o.t. To the Moon, Alice!

Mcjnic

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
834
Can you explain, briefly if possible, why the Chinese lunar rover shots (at least the ones I've looked at) don't look any better than the Hasselblad shots from 1969?
No.
I don’t have the imagery in front of me.
Nor am I familiar with the Chinese equipment utilized for shots they may have taken.
If you are inquisitive of the subject matter, I would suggest you dig into the background of the imagery.
It’s the same ground I would tread.
Figure out where and when the shot was taken. What equipment was utilized. What cleanup methods were needed. What process of image reproduction was used. Where is the original kept. What is the quality of the original. On and on and on.
The usual stuff.
 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
991
Location
South Jersey, USA
No.
I don’t have the imagery in front of me.
Nor am I familiar with the Chinese equipment utilized for shots they may have taken.
If you are inquisitive of the subject matter, I would suggest you dig into the background of the imagery.
It’s the same ground I would tread.
Figure out where and when the shot was taken. What equipment was utilized. What cleanup methods were needed. What process of image reproduction was used. Where is the original kept. What is the quality of the original. On and on and on.
The usual stuff.
Actually that is what I have been doing (a little bit anyway) since this thread started.

Thanks for your time
 

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Roxbury, NH.
So if we didn’t go? Where did the money go?
So if we didn’t go? Where did the money go?
It is likely funneled off it to various black budget operations and a significant amount goes to independent contractors like Boeing and Raytheon and the like. Few people know that the Space Program was run by Nazi scientist that were brought over by Dulles, Mellon and their boys under operation called "Paperclip" These "Scientist" Von Braun being one of their chief prizes were funneled officially it to two agencies, the CIA and NASA, the former scientists were utilized in various CIA mind control operations like MKUltra and Bluebird and the later essentially ran NASA.

That is a level of the deception right there; that this space race was between the United States and the Soviet Union when it truth it was between the Nazi scientists that each side captured post WWII. Like the fact that the ISS is not in space and the the Space Shuttles never went into space, NASA does not advertise this information but when pressed they do begrudgingly acknowledged it.
 

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Roxbury, NH.
When expressing any deception it is best to present the lowest hanging fruit as your first evidence. In the cast of the Moon Landing Hoax that is the photo graphic evidence, after all it was the professional photographers who were the first to ring the bell on this one.

Matt Day does a great job of showing you how to operate the Hasselblad 500C/M in this video. Look at the intricacies and adjustments of this camera, what needs to be done to load the film, set the setting, open the little doors, all of it then ask if the astronauts could have accomplished this while the unit was strapped to their chest, the view finder was removed, they could not see the adjustment settings and they are wearing massive pressurized gloves.

NASA has the audacity to claim that the astronauts actually swapped the film out on this thing while of the surface of the moon. Watch Day changing the film out and ask if that is possible.

Do you remember when you used to fly back in the day and they would ask you to put your Kodak film in the lead bag because the radiation from the X-Ray machine would damage it? Well the Astronauts utilized Kodak 35mm film in these bad boys. There is no atmosphere on the moon meaning that it is constantly being bombarded with massive amounts of Solar radiation exponentially grater than what you would find in an airport X-Ray machine yet somehow this did not effect the astronauts film.






ArmstrongEVgloveL.jpg
 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
991
Location
South Jersey, USA
When expressing any deception it is best to present the lowest hanging fruit as your first evidence. In the cast of the Moon Landing Hoax that is the photo graphic evidence, after all it was the professional photographers who were the first to ring the bell on this one.

Matt Day does a great job of showing you how to operate the Hasselblad 500C/M in this video. Look at the intricacies and adjustments of this camera, what needs to be done to load the film, set the setting, open the little doors, all of it then ask if the astronauts could have accomplished this while the unit was strapped to their chest, the view finder was removed, they could not see the adjustment settings and they are wearing massive pressurized gloves.

NASA has the audacity to claim that the astronauts actually swapped the film out on this thing while of the surface of the moon. Watch Day changing the film out and ask if that is possible.

Do you remember when you used to fly back in the day and they would ask you to put your Kodak film in the lead bag because the radiation from the X-Ray machine would damage it? Well the Astronauts utilized Kodak 35mm film in these bad boys. There is no atmosphere on the moon meaning that it is constantly being bombarded with massive amounts of Solar radiation exponentially grater than what you would find in an airport X-Ray machine yet somehow this did not effect the astronauts film.






View attachment 403884
Nacci, "I come in peace"....

