More alleged moon hoax evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle said:
The camera works because any lubricants that could boil off under a vacuum were replaced by dry lubricants. Static electricity was reduced by special metal plates. The film itself was protected by the cartridges and the camera.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't stop the vacuum damage.

Seattle said:
There's only so much I can find or question using Google and it's like spending a lot of time running down flat Earth claims, I just have limited interest. They did use special film in the sense was the film was thinner than usual but otherwise it was pretty standard as were the cameras with only minor changes.
Click to expand...
Watch this video from post #1.
Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly II. PART 9

This guy who worked for Kodak says it was standard film.
 
Seattle said:
I know a bit about photography and black and white film developing (I used to have a darkroom in my bedroom as a kid and worked as a photographer in high school and in the lab). I'm not able to find anything online that suggests that this is much of an issue (other than the study that you site) so that's not a good sign for your study.

The camera works because any lubricants that could boil off under a vacuum were replaced by dry lubricants. Static electricity was reduced by special metal plates. The film itself was protected by the cartridges and the camera.

There's only so much I can find or question using Google and it's like spending a lot of time running down flat Earth claims, I just have limited interest. They did use special film in the sense was the film was thinner than usual but otherwise it was pretty standard as were the cameras with only minor changes.
Click to expand...
I can see no reason at all why air pressure or its absence would affect film in any way. The stability of the chemicals present won't be affected by minor pressure changes (0-1bar) . If anything I would expect film to last longer in a vacuum as there won't be any oxygen present to oxidise any of the components.

The whole thing is invented bullshit, by idiots who think that a vacuum represents some kind of "suction" force. :rolleyes:
 
exchemist said:
I can see no reason at all why air pressure or its absence would affect film in any way. The stability of the chemicals present won't be affected by minor pressure changes (0-1bar) .
Click to expand...
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps some mechanism is suggested by which some of the chemicals "boil off" the film in vacuum. If that happens, then the obvious next questions are: to what extent does this occur, how long does it take to significantly degrade the film, and what effect (if any) would this have on photographs taken during the moon missions?

Of course, the aim of these conspiracy theorists is mainly to sow doubt, rather than to make an honest effort to understand anything. So I don't expect Freddy to have a clue about the answers to any of the above questions.

The hope of the conspiracist is that if they throw enough mud at a wall, maybe some of it will stick. But while they are so fixated on the mud they are throwing, they fail to notice that flinging mud at the wall does nothing to damage the wall itself.
 
FatFreddy said:
I've tried all three with my laptop and it doesn't work with any of them.
Click to expand...

Presume it's still the case after over two weeks and an intervening meltdown of Sciforums?
 
James R said:
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps some mechanism is suggested by which some of the chemicals "boil off" the film in vacuum. If that happens, then the obvious next questions are: to what extent does this occur, how long does it take to significantly degrade the film, and what effect (if any) would this have on photographs taken during the moon missions?

Of course, the aim of these conspiracy theorists is mainly to sow doubt, rather than to make an honest effort to understand anything. So I don't expect Freddy to have a clue about the answers to any of the above questions.

The hope of the conspiracist is that if they throw enough mud at a wall, maybe some of it will stick. But while they are so fixated on the mud they are throwing, they fail to notice that flinging mud at the wall does nothing to damage the wall itself.
Click to expand...
Seems to me boiling off is a misconception. The vapour pressure of a substance is what it is, regardless of the pressure above it. Boiling is the process whereby in a liquid, bubbles of vapour can form throughout the body of the liquid rather than vapour just evaporating from the surface, thereby increasing the rate of evaporation. There can't be any constituents of film emulsion that have significant vapour pressure at normal temperatures. If there were, film would have a very short shelf life, which would be markedly temperature - dependent. The so-called "emulsion" is a colloidal solid, of silver halide in gelatin. There are not going to be any bubbles of vapours from either component.
 
Sorry for my absence. Every time I tried to make this site come up, I got a message saying that the site refused to connect.

James R said:
What problems is film supposed to have in vacuum?

Can you please summarise? I don't want to watch some long videos to find the information.
Click to expand...
A supposed expert in photography says that the chemicals on film will evaporate if there's no air pressure the same way water will evaporate in a vacuum only more slowly. He said the effects on the pictures will be noticable and the Apollo pictures show no such effects. I can't opine on this as I have no background in photography. I mainly posted this so that it can be discussed. It may turn out to be wrong.
 
FatFreddy said:
A supposed expert in photography says that the chemicals on film will evaporate if there's no air pressure the same way water will evaporate in a vacuum only more slowly.
Click to expand...
The film type that is used in space? You mean ALL the non-digital photos ever taken in the vacuum of space have been faked? :eek: 'Cos that's what your "supposed expert" is effectively saying: if film chemicals evaporate so as to be noticeable when the picture is developed, then any photo lacking such noticable flaw must be faked, right? That would include Apollo, early shuttle missions etc, all the way up to the use of digital cameras (the first of which was flown into space in 1991).
It may turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Indeed it may. I'd suggest your "supposed expert" supports his claim?
 
Sarkus said:
The film type that is used in space? You mean ALL the non-digital photos ever taken in the vacuum of space have been faked?
Click to expand...
This is from post #1.

