More alleged moon hoax evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FatFreddy

Registered Senior Member
I found some more alleged moon-hoax evidence that I've never seen discussed. Since all the moon hoax threads are closed, I guess I have to start a new thread.


It's alleged that all the Apollo pictures could only have been taken on Earth because of heat, radiation and vacuum damage to the film in the cameras.

"Were The Photographs Of The Lunar Landings Taken On Earth?" Full Video Interview


Start watching this at the 4:24 time mark.

Moonfaker: Radioactive Anomaly II. PART 9

A guy who worked for Kodak says yhat ordinary film was used in the Apollo cameras.


This guy seems to know what he's talking about.

Moon Photographs - Expert Analysis By A World Famous Photographer



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/


It seems that a test was done to see if vacuum damaged film and it was found that it did.

Apollo Film Subjected to a Vacuum
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm


More here at the 3:40 time mark.

MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 7


Here are three other alleged anomalies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo 11 Luner Module Hasselblad vs Video of take off, compared. Video version is more squat and very different. Another NASA fail?
https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/ef6k8d/apollo_11_luner_module_hasselblad_vs_video_of/

That eight-sided object has different dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo 16 video alleged to show Astronot with an ungloved hand and some banter with Houston about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/fd4oxl/apollo_16_video_alleged_to_show_astronot_with_an/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the 10:10 time mark Ralph René points out a picture that was used on two different occasions.

Where Is America: 'Oh say can you "C" the Moon?' with Ralph René. Part 1

Here's part 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlyD9pYHTm8


last minute edit
----------------------------------------------

http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
 
Last edited:
Good grief. :rolleyes:

Just to pick up on one point in the last video:
His comment on temperatures shows he clearly doesn't have that great an understanding of the relevant science. The temperature reaching 120C is when something is in direct sunlight. If something is in shade, it could easily be negative-120C. The point is, on the moon there's no air to conduct or convect heat between things in direct sunlight and those in shade. On earth we have the air that does that (so on earth the difference between being in sunlight and shade is not that great). On the moon, or in space in general, that fluid to transfer head just doesn't exist. On the moon, the only way heat can get to something that is not in direct sunlight is via radiation and, mainly, via conduction through a medium - e.g. through the camera casing / material. If there is adequate insulation, such as the material not being particulary conductive, then heat will not get into the inside of the camera, i.e. to the film.
His comments regarding how film degrades at such temperatures are, therefore, rather irrelevant, as he needs to show that the film was at that high temperature.

Anyhoo - I only looked at a random portion of one of the videos, and the person's comments are clearly flawed. So 100% of the points I've seen made in the videos are flawed, thus far. It doesn't seem to bode well for the rest of what they have to say! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
On the moon, the only way heat can get to something that is not in direct sunlight is via radiation and, mainly, via conduction through a medium - e.g. through the camera casing / material. If there is adequate insulation, such as the material not being particulary conductive, then heat will not get into the inside of the camera, i.e. to the film.
Click to expand...
We would have to see the inside of the camera to verify that. There may or may not be a conduction path. There's still the possibility of radiation and vacuum damaging the film.

If things get too technical, I can't opine too much as I don't have any experience in photography. I mainly posted this so that it could be talked about.

What do you think of the other three anomalies I posted?
 
I didn't watch any of the video but who says the camera and film were in a vacuum. Was the camera unmodified or did it have a housing?
 
You don't know what's in that housing. For instance, I scuba dive. I used to have a Nikonos underwater camera. It relied on many o-rings not to flood (and eventually it did flood). After that I just bought a cheap point and shoot camera and a cheap plastic housing designed for that camera and for that purpose.

They both work. The cheaper and simpler design was to just throw a cheap camera in a housing whereas the Nikonos didn't appear to have a housing because it was all internal.

Now I don't actually know if that is required on the Moon. I don't know that a vacuum is a problem for film and I don't know that radiation is a problem for the limited time that the camera was used. NASA does know the answer and would have tested all those things and I don't have the interest to doubt the Moon landing or the curature of the Earth for that matter.
 
FatFreddy said:
[...] Apollo 16 video alleged to show Astronot with an ungloved hand and some banter with Houston about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/fd4oxl/apollo_16_video_alleged_to_show_astronot_with_an/ [...]
Click to expand...

The glove wasn't designed so bulky that the fingers could not be distinguished on it. Reflected sunlight also gave it a bright or light colored appearance in a scene prior to that, when it was blatantly discernable as a glove.

More or less the same type EV gloves were used from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, that had the rubber tips:

Apollo 11
https://apollo11space.com/apollo-11-space-mission-gloves-a7-l/

Apollo 16
https://womenshistory.si.edu/object...r-apollo-16-mattingly-flown:nasm_A19740151005


Here's a guy who makes copies of the Apollo extravehicular gloves:

Inside Adam Savage's Cave: New Apollo EVA Gloves!
 
Last edited:
Seattle said:
You don't know what's in that housing. For instance, I scuba dive. I used to have a Nikonos underwater camera. It relied on many o-rings not to flood (and eventually it did flood). After that I just bought a cheap point and shoot camera and a cheap plastic housing designed for that camera and for that purpose.