We need to be honest enough to say that the Hassie 500 they took into space was not an off-the-shelf 500C.

NASA engineers made several changes to it physically and operationally to make it operable under those conditions. Many of thses changes were done with direct input from Hasselblad engineers and designers.

Relocation of the viewfinder (not removal), and increased film capacity to eliminate frequent film changes, for instance. Perhaps even a lead-lined cover to cut down on radioactive contamination?

Oh, the 500 is a medium format "6x6" camera not 35mm.

Also, weren't we just talking about "compartmentalization"? How do we tell the guys working on the camera: "don't worry about radiation and spoiling the film, we aren't really going to the moon...we're going to Nevada."?

Every aspect of this thing would have to pass muster on the ground or the charade would fall apart....right? Surely "they" would tip "their" hand if they failed to address something so obvious as the radiation risk to film in the camera?

Just trying to play fair and keep the conversation amicable and interesting.

One thing we should remember-hopefully no one, and certainly not I, think these NASA guys are stupid. I sincerely believe they were the best and the brightest we had at the time. And whether you believe the end result was walking on the moon or not, it took a huge amount of guts just get into that thing, let alone the intelligence needed to build it and fly it.
 

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Roxbury, NH.
Nacci, "I come in peace"....

We need to be honest enough to say that the Hassie 500 they took into space was not an off-the-shelf 500C.

NASA engineers made several changes to it physically and operationally to make it operable under those conditions. Many of thses changes were done with direct input from Hasselblad engineers and designers.

Relocation of the viewfinder (not removal), and increased film capacity to eliminate frequent film changes, for instance. Perhaps even a lead-lined cover to cut down on radioactive contamination?

Interesting, I was always under the impression that the view finder was removed because, well, every article I read on the subject stated it was removed. He is an example article below which clearly says that they were removed. Perhaps you could send me a link and a picture to where they were relocated to.

How do you think hasselblad engineers reduced the risk of radiation damage to the film while it was be changed on the surface of the moon unprotected?

 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
991
Location
South Jersey, USA
Hard enough to type without typos, buge pia to post links using this phone-but I will when I get home.

One article said the viewfinder was "relocated off to the side" (essentially rotated to be useful at eye level).

One modification involved using a glass plate with hash marks for measuring (Reseau Plate). Apparently this model could be "aimed" by the old "point and shoot" technique while attached to the chest of the suit. Not a big deal to someone familiar with the camera (the astronauts were given modified model 500s to shoot family pics using the aiming techniques they would later use in space). This technique is used by photojournalists all the time to shoot over crowds at their subject (think on field after game coache's handshake when you are in the third row back). NONE of this aspect of the moon photography bothers me in the slightest. Remote shutters, film "magazines" that are pre-loaded and nust snap into place, oversized buttons and levers designed to be used with space gloves... Just don't see a big deal getting around any of that. What about cropping? Any photograph can be cropped and straigtened after the fact so that what you see is perfectly framed and level. Makes those astronauts look like Olen Mills. Lol. And medium format negatives are 'huge' and intensely detailed which gives us those killer sharp shots. No atmosphere to cloud them either. Lastly....they probably only got a third of their shots that were useable. Why would they show all the screwed up out of focus and mis-framed shots?

Radiation....maybe...just maybe...perhaps...not the threat it was imagined to be? Other than that I defer to the guys working in the "camera compartment". Why would they knowingly send a radiation risk camera body into space? Did the NOT want to get any pictures? THAT is the stuff that is hard to believe....
 

Nacci

DFO Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
1,285
Location
Roxbury, NH.
Hard enough to type without typos, buge pia to post links using this phone-but I will when I get home.

One article said the viewfinder was "relocated off to the side" (essentially rotated to be useful at eye level).

One modification involved using a glass plate with hash marks for measuring (Reseau Plate). Apparently this model could be "aimed" by the old "point and shoot" technique while attached to the chest of the suit. Not a big deal to someone familiar with the camera (the astronauts were given modified model 500s to shoot family pics using the aiming techniques they would later use in space). This technique is used by photojournalists all the time to shoot over crowds at their subject (think on field after game coache's handshake when you are in the third row back). NONE of this aspect of the moon photography bothers me in the slightest. Remote shutters, film "magazines" that are pre-loaded and nust snap into place, oversized buttons and levers designed to be used with space gloves... Just don't see a big deal getting around any of that. What about cropping? Any photograph can be cropped and straigtened after the fact so that what you see is perfectly framed and level. Makes those astronauts look like Olen Mills. Lol. And medium format negatives are 'huge' and intensely detailed which gives us those killer sharp shots. No atmosphere to cloud them either. Lastly....they probably only got a third of their shots that were useable. Why would they show all the screwed up out of focus and mis-framed shots?

