PDA

View Full Version : [thomheg claims on Apollo missions]



thomheg
2011-Feb-27, 11:09 PM
Look at:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=555&imageID=AS11-40-5873
It is titled:

Aldrin beside solar wind experiment.

Now look at:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=580&imageID=AS11-40-5886
titled:
Armstrong works at LM

But:
the camera was mounted to the space suit and could not be changed.

Jason Thompson
2011-Feb-27, 11:27 PM
camera was mounted to the space suit and could not be changed.

Says who?

The camera was attached by a simple set of hooks to a mount on the front of the suit. Both suits had the mount, and the camera could easily be switched between the two. It is clear on the TV footage that Armstrong does not have the camer when he comes down the ladder. It is then handed down on the conveyor and he attaches it to his suit and takes some phots. Later he then hands it to Aldrin.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-28, 02:38 AM
But:
the camera was mounted to the space suit and could not be changed.

What's the basis for this assertion? Are you repeating the claim of some moon hoax proponent?

Here's a post by Jay Utah describing the modifications that were made to the camera for use by the astronauts:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/34320-Lunar-Hasselblad?p=589724#post589724

Here he discusses how it was attached to the suit:



The camera could be removed easily from the suit attachment, which was by no means a "rigid" connection.

The front panel of the remote-control unit (RCU) contained a set of vertical rails that received a bayonet on the rear of the custom pistol-grip bracket attached to the bottom of the camera body. To attach the camera, the astronaut simply slid the bracket down into the rails. It was held in place by gravity and friction. To remove it, the astronaut lifted up on the pistol grip and the camera slid free with little resistance.

LaurelHS
2011-Feb-28, 04:15 AM
What exactly do erroneous claims about Apollo 11's camera have to do with Apollo 12 photographs of the sun? Although it was good for the Apollo 12 astronauts that the cameras could change hands easily, because Alan Bean's camera broke during the second EVA so he and Conrad shared one for a while.

thomheg
2011-Feb-28, 06:12 AM
Says who?

Well, there are several webpages about the camera equipment of Apollo 11.
One is this:
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/rcu_topb.jpg

Or this:
http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
Apparently Armstrong was wearing this device.
But we have photos of footprints, that were made from above and are labeled as Aldrins:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html


This is a strange one from Apollo 12
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=283&imageID=AS12-48-7071

You see an astronaut, holding a camera. But we know, from experience, that the photographer isn't on the picture - neither the camera. And: The reflection seems to show the other astronaut from behind (?).

Here you see the other astronaut - Pete Conrad - descending to the surface from the landing module. But you don't see a camera. So: how could he make a photo?
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=133&imageID=AS12-46-6716


The camera was attached by a simple set of hooks to a mount on the front of the suit.
Well, yes. It was bolted to a simple device (see link above). But that doesn't necessarily mean, you want to change the camera and hand it over to the other astronaut - if you were walking on the moon, wearing a spacesuit and pressurized gloves. And the other one had none of these hooks to attach the camera to.

But the photos are - by far - not the worst problem to explain.
More difficult seems to me, how the lander should return to the orbiter.
There exists a schematic of the LM, where you can see the return-engine.
Actually it looks like, as if the astronauts had to sit on it.
Wouldn't that be hot? And if not too hot, than certainly too loud.
Since the orbiter had significant pace, the lander had to catch up. But where did they get the needed fuel? And where did they store it?

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-28, 08:26 AM
Well, there are several webpages about the camera equipment of Apollo 11.


And other Apollo missions, but they don't support your claim that the Hasselblad surface cameras couldn't be changed.



Apparently Armstrong was wearing this device.


Are you referring to the RCU? Both astronauts had those (ETA: Of course, this was true for astronauts in later missions as well).



But we have photos of footprints, that were made from above and are labeled as Aldrins:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html


And your point is?


This is a strange one from Apollo 12
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=283&imageID=AS12-48-7071

You see an astronaut, holding a camera. But we know, from experience, that the photographer isn't on the picture - neither the camera.


Are you researching any of this before you post it? From here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html

AS12-48-7071 (OF300) ( 106k or 669k )

133:15:32 Al's picture of Pete taking Al's picture. Pete is holding the extension handle in his left hand. Note that he has re-attached the scoop. His cuff checklist can be seen on his left wrist and is open to one of the pages on which the backup crew has pasted a picture of a Playboy Playmate. Pete's watch is on his sleeve between his pressure gauge and his elbow. The LM is in the background, over Pete's left shoulder. A labeled detail shows the upper straps holding the Surveyor Parts Bag on the back of Pete's PLSS. Compare with a relevant pre-flight photo.

So, the astronauts took pictures of each other.