Modern protection for a camera in space vs the Apollo camera, obviously on the moon set in the Southwest desert during the faked moon landings.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/pxnbkk/modern_protection_for_a_camera_in_space_vs_the/


The Apollo missions have already been proven to have been faked (see my posts in the other moon threads). It seems that at least some of the spacewalk footage has been faked in a water tank. Watch this from the 19:35 time mark to the 20:25 time mark. During a spacewalk there seems to be a bubble rising which points to its having been faked in a water tank.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...ternational+Space+Station+Is+Fake&FORM=VDMHRS
 
FatFreddy said:
Sorry for my absence. Every time I tried to make this site come up, I got a message saying that the site refused to connect.


A supposed expert in photography says that the chemicals on film will evaporate if there's no air pressure the same way water will evaporate in a vacuum only more slowly. He said the effects on the pictures will be noticable and the Apollo pictures show no such effects. I can't opine on this as I have no background in photography. I mainly posted this so that it can be discussed. It may turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...
We have discussed it and it is wrong.
 
FatFreddy said:
If you don't trust that one, another one should be done.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as the one by aulis.com seems, to put it politely, to be nothing but horse manure - as discussed here.
To highlight some of the flaws in that experiment that are mentioned:

"That was not the camera used.
They performed the depress/repress cycles and then exposed the film. That is not remotely what happened.
They did not verify that they used the same development process.
They did not account for the colour calibration charts included in Apollo film. Nor did they reason WHY those colour calibration charts were included in the first place. It was exactly to account for such colour space variation and correct for it."

"...they totally fail to actually reproduce the circumstances because the spacecraft interior was not one atmosphere of normal air but 5psi pure oxygen. Their depressurisation/repressurisation cycle is therefore not a true reflection of the conditions they are trying to examine. They also fail to account for the fact that film development is not a 'this process and ONLY this process' situation, and the process can be tweaked to change the outcome somewhat."

"What they have done here is place the two pieces of film different ways up. On the right, the film is substrate side up, on the left it's emulsion side up. The emulsion side of a film is always more dull than the substrate side (just find any piece of 35mm film and examine it yourself). When you look at a piece of film, if the frame numbers are the right way around, you are looking at the back or substrate side of the film; they are back-to-front if you are looking at the emulsion side.

It is also easy to tell just by looking at the photo itself. When film dries by hanging up (without a roller drying machine) the film always curls across its width towards the emulsion side. The film on the left is clearly curled upwards. If both films were the same way up, the reflection from the lamp would be on the same side, but its not - on the right the reflection is on the right side of the strip (outside the curl) while on the left strip, its on the left (inside the curl)

These guys have faked their results."

"Aulis also used C-41 colour film using C-41 process. Well, C-41 wasn't released by Kodak until Late 1972, so all the missions up to Apollo 17 must have used C-22 for their colour negative film, a considerably different process. If you process C-22 in a standard C41 bath, you will ruin it unless you take some very special precautions."

"Those clowns at Aulis used Kodak Ektachrome E100 and processed it E-6; Apollo used Ektachrome SO-168 and SO-121 and processed it E-4 - so not the same film, and not the same process either. The results WILL be different."


So, yeah, another experiment that actually, well, you know, tests something relevant, perhaps? ;)
 
Sarkus said:
But you do opine: if you didn't think it of merit then you wouldn't throw it at the wall to see if it sticks.
Click to expand...
After watching the videos in post #1, I would bet that a vacuum damages film but I'm not going to say that I'm one hundred percent sure.

All someone needs to do is take some pairs of pictures of the same scenery and put one of them in a vacuum chamber for a few hours and then compare them. Nothing can be verified here but some high school students can do it as a science project and present the results to the class. Whatever the result is, word will get around.
 
FatFreddy said:
After watching the videos in post #1, I would bet that a vacuum damages film but I'm not going to say that I'm one hundred percent sure.

All someone needs to do is take some pairs of pictures of the same scenery and put one of them in a vacuum chamber for a few hours and then compare them. Nothing can be verified here but some high school students can do it as a science project and present the results to the class. Whatever the result is, word will get around.
Click to expand...
One would have to use the same equipment and shielding / precautions that NASA took with Apollo, though. Just taking a camera off the shelf and doing it is not going to do. NASA subjected all their equipment to vacuum chambers, and did research on how to avoid/minimise off-gassing etc, to ensure that what resulted was usable.
One can test the general idea that, in the absence of any mitigating tech / precautions, vacuum does indeed have an effect. That's not exactly novel, though. The test you're looking for, though, is whether the tech and precautions taken by NASA at the time would be sufficient to produce the photographs claimed.

But hey, we could instead test something that isn't the same, and try to draw unwarranted conclusions? How does that sound?
 
Amazing, he starts posting here after getting his arse kicked on the political forum. This identical cut and paste drivel is the same crap posted over there that he knows nothing about. He trusts idiots and ignores experts.

Spam: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...apollo-landing.519410/page-14#post-1073772078
It all follows on from there, cut and pasted word for word.

I think I may need to go fetch all the arse kickings he has been getting. There are a considerable number of them.
 
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top