film relies on light-sensitive silver halide crystals to capture images. When exposed to x-rays, these crystals can be prematurely activated, leading to various forms of image degradation, including:

• Fogging: A general veil of density across the film, reducing contrast and sharpness.
• Grain Increase: Makes the film appear noticeably grainier than it should.
• Color Shifts: Unpredictable alterations in color balance, especially noticeable in color film."

ibid.

You should have read further. Particularly to the point where it says that it requires repetitive exposures to check-in X-ray machines to accumulate enough of a dose to adversely affect photographic film. So I'm still correct, in that your claim that film is invariably ruined by X-ray exposure is a lie. And that still doesn't change the fact that the VARB doesn't consist of X-ray radiation.

Must have been written by an overweight 'ninja' who thinks he's clever but is really quite stupid.

Not stupid enough to claim to be a "triple niner" with "five years of physics" who then claims that radiation exposure makes people radioactive, that objects in 1/6g take as much force to lift as they do in 1g, or that Apollo astronauts faced a legitimate risk of jumping into orbit from the lunar surface. I'm also not stupid enough to think that anyone who does make such claims has figured out a great secret that millions of scientists and engineers have been too stupid to see for almost six decades.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Complete waste of time

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Wow. Not content with intellect shaming you're now taking a leaf out of the Trump body-shaming book. So you'd ridicule that poor kid in the playground doing his best , simply because his parents can only afford to feed him on chips and jam sandwiches.

We all know you're doing the absolute very best you possibly can with the intellect you have.

But I, for one, doubt whether your parents deserve the blame for what you write here.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Oh gosh. The same time LBJ and Nixon who were sending kids to needlessly die in Vietnam.

I thought you didn't care about personalities?

 

[JayUtah]

Your claim doesn't become true just because you wish it so.

Indeed. Your source warns for ISO 800 and above. Those were considered extremely high speed films at the time, not the types that ordinary people would actually use. At that time, I generally topped out at ISO 400, and mostly shot on ISO 200.

Apollo film was ISO 160.

The x-rays used in x-ray machines at airports and doctor offices are much higher energy than what is encountered in space. I explained the difference previously, but you aren't smart enough to know the difference.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Not strictly on-topic, but I've been watching some old Wizards With Guns videos on youtube, and this one reminded me of the tenor of many of the exchanges here.