And: The reflection seems to show the other astronaut from behind (?).


It looks like the front of the astronaut's suit to me.



Here you see the other astronaut - Pete Conrad - descending to the surface from the landing module. But you don't see a camera. So: how could he make a photo?
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=133&imageID=AS12-46-6716


Again, from

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/images12.html


AS12-46-6715 (OF300) ( 118k or 838k )

115:21:24 Pete is on the ladder. We can see his RCU, hose connections and checklist. Note that his OPS antenna is up. The porch and the luanr surface below are reflected in his visor. Al is taking the picture by holding the camera upside-down, at knee height, and is guessing at the pointing. The frame is slightly sunstruck.

AS12-46-6716 (OF300) ( 107k or 844k )

115:20:07 Similar to 6715 but aimed higher.





Well, yes. It was bolted to a simple device (see link above). But that doesn't necessarily mean, you want to change the camera and hand it over to the other astronaut - if you were walking on the moon, wearing a spacesuit and pressurized gloves. And the other one had none of these hooks to attach the camera to.


Wrong, both astronauts had an RCU on their suit.

Repeating my questions from my previous post:

What's the basis for this assertion? Are you repeating the claim of some moon hoax proponent?



But the photos are - by far - not the worst problem to explain.
More difficult seems to me, how the lander should return to the orbiter.
There exists a schematic of the LM, where you can see the return-engine.
Actually it looks like, as if the astronauts had to sit on it.
Wouldn't that be hot?


Why would it be too hot?


And if not too hot, than certainly too loud.


"Certainly"? How did you determine it would be too loud?



Since the orbiter had significant pace, the lander had to catch up. But where did they get the needed fuel? And where did they store it?

If you looked at a schematic, you should have seen the fuel and oxidizer tanks in the ascent module.

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-28, 09:02 AM
Posts prior to this post were moved to this thread from here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/112766-Apollo-12-Moon-photo-false-Sun

The claims made are pretty wide ranging and deserved their own thread for the claimant to defend them according the CT forum rules.

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-28, 09:13 AM
Here's some good advice from Obviousman: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/97627-Thomhegs-Apollo-questions?p=1637166#post1637166

eburacum45
2011-Feb-28, 10:20 AM
And: The reflection seems to show the other astronaut from behind (?).

It looks like the front of the astronaut's suit to me.
And to me. But in any case that reflected figure is standing exactly where the photographer should be; are you proposing that the photographer took that photo with his back?

Jason Thompson
2011-Feb-28, 12:11 PM
Well, there are several webpages about the camera equipment of Apollo 11.

Indeed there are. Do you have a specific one that says the camera was fixed to the suit permanently and could not be passed from one man to the other? Everythnig I have ever read about the cameras (and seen in the footage) clearly says they were often handed from one man to the other, and you can see quite clearly that they do not have them on the front of their suits when going up and down the LM ladder.


This is a strange one from Apollo 12
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=283&imageID=AS12-48-7071

You see an astronaut, holding a camera. But we know, from experience, that the photographer isn't on the picture - neither the camera. And: The reflection seems to show the other astronaut from behind (?).

How do you deduce that? I can clearly see on the full res version that the astronaut in the reflection is facing the right way. You can see the darker area of his visor and the fact that he has his arms in front of him to operate the camera.


Here you see the other astronaut - Pete Conrad - descending to the surface from the landing module. But you don't see a camera. So: how could he make a photo?

Have you ever watched the actual EVA footage? You can see the answer to this question in both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 footage. They did not have the camera on their suits when the went up or down the ladder as it would have been in the way. The cameras were lowered down later once the commander was on the surface via a conveyor system, and then slipped onto the mount on the suit.


Well, yes. It was bolted to a simple device (see link above). But that doesn't necessarily mean, you want to change the camera and hand it over to the other astronaut

That is not what you said. You said it could not be changed from one man to the other. Are you now retracting that and saying it could be but they didn't want to?


More difficult seems to me, how the lander should return to the orbiter.

Well, ask a rocket scientist.


There exists a schematic of the LM, where you can see the return-engine.
Actually it looks like, as if the astronauts had to sit on it.

Why would the astronauts have 'had' to sit on it? They were stood up at the controls at the front of the LM so they could each see out of their windows.


Wouldn't that be hot?

Would it? Do you think no-one designing it thought of that?


And if not too hot, than certainly too loud.

Why too loud? What causes the noise we normally associate with rocket engines, and how might that be different in a spacecraft in space?


Since the orbiter had significant pace, the lander had to catch up. But where did they get the needed fuel? And where did they store it?

Any schematic of the LM would show you where the fuel and oxidiser tanks are, and you can see where they are on any photo. They are the irregularly shaped protrusions on either side of the door.

