Apollo 14 film defect?...Interesting Pic!!

Heres another..: [link to www.labyrinthina.com]

Innocentwolf15:
great collection of "proofs" for our sceptics .)
thx

Still No Answer from him on the rocks...lol!..

Nope..Still no answer....You'd think he would come to NASA's rescue..LOL!!!

Apollo 11 pic..Faint Stars?...: [link to www.nasm.si.edu]

Another : [link to www.nasm.si.edu] Enlarge by clicking on it.

Another...the, there are no star's visible routine isn't holding water...: [link to www.nasm.si.edu]

But..they may be film defects...?..: [link to www.nasm.si.edu]

Those both look like dust on the scanner. There are better scans available that are higher resolution that don't have those. There is no reason for stars to show up anyway. any competent photographer would tell you that the relatively faint stars could not appear together with a properly exposed sunlit object like the Earth or the astronauts on the Moon.

I agree..I'm just throwing stuff out there..:)..like this..: [link to www.nasm.si.edu]

Apollo 12..the Visor..: [link to www.nasm.si.edu]

visor detail..
[link to www.decin.cz]

horizont thing [link to www.decin.cz]
[link to www.decin.cz]
da car :)
[link to www.decin.cz]

have you seen this?

[link to www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil]

it's from another GLP thread:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Where did you find that Funney..?..weird..

The Towers?..Wonder what they really looked like?..

here you go
[link to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov]

Considerable information about the photographic
aspects of the Apollo missions can be found at:
[link to history.nasa.gov]

The films were all supplied by Kodak on thin
substrates so that the maximum number of shots
could fit in each Hassy film magazine. The basic
handheld camera was the Hasselblad 500EL. Each
film magazine would typically yield 160 color or
200 B&W. "Kodak was asked by NASA to develop
thin new films with special emulsions... [Some] magazines
were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak
Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, [some]
with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, [some] with Kodak
Ektachrome SO-121, and [some] with super light-
sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film."

Panatomic X, no longer made, was a single layer
emulsion with very fine grain, and could be developed
as a positive or negative image. Sadly, there are no
such (single-layer) films made any more, that I know
of. (It was my favorite.)

The cameras were extensively modified to work in
vacuum and under lunar conditions:

"When film is normally wound in a camera, static
electricity is generated on the film surface. This electricity
is dispersed by metal rims and rollers, which guide the
film, and by humidity in the surrounding air. In the
lunar surface camera, however, the film was guided
by the Reseau plate's [where the little crosshairs were
engraved] raised edges. As glass is a poor electrical
conductor, and with the absence of surrounding air,
the charge built up between the glass surface and the
film could become so great that sparks could occur
between the plate and the film. In order to conduct
the static electricity away and prevent sparking, the
side of the plate facing the film was coated with a
thin transparent conductive layer and silver deposited
on the edges of the conductive layer. The electrical
charge was then led to the metallic parts of the camera
body by contact springs."

Worthy of note there is that static discharges
produce so-called "film defects," but not the kind
seen in the A14 67-9384 photo.

The cameras also had lengthened and oversized
controls so you could manipulate them wearing big
fat gloves! The EL model had an electric motor that
advanced the film and cocked the shutter automatically,
so all you had to do in your big fat gloves was set
the f-stop, set the exposure, set the focus, and press
the shutter release. That's enough to keep you busy
on the Moon.

Freezing will not harm film, as long as it is allowed
to gradually return to "normal" temperatures before it
is used. In fact, freezing will preserve film in perfect
condition for decades. Photographers fanatically
devoted to Kodachrome 25 froze cases of it when
it was discontinued and have been using it (or selling
it) ever since. (Kodachrome 64 was too red-sensitive
for them.)

High temperatures are deadly to film's true color
reproduction, however, hence the reflective camera
bodies in those Hassy 500EL's. I don't see any sign
of heat degradation in any Apollo photos, so I guess
it worked. On the other hand, locking your car on a
summer day with the black camera laying on the dash
or in direct sunshine anywhere inside the car is a sure
invitation to vacation photos with purple mountains,
purple grass, purple road signs, purple people...

"The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was
colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal
temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold
encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in
the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated
or replaced because conventional lubricants would
boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense
on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate,
and film."

The mention of "special lubricants" brings up a
non-photographic point of some interest. A camera
is a lightweight box with two rollers in it and very
low levels of force being used. We are "working
on" returning to the Moon and building a base there.
Presumably, we will also do that on Mars, and later,
eventually, other places. We're not going to be able
to do very much "building" (or digging or mining
or much of anything) using nothing but the human
muscles of "astronauts."

No, we're going to need heavy machinery and lots
of it. A survivable lunar base will need to be buried in the
lunar surface or covered with feet of lunar soil or both.
What sort of lubricants will be needed for a lunar
bulldozer? Or a Martain back-hoe? What will protect
axles, gears, drives, etc., under loads of tons of force
and yet work at minus 250 F? What seal materials
will function reliably for months or years on an exposed
outer airlock door that goes from minus 250 F. to
plus 250 F. every two weeks? Or even on a wheel
bearing?

