O/T-Moon Landing Tomorrow

[1949chevy]

Hassleblad Marketing is very interesting. I know Hassy shot the moon shots as that was one of their full page advertisements years ago. Another ad showed a pile of thumb tacks, a pile of rice, and a pile of horse hair. The ad read something like this "We use the finest materials to produce a Hassleblad body". After the parts are finished the best that is humanly possible, some of the parts are thrown in a huge oil filled container with thumb tacks, especially the gear parts, and the tacks with oil as a lubricant get between the teeth on the gears used and polish them to perfection, the bodies are tossed for months of course in the rice filled container and then finally for months, the body parts are whipped by the horse hair to finish the body to pure 100% perfection. A new "Body only" is $8999,00, one complete, their finest $33,000.00. And Hassleblads did not have a light meter...I had to know what to set the lens and shutter speed to based on the light I was in. Never took a light meter with me.

[joelsplace]

In the link for the Apollo 15 cameras, at the VERY bottom of the scrolled down page, on the lower left hand side is a link to all the Apollo images. It is rather significant in size and as such I randomly selected the 70mm Hasselblad, Apollo 11, Magazine Q https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apol ... gazine/?39. These images are all shot on the same strip of film within the magazine. In some of the images the Reseau markings are visible and in others not. The amount of illumination, the angle of the illumination, the F-stop on the camera and the contrast within the shot are all likely contributors to the Reseau markings visibility..., or not. The presence or absence of Reseau markings in and of themselves would not be evidence of being "fake" based on the contiguous film strip that does and doesn't show them.

Very interesting. That is a reasonable sounding explanation.
Thanks!

[joelsplace]

I know a guy that reads and follows all things NASA. I asked him why most of the moon pictures are fake. He looked at them with me and agreed they appea0r to be fake. The evidence is that their cameras all had + marks in the lenses which he knew about. Most of the pictures do not have them. Is there an explanation?

Yes...easy one. First of all, if you buy anything Hassleblad, and I owned 3 complete bodies, 3 lense's, 4 backs that hold film, 2 view finders, filters, etc, just the part you look thru to see the image you are taking, cost me $1500.00, the same as just one of my bodies I bought new, one lens, the 150mm cost me many hundreds and this was in 1990. The bodies took ONE FULL YEAR EACH TO PRODUCE in Sweden. Anyway, at those costs one with any sense WILL PROTECT the lens. You put on a filter on the front of the lens to do so. Every camera I have owned has a filter on the front of the lens. 1. The filter could be removed to actually take the photo or 2. A minor scratch OR scratches on the filter will NOT SHOW UP IN A PHOTO, even on a 2 1'4 negative. 3. The ONLY way a scratch would show up, the lens FOCUSED on the filter and everything else would be so blurry you would not know what it was and that is pretty much impossible, that is called depth of field. The focal length cannot focus that close to an object, especially back then. The lens they used was a 80mm (normal lens for a Hassy) more than likely and they used a 70mm polarizing filter on the lens. That filter is used to eliminate glare and it gives a vibrant blue sky photo especially on a slide, almost looks fake...but its NOT. In 1990, I was one of 1400 Certified Professional Photographers in the World by the Professional Photograhers of America and in Who's Who in Professional Imaging which corporations called on me to photograph many projects for them including Ford Motor Company twice and a top secret NASA/MILITARY part and I had to turn over the film to them immediately after the shoot.

That doesn't work since some of the photos have the marks unless you are saying the photos with the marks are the fake ones.

[joelsplace]

Since I'm getting some good answers here that I haven't been able to find elsewhere-
Does anyone know why the dust isn't disturbed under the lander and why there is no dust on the "feet"?