Do you have any numbers, or just personal incredulity to back up your suspicion that they didn't have enough fuel for the trip?

thomheg
2011-Feb-28, 12:56 PM
Well, I got my own thread again. Now I had to defend my ideas.
Lets start with the camera itself.

To use a Hasselblad on the moon as a camera would be the silliest thing imaginable in the first place.
Why that? Well a Hasselblad is a 6x6 cm camera with outstanding quality. But this comes at a price:
first, the camera is heavy and bulky. Features certainly not wanted on such a trip.
Than it uses a magazine system with 6x6 rollfilm with only a few pictures on it. A trip to the moon would certainly require a different choice, because to change the magazine wasn't possible - as far as I know. But wouldn't you like to have more pictures from such a fantastic trip?

A Hasselblad has a viewfinder, but that is attached from the top. If none is attached, you could still look inside and that is, where the astronauts couldn't look.

Features like auotexposure and autofocus would certainly be mandatory, as would be remote control. What about a tripod? Wouldn't such a long trip demand pictures of both astronauts? A lighter camera would allow to carry a tripod and larger magazines.

In summary, a camera that is optimized upon the quality of the resulting prints is good for the advertising industry, but is a fantastically bad choice for the moon.

thomheg
2011-Feb-28, 01:08 PM
And to me. But in any case that reflected figure is standing exactly where the photographer should be; are you proposing that the photographer took that photo with his back?

The problem I mentioned is, that you see a photo of a camera. That would require at least two Hasselblads on the moon. As the magazines is in one camera, than this second had to have a second magazine. But where are the photos from that magazine??

If there were two of those cameras, than on one magazine had to be photos of one astronaut alone and on the other only photos of the other. This is so, because photos on a film are made one after the other and the film would fix that order. So: on one film you have the pictures you have made in that order and that cannot be changed. But if the astronaut changed, the pictures couldn't come from the same film.

Strange
2011-Feb-28, 01:20 PM
Well, I got my own thread again. Now I had to defend my ideas.
Lets start with the camera itself.

I'm not expert but...


To use a Hasselblad on the moon as a camera would be the silliest thing imaginable in the first place.
Why that? Well a Hasselblad is a 6x6 cm camera with outstanding quality. But this comes at a price:
first, the camera is heavy and bulky. Features certainly not wanted on such a trip.

Presumably it was the best balance of weight and quality they found. How much weight would have been saved by using a different make of camera? What percentage of the total mission mass is that?


Than it uses a magazine system with 6x6 rollfilm with only a few pictures on it.

I believe an unmodified Haselblad magazine can carry a film of at least 120 frames. Apollo used modified cameras and special film that allowed several hundred exposures per magazine.


A trip to the moon would certainly require a different choice, because to change the magazine wasn't possible - as far as I know.

Quite. Of course the magazines could be changed. That is the whole point. (I'm not sure if they actually changed them during an EVA or only back on board.)


But wouldn't you like to have more pictures from such a fantastic trip?

There are thousands of pictures. How many do you want?


A Hasselblad has a viewfinder, but that is attached from the top.

These are modified cameras. They didn't have the normal viewfinder. For obvious reasons. They did have basic sighting system but it wasn't always used.


Features like auotexposure and autofocus would certainly be mandatory, as would be remote control.

Why? There is a huge amount of latitude in exposure and focus which will still provide acceptable results.


What about a tripod? Wouldn't such a long trip demand pictures of both astronauts?

They weren't on holiday! And here's a picture of the happy couple...


In summary, a camera that is optimized upon the quality of the resulting prints is good for the advertising industry, but is a fantastically bad choice for the moon.

In summary, I think you need to find out more about the cameras, film, techniques and rationale, involved.

Strange
2011-Feb-28, 01:32 PM
The problem I mentioned is, that you see a photo of a camera. That would require at least two Hasselblads on the moon.

And the problem with that is?


A comprehensive set of camera equipment was carried on board Apollo 11. This included two 16mm Maurer motion picture film cameras, a color television camera in the orbiting Columbia, and a black and white TV camera outside of the lunar module to transmit to Earth Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon's surface. A Kodak stereo close-up camera was used to film the lunar soil from only inches away. Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.
(Apollo 12 had the same setup, I believe)


As the magazines is in one camera, than this second had to have a second magazine. But where are the photos from that magazine??

Have you looked for them?


If there were two of those cameras, than on one magazine had to be photos of one astronaut alone and on the other only photos of the other. This is so, because photos on a film are made one after the other and the film would fix that order. So: on one film you have the pictures you have made in that order and that cannot be changed. But if the astronaut changed, the pictures couldn't come from the same film.