The sad truth is that nobody knows. We can't even
get heavy machinery to work reliably in the puny Antarctic
winter where it hardly ever dips below minus 100 F and
is never in a vacuum. So, who's working on vacuum-
indifferent, high-load machine lubricants of every type
and function, with a 500-600 degree working range?
Raise your hands... anybody? How about seals?
Gaskets? Anybody?

Or do we expect them to magically appear when
we need them? (Bitch, bitch, bitch...)

Heres another quote from this Guy..:

Notice that he Said: Worthy of note there is that static discharges
produce so-called "film defects," but not the kind
seen in the A14 67-9384 photo.

<Worthy of note there is that static discharges
produce so-called "film defects," but not the kind
seen in the A14 67-9384 photo.>

The best "fake" Apollo shot was during Apollo 15 I think it was...

...the astronaut took a hammer, and a feather, and dropped them to the surface from chest high. He prefaced the drop with something about testing Newton's law of gravitation.

Amazingly, the feather hit the ground at the same instant as the much heavier hammer!

Of course, we ***ALL*** know this was faked, because we ***ALL*** know the entire Apollo missions were faked!

The question is, how did they fake it?

Pretty amazing huh?

Oh... I know what you're thinking - perhaps they DIDN'T fake Apollo? Come on, what are you, STUPID?

OF COURSE THEY FAKED APOLLO! They faked a total of eight moon trips (when one would have been sufficient). They faked a NEAR DISASTER mission (Apollo 13) just to show that this WASN'T a fake. They faked thousands of photos (easy to do of course). They also faked a Newton's Second Law of Gravitation experiment.

Whew. Those NASA fakers sure were amazing, weren't they?

(in case you can't detect the sarcasm in my post - you hoax idiots are all FOOLS)

That is an extremely good point which the HB's conveniently try to ignore. If we were trying to win the cold war space race to the moon, one landing would have been sufficient. Yet we went to the moon on eight different occasions with the Russians tracking us all the way. They would have loved to have exposed the US in a hoax, but it didn't happen. With the level and complexity of the secrecy that would have been required, why take a chance on multiple trips when one would have done the trick? And on worldwide television with everyone looking and many countries' scientists monitoring every bit and byte of telemetry.

The simple fact of the matter is that we DID go.

Precisely.

I continue to make this point over and over every time I see one of these threads. Of course, I'm generally just wasting my time, as the HB'ers as you call them are closed minded fools.

Still, it is nice to see someone get the point, even if you weren't an HB'er.

This is Occam's Razor in action, and HB types think that is something you shave with. LOL

but not the kind defect... it seems that we are closer to UFO explanation after all...

Whay a bunch of nut jobs looking at emulsion scratches, defects and processing grit and seeing studios, aliens and government fake jobs when the real thing is so much easier.

For pitys sake I hope none of you are over the age of 12.

"He suggests that the earth at that time was vastly different then it is now, with 80% landmass, and very little water. "

Nut Job

Once again... the mylar balloon rears its ugly head!

From the Discovery Channel website:

"Aug. 15, 2006 NASA officials are searching for the original videotapes from the first moon landing in 1969 in the hopes that they can use modern technology to produce sharper images of the event.

The video, including footage of Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon, was transmitted from the moon to tracking stations in California and Australia. The images that were then sent to Houston, and seen by the rest of the world were substantially degraded.

Space program veterans believe the original tracking station recordings are stored somewhere at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Telephone calls Monday night to NASA and Goddard spokesmen were not immediately returned."

This was posted in 2006, and the tapes are still missing. Scientists are some of the most gullible people around. If Uri Geller can dupe scientists into thinking that he can bend metal with his mind, then it's not that difficult for a "credible" source such as NASA to do the same. Why don't they just give up on this scam? Maybe it's because they stole 30 billion in taxpayer dollars back then. If NASA officially admits the hoax, then NASA funding will probably be reduced. This would also damage the average American's faith in American scientists in general. Sadly, this would be due to the average American's ignorance about how science works.

Those of you who consider yourselves to be strict empiricists should reconsider the empirical evidence provided. NASA will not allow the moon rocks to be studied by independent labs. This is just bad science. Without repeat independent analysis it's impossible to know whether these are simply common meteorites, or rocks that were collected by Surveyor. The reflectors could have been dropped by orbiting probes. Unfortunately, the official Apollo documents won't be released until 2026. Why is this? The cold war is over. This is no longer sensitive information. The government sold us a 30 billion dollar crop circle! If the CIA can get away with running drugs for 40 years, and conducting various false flag attacks, then why not something like this? The bigger the lie, the more people are inclined to believe it.

Here's more info on the lost video tapes:
[link to en.wikinews.org]

I love it when some scientist hafta eat crow!..lol!..ever since they've been finding Metorites..the one thing they constantly would say is: There are no Meteorites with "quartz" in them! Well one just turned up!plus theres the Hi-Rise images of "quartz" on mars!...now i'm left to wonder..what really is in lunar "soil"? I've some "lunar Replicant" from 1968...it has "quartz" in it.

Did you all look at the photos with the same backdrops? So fuckin fake and so fuckin sad. Stick a fuckin fork in it.