Radiation....maybe...just maybe...perhaps...not the threat it was imagined to be? Other than that I defer to the guys working in the "camera compartment". Why would they knowingly send a radiation risk camera body into space? Did the NOT want to get any pictures? THAT is the stuff that is hard to believe....
According to NASA themselves the view finders were removed:

"Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera."

I also saw nothing in this breakdown about the cameras being lead lined.

You are correct though that the cameras utilized 70mm film. That was a careless mistake on my part so am happy to get dinged for it.


 

Mcjnic

DFO Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
834
Nacci, "I come in peace"....

We need to be honest enough to say that the Hassie 500 they took into space was not an off-the-shelf 500C.

NASA engineers made several changes to it physically and operationally to make it operable under those conditions. Many of thses changes were done with direct input from Hasselblad engineers and designers.

Relocation of the viewfinder (not removal), and increased film capacity to eliminate frequent film changes, for instance. Perhaps even a lead-lined cover to cut down on radioactive contamination?

Oh, the 500 is a medium format "6x6" camera not 35mm.

Also, weren't we just talking about "compartmentalization"? How do we tell the guys working on the camera: "don't worry about radiation and spoiling the film, we aren't really going to the moon...we're going to Nevada."?

Every aspect of this thing would have to pass muster on the ground or the charade would fall apart....right? Surely "they" would tip "their" hand if they failed to address something so obvious as the radiation risk to film in the camera?

Just trying to play fair and keep the conversation amicable and interesting.

One thing we should remember-hopefully no one, and certainly not I, think these NASA guys are stupid. I sincerely believe they were the best and the brightest we had at the time. And whether you believe the end result was walking on the moon or not, it took a huge amount of guts just get into that thing, let alone the intelligence needed to build it and fly it.

Not sure what Nacci has said, but the Swiss company modified multiple cameras for NASA. The first was for the Mercury missions. That was the only 500C that I believe NASA had them build. That's where we get the viewfinder removal fact. It was done for the 1962 mission. That was the 500C that most refer to when discussing the camera utilized in space. Unfortunately, those early missions were the only times that camera was used. The rest of the camera's NASA had built were different models and were modified well beyond the scope of the first.

The First Moon mission (Apollo 11) utilized the HDC and HEC models significantly modified for mission use. The one Armstrong carried to the surface was the HDC (500EL Data Camera). NONE of the film was removed outside of the LEM on that mission. The HDC was equipped with a custom designed protective film magazine that held a 200 exposure reel of 70mm film. At the conclusion of the mission, the camera was hoisted back into the protective environment and then most of the parts of the camera were removed and discarded to the surface of the moon (cut down on weight). That is where they sit to this day. I believe there are a dozen of these cameras sitting on the lunar surface today.

There were other cameras aboard ... a Kodak and a couple of Maurer's ... I believe that Collins had a camera, also.

I hope that this helps clarify some points you might have had.
 

Mongrel

DFO Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
991
Location
South Jersey, USA
Not sure what Nacci has said, but the Swiss company modified multiple cameras for NASA. The first was for the Mercury missions. That was the only 500C that I believe NASA had them build. That's where we get the viewfinder removal fact. It was done for the 1962 mission. That was the 500C that most refer to when discussing the camera utilized in space. Unfortunately, those early missions were the only times that camera was used. The rest of the camera's NASA had built were different models and were modified well beyond the scope of the first.

The First Moon mission (Apollo 11) utilized the HDC and HEC models significantly modified for mission use. The one Armstrong carried to the surface was the HDC (500EL Data Camera). NONE of the film was removed outside of the LEM on that mission. The HDC was equipped with a custom designed protective film magazine that held a 200 exposure reel of 70mm film. At the conclusion of the mission, the camera was hoisted back into the protective environment and then most of the parts of the camera were removed and discarded to the surface of the moon (cut down on weight). That is where they sit to this day. I believe there are a dozen of these cameras sitting on the lunar surface today.

There were other cameras aboard ... a Kodak and a couple of Maurer's ... I believe that Collins had a camera, also.

I hope that this helps clarify some points you might have had.
Thank you...

I was aware of some of that regarding the EL model etc.

Like I said earlier-there were no "idiots" involved in this project! Lol

These guys could put a camera in a bowtie, surely they could put one in space!
 
Last edited:

Latest posts



Top