What? That makes no sense. If there are sequences showing different astronauts in adjacent pictures then clearly they passed the camera from one to the other. Isn't that where we came in?

thomheg
2011-Feb-28, 01:33 PM
Indeed there are. Do you have a specific one that says the camera was fixed to the suit permanently and could not be passed from one man to the other? Everythnig I have ever read about the cameras (and seen in the footage) clearly says they were often handed from one man to the other, and you can see quite clearly that they do not have them on the front of their suits when going up and down the LM ladder.

That would be possible. But I don't think, that this is very likely, because the camera had to be attached to the spacesuite. But if you hand it around frequently, why would you hook it to the suite in the first place and not use some sort of grip or any kind of device as tripod?

I don't really want to discuss all the aspects and research everything. I do it like Sherlock Holmes and just claim, that it had to be that way. This would be equivalent to the scientific method, to set up a hypothesis. That cannot be proven, but could be proven wrong.
In contrary: if I show any inconsistencies in the official story, than any of these prove the official story to be wrong.

caveman1917
2011-Feb-28, 01:40 PM
This would be equivalent to the scientific method, to set up a hypothesis. That cannot be proven, but could be proven wrong.

Then why don't you go ahead and prove your hypothesis to be wrong?
It's called the scientific method for a reason.


In contrary: if I show any inconsistencies in my interpretation of the official story, than any of these prove my interpretation of the official story to be wrong.

I added the bold parts to the quote.

How can you know that would not be the more correct statement when you

don't really want to discuss all the aspects and research everything.

Swift
2011-Feb-28, 01:43 PM
Nice article on the Hasselblad cameras and their history with NASA (http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/)

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal article on them (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html)

eburacum45
2011-Feb-28, 01:45 PM
(Apollo 12 had the same setup, I believe)


Here are the cameras carried by Apollo 12:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_12/photography/

70-millimeter Hasselblad Data Cameras. The two electrically powered data cameras that were carried on the lunar module featured semiautomatic operation. They used a 60-millimeter Biogon lens exclusively. The operating sequence was initiated by squeezing a trigger mounted on the camera handle. A 1-centimeter reseau grid was set in front of the image plane to provide photogrammetric information in the analysis of the photography. The cameras were bracket-mounted on the front of the LM astronauts' EVA suits.

Strange
2011-Feb-28, 01:47 PM
That would be possible. But I don't think, that this is very likely, because the camera had to be attached to the spacesuite. But if you hand it around frequently, why would you hook it to the suite in the first place and not use some sort of grip or any kind of device as tripod?

Why attach it to the suit? To leave hands free.
"Some sort of grip"? What does that mean?
A tripod would be awkward to carry around, fiddly to set up on uneven ground and add weight. And the advantage would be what exactly?


I don't really want to discuss all the aspects and research everything. I do it like Sherlock Holmes and just claim, that it had to be that way.

So you don't want to do any research? You just want to make unsubstantiated claims? Fine. As long as you don't expect to be taken seriously.

(BTW Holmes didn't work that way; he based his deductions on an encyclopedic knowledge and observation of the evidence. Do you begin to see the difference?)

thomheg
2011-Feb-28, 01:49 PM
One final comment:

in a sleepless night I have posted some random thoughts about the Apollo photos.
Mainly because I intended to return to BAUT and take part in such discussion. What I didn't wanted, was to insult anybody or make claims about Apollo. And I had no intention to start a new thread and defend every possible aspect.
You may close this thread if you like or continue to discuss the subject, if you would prefer that. But from my side I would say, I don't like to continue this discussion.

eburacum45
2011-Feb-28, 01:57 PM
Don't worry; no offense taken (on my part at least). It is an interesting exercise to examine these photos in detail; so far they seem to be consistent with the official history.

Garrison
2011-Feb-28, 02:07 PM
That would be possible. But I don't think, that this is very likely, because the camera had to be attached to the spacesuite. But if you hand it around frequently, why would you hook it to the suite in the first place and not use some sort of grip or any kind of device as tripod?

What you think is likely is irrelevant, have you any evidence to dispute the material already discussed that says the astronauts did precisely that?


I don't really want to discuss all the aspects and research everything. I do it like Sherlock Holmes and just claim, that it had to be that way.

Then why raise the issues if you are not prepared to actually learn enough to offer a reasoned argument? And I can only conclude that you haven't read any Sherlock Holmes either, Holmes method was to examine the evidence in detail and to have the knowledge and resources to make sense of it; the antithesis of what you are doing. To quote Holmes:

"You see but you do not observe"(from, 'A Scandal in Bohemia', and also the title of a very interesting Robert J Sawyer story about Holmes)

All the evidence is there to answer your questions, you simply fail to take it in.