[Nashfan]

The big reason is that dust simply doesnt fly around on the moon like we are used to seeing here on Earth, because of no atmosphere. This also affects how the dust is kicked up... pretty much if the dust isnt directly in a line of sight of the gasses it isnt disturbed. The only picture that I found online was a picture of Buzz Aldrin slightly north of one of the landers feet and there were lots of footprints to the side of the lander. If you look closely you can see the sliding marks caused by the pad as it landed and also some stuff kind of piled up in front of the pad, which is what one would expect if the craft is moving downward and forward as it landed.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/1123X.jpg

[American Mel]

Kevin is correct about dust not being a floating/drifting cloud, in a vacuum.
Also, I have read somewhere that one possible explanation for the lack of the Reseau Markings, was that those pictures were retouched, for the release to the public for publishing.
Only the outstanding pictures were initially chosen for this action.
NASA knew that many would be keeping those pictures on their walls and such, the marks were removed from the best/most dramatic PUBLISHED photos for PR purposes.
.
Actually, if you are going to fake all of the landings, it wouldn't be as hard as all that you listed, Phil.
The entire Space Program would be real, and only the LANDINGS themselves would be faked.
99% of the people in the space program, and ALL of the politicians could be kept in the dark.
Even those people working directly in the mission control center could be believing they were doing one thing, while something else was actually happening.
There was how long of a transmit/broadcast delay?
The military already has their own film and movie studios and processing, they wouldn't need to involve Hollywood to pull it off, even though that is part of the Great Conspiracy theory.
YES! We went to the Moon!
Just saying that the conspiracy wouldn't have to be as big as you stated.
The Moon Bebunking undoubtedly started with the Soviets, who never made it that far and needed some explanation to give to their people as to why the U.S.A. was able to out-pace them and become superior.

[joelsplace]

I do realize that dust would act a lot different than what we are used to in a vacuum.
The lander had to fire the engines to keep from slamming into the moon, right? The pictures I've seen that show directly underneath the lander show undisturbed dust.

[Wittsend]

My understanding is the surface of the moon is more granular then dust. To whatever extent it proves anything..., or not (no intent on making a point either way) here is a film of the Lunar Rover being put thought its paces and we can see the reaction of the moon surface being churned.
Video:

Here is the film of an Apollo landing and they mention that they are "Picking up dust" at 40 feet off the surface. It MIGHT be that surface material (dust) had blown away before they landed??? In any case they mention "dust" and that it is moving.
Cue video:

[joelsplace]

The pictures I saw had the lander sitting in "dust" with none blown away underneath.

[Frank DuVal]

I think Corvairs are fake. No way you can prove to me without a doubt they move under their own power.

That's what I think of anyone who starts out talking about fake moon landings. I figure everything is fake to them.

[Frank DuVal]

I am VERY GLAD we are back on the moon!

[TimeMachineParadox]

I found this interesting video talking about the dust from the lunar lander and why there isn't any on the feet of the Eagle lander. I think a lot of confusion comes from how seemingly every-day behaviors are very much different in a complete vacuum.

Also, the South Korean Danuri probe was able to capture aerial images of the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites.

An interesting tidbit that I think I read somewhere was that the regolith (lunar dust) was incredibly fine and abrasive to the point that it got EVERYwhere and in EVERYthing. I think I remember seeing that it was actually able to work its way through some layers of the space suit fabric and begin wearing the fabric.

I'll be excited to see what comes of the planned crewed lunar missions in the next few years. It'll be very interesting for people to be on the moon again (and for the first time in my lifetime).

[erco]

The Odysseus lander rolled over upon landing. It thinks it's an EM Corvair!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 2725631007

[Phil Dally]

Artemis II will be one of the next USA milestones...around the moon.

Pilot Victor Glover is an SLO Cal Poly graduate...GO MUSTANGS!!

https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii/

[Nashfan]

The pictures I saw had the lander sitting in "dust" with none blown away underneath.

Heres the best picture I could come up with, it shows how localized the dust disturbance is- The picture is taken nearly directly under the nozzle.

https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/fa ... 0-5921.jpg

[joelsplace]

Thanks for the info. The video was interesting as well as the picture.
Best answers I've heard so far.