They both work. The cheaper and simpler design was to just throw a cheap camera in a housing whereas the Nikonos didn't appear to have a housing because it was all internal.

Now I don't actually know if that is required on the Moon. I don't know that a vacuum is a problem for film and I don't know that radiation is a problem for the limited time that the camera was used. NASA does know the answer and would have tested all those things and I don't have the interest to doubt the Moon landing or the curature of the Earth for that matter.
Click to expand...
I'm not technical enough to opine on this but the people in the videos are supposed to be experts. Start watching the first video at the 20:06 time mark. It talks about temperature a little but that video is mainly about the effect of vacuum on film.
In the third video the guy talks mainly about the effects of temperature and dust on the mechanics of the camera and the effects of radiation and heat on the film.
 
The very last link was blocked by antivirus, as malware infected. Kind of says it all about messing around with certain kinds of conspiracy sites.
 
C C said:
The glove wasn't designed so bulky that the fingers could not be distinguished on it. Reflected sunlight also gave it a bright or light colored appearance in a scene prior to that, when it was blatantly discernable as a glove.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced of that yet. I want to put the video on full screen but I cn't figure out how to do it.

C C said:
The very last link was blocked by antivirus, as malware infected. Kind of says it all about messing around with certain kinds of conspiracy sites.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this one?
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
 
FatFreddy said:
I'm not convinced of that yet. I want to put the video on full screen but I cn't figure out how to do it.
Click to expand...

Hover over the video and click or tap the button that appears with the two arrows pointed away from each other.

Do you mean this one?
http://www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html
Click to expand...

Bingo. Infected or something. Might be a false positive, but vaccine hesitancy or skepticism should not be a political thing in this particular domain yet. Scam alert at the very least.

EDIT: Or perhaps the antivirus was coincindentally instead telling me not to be on Sciforums itself. Did a multi-antivirus check on the latter and one vendor flagged this place as a threat. It doesn't have HTTPS, so SF is obviously unsafe from that standpoint.

_
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy said:
I'm not technical enough to opine on this but the people in the videos are supposed to be experts. Start watching the first video at the 20:06 time mark. It talks about temperature a little but that video is mainly about the effect of vacuum on film.
In the third video the guy talks mainly about the effects of temperature and dust on the mechanics of the camera and the effects of radiation and heat on the film.
Click to expand...
That's all assuming that any of that is affecting the film. Dive underwater and by 99 feet you are at 4 atmosphere (pressure) but none of that affects the film because the film isn't experiencing that pressure. The outside of the camera is but not internally.

Who says heat and dust is making it to the film?
 
C C said:
Hover over the video and click or tap the button that appears with the two arrows pointed away from each other.
Click to expand...
I hovered all over the place and no button appears.

C C said:
Bingo. Infected or something. Might be a false positive, but vaccine hesitancy or skepticism should not be a political thing in this particular domain yet. Scam alert at the very least.

EDIT: Or perhaps the antivirus was coincindentally instead telling me not to be on Sciforums itself. Did a multi-antivirus check on the latter and one vendor flagged this place as a threat. It doesn't have HTTPS, so SF is obviously unsafe from that standpoint.
Click to expand...
I've been going to Jarrah White's website and posting on this forum for years and I've never had any trouble.
 
Seattle said:
That's all assuming that any of that is affecting the film. Dive underwater and by 99 feet you are at 4 atmosphere (pressure) but none of that affects the film because the film isn't experiencing that pressure. The outside of the camera is but not internally.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with vacuum damaging film?

Seattle said:
Who says heat and dust is making it to the film?
Click to expand...
It's in the third video in post #1. I don't remember the time mark.
 
FatFreddy said:
I hovered all over the place and no button appears.
Click to expand...

Elusive mystery, then. Using both Firefox and Edge, it shows at the bottom (surely Chrome, too). On some mobile devices there might be 4 arrows diagonally pointing away from each other in the center of the video area instead of two, but you'd be well acquainted with that one, too. Unfamiliar with a browser that doesn't render anything at all to activate full screen.

_
 
FatFreddy said:
What does that have to do with vacuum damaging film?
Click to expand...
It's the same concept. I haven't been to the Moon but if an underwater camera can protect the film from 4 times the normal pressure it's not that hard to protect film from no pressure.
 
Seattle said:
It's the same concept. I haven't been to the Moon but if an underwater camera can protect the film from 4 times the normal pressure it's not that hard to protect film from no pressure.
Click to expand...
I have no background in photography so all I can do is listen to what the alleged experts say. According the the ones in the videos the chemicals on the film evaporate if there's no air pressure on them in the same way that water evaporates at room temperature in a vacuum.

Check out this experiment.

Apollo Film Subjected to a Vacuum
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
 
FatFreddy said:
I have no background in photography so all I can do is listen to what the alleged experts say. According the the ones in the videos the chemicals on the film evaporate if there's no air pressure on them in the same way that water evaporates at room temperature in a vacuum.

Check out this experiment.

Apollo Film Subjected to a Vacuum
https://www.aulis.com/vacuum.htm
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top