This would be equivalent to the scientific method, to set up a hypothesis. That cannot be proven, but could be proven wrong.
In contrary: if I show any inconsistencies in the official story, than any of these prove the official story to be wrong.

Well since your hypotheses such as the camera being fixed to the chest have been proven wrong then are you going to concede that your whole case has been falsified? In reality of course you would have to discredit the whole canon of evidence that supports the reality of Apollo. Simply stating that you think the engine would have gotten too hot or that in your opinion they mounted the camera a funny way isn't going to cut it.

captain swoop
2011-Feb-28, 02:09 PM
Is that a retraction of your claims?

Jason Thompson
2011-Feb-28, 04:00 PM
In summary, thomheg knows nothing about the modifcations made to the cameras for use on the Moon, knows nothing about the training in their use, has never bothered watching the footage to see what they do with the cameras, knows nothing about how many cameras were used, knows nothing about how many photos were taken, knows nothing about the LM and its capabilities, and knows nothing about the way the cameras were mounted.

And yet he still thinks he can challenge a record he knows nothing about?!

Garrison
2011-Feb-28, 05:04 PM
In summary, thomheg knows nothing about the modifcations made to the cameras for use on the Moon, knows nothing about the training in their use, has never bothered watching the footage to see what they do with the cameras, knows nothing about how many cameras were used, knows nothing about how many photos were taken, knows nothing about the LM and its capabilities, and knows nothing about the way the cameras were mounted.

And yet he still thinks he can challenge a record he knows nothing about?!

Which is about par for the course with CT's. Somewhere he found something that said, or he thought it said, the cameras were fixed to the chest mount. When he found pictures that contradicted it he seems to have ascribed that some sort of hoax rather than a mistake in or misunderstanding of the original source.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-28, 06:40 PM
You know, the easiest way to avoid being asked to defend claims you've made about Apollo is to stop making claims about Apollo. The easiest way to avoid having your claims about Apollo challenged is to make sure you've done your homework. Really, you ought to pick one and stick to it if you don't want to be expected to show what you know about Apollo.

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-28, 08:58 PM
Let's all avoid the meta-discussion about what thomeg knows or does not know. (It's pretty obvious).

My own "not a mod" comment (trying hard not to repeat anything said above):


... But wouldn't you like to have more pictures from such a fantastic trip? ...

(My bold).

This is an interesting difference of opinion with the conspiracy believers who claim that too many pictures were taken (claims that have been dealt with before, including on BAUT). I would ask thomheg (if he were to stick around) how many pictures he'd expect to have been taken, and how many pictures he thinks were taken?

pzkpfw
2011-Feb-28, 09:04 PM
Is that a retraction of your claims?

Let me repeat this in mod-colour. thomheg, you made CT claims in the CT forum. Regardless of whether you originally started a new thread or inserted those claims into another thread - you need to back up those claims. Either deal with them here, or retract them. And certainly, never make such claims again if you are simply going to abandon them when the going gets tough.

jrkeller
2011-Feb-28, 09:44 PM
thomheg,

I googled up the EVA timeline document for Apollo 11. The timeline is NASA's way of planning the EVA to achieve maximum results. At approximately 1 hour, Armstrong hands of the camera to Aldrin. Actually, he takes it off, sets it on the MESA and Aldrin picks it up.

Link (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11flsp.pdf) Go to to page 49 of the pdf to see it. And before you say NASA planted this document after the Apollo 11 mission, know that occassionally the original documents are for sale on ebay

Bobbar
2011-Feb-28, 09:49 PM
More difficult seems to me, how the lander should return to the orbiter.

We successfully do it all the time from Earth when a transport meets up with the ISS. But during Apollo there was far less gravity and absolutely no atmosphere to hinder the ascent. It's all about timing.
The Ascent Stage weighed approx. 1700 pounds in Lunar gravity and its engine produced 3500 pounds of thrust.



There exists a schematic of the LM, where you can see the return-engine.
Actually it looks like, as if the astronauts had to sit on it.


http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/img/lmfront.gif
From Clavius (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/techlmstab.html).

Or sit/stand on either side.



Wouldn't that be hot?


Radiant heat can be very effectively reflected by a shiny piece of metal.

The average car engine exhaust gas can easily exceed 1000 degrees F and it's piped mere inches from your feet.

Why don't your shoes melt?


And if not too hot, than certainly too loud.


A lot of the noise associated with a rocket launch here on Earth comes from the interaction of the super sonic gases and the atmosphere. It's also helpful to realize that these high speed gases are generally directed in one specific direction, and that most of the noise exists after the opening of the rocket nozzle. The Apollo astronauts were only 300 feet away from the business end of one of the loudest machines ever made and they were able to chat with mission control during the entire launch. What about fighter pilots? Their planes are incredibly noisy too, they don't have to wear ear protection when in the cockpit. Some quite literally sit right on top of a jet engine, which has many moving parts. The LM Ascent engine only had two moving parts; fuel and oxidizer valves.



Since the orbiter had significant pace, the lander had to catch up. But where did they get the needed fuel? And where did they store it?

In the large spheres as seen in the image above, around 5000 pounds of it.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-28, 10:02 PM
Don't worry; no offense taken (on my part at least). It is an interesting exercise to examine these photos in detail; so far they seem to be consistent with the official history.

Yes - although as a general rule I think one should do at least some research about the claims one makes (it's a good way to avoid obvious mistakes) I still appreciate threads like this because *my* research often turns up interesting details I hadn't previously known. Also, I appreciate the research and links provided by other participants as well.

chrlzs
2011-Mar-01, 09:43 AM
thomheg, you made many claims here, and I'm not seeing much evidence that you have acknowledged they were incorrect and/or have withdrawn them. Would you mind doing so?


the camera was mounted to the space suit and could not be changed.
Incorrect. Indeed the mounting was exceptionally simple and allowed the camera to be simply slid onto a bracket. There was absolutely no dexterity required.

You showed an image of Conrad and Bean taking images of each other, and stated:

You see an astronaut, holding a camera.
Yes, we do.


But we know, from experience, that the photographer isn't on the picture - neither the camera.
'We' know that from experience?? Please don't speak for others. Clearly, both astronauts in that mission had cameras - had you done even a little bit of research you would have realised that.

And then:

..the reflection seems to show the other astronaut from behind (?).
I cannot see anything in the full-resolution image that indicates that - if you claim otherwise, please point it out specifically. Maybe this might help:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/recursion.jpg
Can you work out what is being shown there?

About the camera, you then repeated the incorrect claim:

It was bolted to a simple device
Again, it was NOT bolted to the chest mount - it simply slid in and out of it. Easily.

Then, you made a series of claims, based on a similar lack of research:

you can see the return-engine... it looks like, as if the astronauts had to sit on it...
Wouldn't that be too hot?
...if not too hot, than certainly too loud
...the orbiter had significant pace, the lander had to catch up...where did they get the needed fuel?...where did they store it?

There's a saying ... claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
thomheg, if you are serious about making claims on a science forum, you need to actually do at least a little research before you throw them out there.. That little bit of research would have shown you where the astronauts *stood* during flight, how 'hot' the engine might have got, how much insulation there was, how much fuel was on board and where.. why, you can even do the fuel calculations... Most of that information can be found pretty easily right here at Baut.

But you didn't bother with any of that, so I'm guessing links *now* aren't going to help much..


And may I say as a photographer who has used very similar Hasselblad cameras, I found this sequence quite astonishing:


To use a Hasselblad on the moon as a camera would be the silliest thing imaginable in the first place.
Not if you understand photography and the mission requirements. It was a perfect choice. Why? Read on..


Well a Hasselblad is a 6x6 cm camera with outstanding quality.
Correct. The next step down in common film sizes was to 35mm (they also took a few 35's up there for less important images), but 35mm film frames are TINY compared to 6x6 and provide FAR less quality. Yet 35mm cameras are not that much lighter. The camera of choice for serious photography in the 60's was (and to some extent still remains) medium and large format. And the Hasselblad was the best of them.


But this comes at a price:
Of course it does. Should they have taken an Instamatic, perhaps???


first, the camera is heavy and bulky.
In one sixth gravity, weight wasn't a huge problem, and the bulkiness (along with a few mods like the paddles) helped it be large enough to be easily handled with gloves.


Features certainly not wanted on such a trip.
Features that ARE most certainly wanted on such a trip.


Than it uses a magazine system with 6x6 rollfilm with only a few pictures on it.
You really didn't look at this in any detail AT ALL, did you?? The Hasselblads were fitted with motor drive magazines with a capacity of 160-200 exposures.


A trip to the moon would certainly require a different choice, because to change the magazine wasn't possible - as far as I know.
As far as you know? Well, we now know how far you know! Those magazines were easily removable (yes, even with gloves)...


But wouldn't you like to have more pictures from such a fantastic trip?
More? - you mean like the 1,407 images from Apollo 11, on the 9 *removable* magazines?:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?11

.. or the 3,584 taken during Apollo 17 on the 23 *removable* magazines?:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/mission/?17


A Hasselblad has a viewfinder, but that is attached from the top. If none is attached, you could still look inside and that is, where the astronauts couldn't look.
So you can't envisage how an astronaut could simply point the camera in the direction required? These were wide angle lenses - do you not understand how easy it is to point such a camera/lens? Have you ever tried?


Features like auotexposure and autofocus would certainly be mandatory
Good grief. Have you never seen that stuff printed inside a film box, showing the simple settings required to manually expose in daylight? This was 1969, you know, and although auto systems were slowly becoming mainstream, they were at that time (and still today!) often thought of as cheats for the lazy :), and added complexity, extra circuitry and batteries that had to operate in a vacuum.. Manual photography is quite simple and RELIABLE - back in the late 70's I was still shooting weddings using manual settings on very similar Hasselblads and Bronica's, and 'real' photographers often use manual control, yes, even today.


As would be remote control.
Why, and what type? If you mean a self timer, perhaps, again, you might want to do a little research.. There's a funny story about one being thrown in disgust by an Apollo astronaut..


What about a tripod?
They were shooting in DAYLIGHT, using a shutter speed of 1/250, and a wide angle lens... Do tell us what you know about the need for a tripod, and how on earth (or moon) you would justify that.


Wouldn't such a long trip demand pictures of both astronauts?
Why? To please you? And they could have simply placed the camera on anything handy like the LM descent stage and used a manual self-timer. They had more important things to do.


A lighter camera would allow to carry a tripod and larger magazines.
There was no lighter or better built or more perfectly suitable camera, unless they dropped to the much lesser 35mm quality. As discussed above, that would have been an awful choice for many reasons. If you disagree, thomheg, please be prepared to debate each aspect in detail, and suggest a better alternative..


In summary, a camera that is optimized upon the quality of the resulting prints is good for the advertising industry, but is a fantastically bad choice for the moon.
Only if you base the choice on a fantastically poor understanding of the topic...

gwiz
2011-Mar-01, 11:29 AM
The average car engine exhaust gas can easily exceed 1000 degrees F and it's piped mere inches from your feet.

Why don't your shoes melt?
Don't get me started on stories of my rallying days.

jrkeller
2011-Mar-01, 03:01 PM
thomheg,

Most of your questions/claims have been addressed and most can be found on the internet [in official documents]. I suggest you google Richard Underwood or Dick Underwood who headed up the astronaut photography.

His bio (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/UnderwoodRW/UnderwoodRW_Bio.pdf).
And here's a 59 page interview (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/UnderwoodRW/UnderwoodRW_10-17-00.pdf) with Richard Underwood were he talks about the historical use of cameras during manned spaceflight and all the design changes that were needed - included those needed to accomodate gloves.

captain swoop
2011-Mar-01, 06:54 PM
As the OP has stated he has no intention of defending the claims then they can be considered as retracted.
Thread closed

thomheg
2011-Mar-03, 09:00 AM
To understand what I mean, you should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

In criminal investigation you try to find something, the evil-doers have overlooked.

On this most famous picture of mankind you could find it:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg

Compare it to this one:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-KSC-69PC-362.jpg

The misplaced item is the safety belt for the Hasselblad, that secured it during the parabel flight.

But what has this thing to do one the moon??????

And why is it cut off?

Strange
2011-Mar-03, 09:42 AM
The misplaced item is the safety belt for the Hasselblad, that secured it during the parabel flight.

What do you mean by "misplaced"? It is present in both pictures.


But what has this thing to do one the moon??????

Do you mean why have the security strap? Presumably in case the astronaut drops the camera (in those gloves you seem to think are too clumsy to do anything). One thing that was hard to do, was bend down to pick things up. Never mind the damage that might be done to the camera. Having a strap on tools is quite common when working at altitude or in space.


And why is it cut off?

What is cut off?

thomheg
2011-Mar-03, 10:17 AM
What do you mean by "misplaced"? It is present in both pictures.

Well, "misplaced item" is e.g. a sock in the refrigerator. Something, that shouldn't be where it is. Somebody going in shorts and Hawaii shirt to a funeral. Things like that.
Somethings wrong, but what could that be???




Do you mean why have the security strap?
Well yes. Since there is very little gravity on the moon, the camery don't need to be fastened. The risk of theft seems negliable and sudden shocks are not expected. So why secure the camera in the first place?

Very different to the situation on such low gravity flights. There you expect sudden turbulences, high acceleration and so forth.

Concusion: This security strap shouldn't be on the moon, but was on that pre-flight training in a special plane (as seen on the photo).

Those two pictures look actually quite similar, but shouldn't. The difference is - of course - vacuum, that would inflate the space-suite. But the space-suite isn't, because it look exactly like the one in pre-flight training.

Than you find, the alleged moon-photo was made on this very trip and edited by something like an early equivalent to photoshop.

It has to be this way, because there are certain relations in the spacesuite, like where the watch is worn or specific wrinkles, that could not be recreated later.

The security strap was cut off with a knife or so, because the photgrapher couldn't open these high-quality hooks, that secured the camera.

But a knife would be the definetely last thing you would like to have on the moon.

chrlzs
2011-Mar-03, 10:32 AM
thomheg, why did you not look at the high resolution version of that image?

Here is a crop from the high-res scan. I have tweaked the contrast a little and added the arrows and labels:
http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14529&d=1299147892

I find it rather puzzling how you could possibly make such a claim, when there it is, right in front of you. How could you miss that????

Also, what does this, and your next post, have to do with the thread topic?

Strange
2011-Mar-03, 10:42 AM
Well yes. Since there is very little gravity on the moon, the camery don't need to be fastened. The risk of theft seems negliable and sudden shocks are not expected. So why secure the camera in the first place?

Um... in case it is dropped? (What has "very little gravity" got to do with it?)


Concusion: This security strap shouldn't be on the moon, but was on that pre-flight training in a special plane (as seen on the photo).

You don't think they might want to use exactly the same setup in training that there were going to use on the mission?


Those two pictures look actually quite similar, but shouldn't. The difference is - of course - vacuum, that would inflate the space-suite.But the space-suite isn't, because it look exactly like the one in pre-flight training.

You expect it to blow up like a balloon do you? That wouldn't be very practical would it.


Than you find, the alleged moon-photo was made on this very trip and edited by something like an early equivalent to photoshop.

You know this how?


The security strap was cut off with a knife or so, because the photgrapher couldn't open these high-quality hooks, that secured the camera.

Where is it cut off?

Van Rijn
2011-Mar-03, 10:56 AM
Those two pictures look actually quite similar, but shouldn't. The difference is - of course - vacuum, that would inflate the space-suite. But the space-suite isn't, because it look exactly like the one in pre-flight training.


I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are claiming. I guess language is part of the issue. Anyway, are you claiming that the suit in the training session on the "vomit comet" wasn't pressurized? If that is your claim, could you explain how you determined this? Keep in mind that the spacesuits often were pressurized a few PSI above outside air pressure, so they could be better used for training.

Jason Thompson
2011-Mar-03, 01:07 PM
Since there is very little gravity on the moon, the camery don't need to be fastened.

There is 1/6th Earth's gravity on the Moon. That's still enough to make something that is dropped hit the ground quite hard.


So why secure the camera in the first place?

Because it can still be dropped, especially with the bulky gloves on.


The difference is - of course - vacuum, that would inflate the space-suite. But the space-suite isn't, because it look exactly like the one in pre-flight training.

You have got to be joking. Do you honestly think that the spacesuit was just a single layer inflated bag? Do you have any idea of the construction of a spacesuit, or the concept of a restraint layer? Do you believe that the white outer garment is actually the same layer that was pressurised?

Space Chimp
2011-Mar-03, 01:44 PM
Than you find, the alleged moon-photo was made on this very trip and edited by something like an early equivalent to photoshop.

Well, the first buggy release of Photoshop was in February 1990. So you're saying NASA had an equivalent technology twenty years prior that they quietly kept under wraps? Or is it more likely that in a vain attempt to explain something you don't understand you have to reach for creative anachronisms such as a product like Adobe Photoshop being around in 1969?

There were photo editing techniques prior to PS. They usually consisted of relatively crude methods like air brushing, dodging, burning, and cutting and pasting that any decent image analyst would probably have detected years ago.

Swift
2011-Mar-03, 08:40 PM
thomheg's posts (and the responses to them) from the False sun thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/112766-Apollo-12-Moon-photo-false-Sun) have been dumped over here, to clean up the false sun thread.

Skyfire
2011-Mar-04, 12:24 AM
The difference is - of course - vacuum, that would inflate the space-suite. But the space-suite isn't, because it look exactly like the one in pre-flight training.

Well, it took me all of 20 seconds to find this link (http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit3.htm) which lists in some detail the 6 main layers of the suit, and some of those main layers are themselves made up of several other sub layers.

This will (hopefully!) help you understand WHY the suit looked the same in both pictures. If you still don't understand why, then please ask and I am sure we can help explain it further. But the important thing is that you look and research for yourself, so you will understand.

Van Rijn
2011-Mar-04, 12:41 AM
Also, as I mentioned before, it might have been pressurized in both cases. In the airplane image, it looks to me to be a full suit with PLSS on the back and gloves and helmet on.

Swift
2011-Mar-04, 03:15 AM
Oops, my bad. I meant for this thread to stay closed, but it was accidentally opened by the data dump. Well, it is closed now.

thomheg - If and when you are prepared to defend your ideas and follow our rules, you may Report this post and ask the thread to be reopened.