Hasselblad 500

[Thomas Heger]

Hi folks

I found this nice film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAN9AAY6st8

This shows how to operate a Hasselblad 500 camera.

After watching that for a short time, I really thought, you must look
for the stupid mistakes first...

So, what wrong with that?

Well, what is actually a Hasselblad?
It has three major parts:

#1: the lens.
this is obviously essential for photography. So no further comments here.

#2 the 'body'.

The cubic body of a Hasselblad has a main purpose. It is NOT to
provide a handle or so, but to house a mirror system, since the camera
belongs to a type of cameras, that have a swinging mirror.

So why do they have that? Well, that is part of the viewfinder system.

But, wait a minute, the Apollo guys had no viewfinder, so why did they
take this clumsy cube to the moon?

Apparently to save weight (??) But as you see in that film, there is
only a button to push and the view-finder pops up.

#3 the film magazine

the film is changed by changing the magazine. So far so good. BUT: you
need to insert a piece of metal into the magazine, to protect the film,
otherwise the magazine cannot be removed.

THIS is stunning difficult, imagine you wore gloves and the camera is
strapped to your chest.



TH

[BDK]

In article <ava97k...@mid.individual.net>, ttt...@web.de says...

Everything gets easier with practice. I'm guessing the above ramble is
some sort of "They didn't really go to the moon" insanity. Right?

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[Thomas Heger]

Wrong, of course!

It is about a mid-format SLR camera, that was predominantly used by
professional photographer in the realm 'beauty, advertising, pre-press...'.

The question was, if that kind of camera would be chosen, if someone
wanted to fly to the moon.

My answer was: No! That would be silly.

The ideal camera for such a purpose would have features like:
- remote control
- autofocus
- auto exposure
- extremely light weight
- very large magazines
- possible to operate with gloves

..

such functions you would like to have on a camera in a space
environment. Extremely fine grain is not THAT important, hence you would
not chose 6x6cm roll-film.

But the Hasselblad was practically impossible to operate under the
conditions of the Apollo program. And the camera did not fulfil the
demands. To disable the viewfinder of a slr-camera is hilarious, because
mid-format cameras without a viewfinder are much lighter and I cannot
imagine any reason to remove such a function (the viewfinder) if that
would not bring any benefit (e.g. lower mass, smaller size ..).

This has nothing to do with doubts upon the official stories about the
Apollo mission, (only it does not give extra trust).

So, maybe the USA has sent a man (or two) to the moon, but certainly not
with such a camera.


TH

[george152]

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt for you is it.
For such photography your Brownie box camera just isn't up to it

[Government Shill #2]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:28:30 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

>Wrong, of course!
>
>It is about a mid-format SLR camera, that was predominantly used by
>professional photographer in the realm 'beauty, advertising, pre-press...'.
>
>The question was, if that kind of camera would be chosen, if someone
>wanted to fly to the moon.
>
>My answer was: No! That would be silly.
>
>The ideal camera for such a purpose would have features like:
>- remote control
>- autofocus
>- auto exposure
>- extremely light weight
>- very large magazines
>- possible to operate with gloves

Do you enjoy looking like an idiot?

http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
"The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on
experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different
kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines
were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines
(shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop
recommendations were �/5.6 for objects in shadow and �/11 for objects in the
sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized
exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the
recommended setting, to ensure a good result."

"The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the
era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being �/5.6). Combined with
the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field
(increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get
the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an
infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions:
near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job."

"The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut�s helmets
restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted
with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right
direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were
trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission.
They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them
afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on
private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming
the camera."



Others...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/


Shill #2
--
I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964)

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.05.2013 22:01, schrieb george152:

> For such photography your Brownie box camera just isn't up to it

i was once a very enthusiastic photo amateur and made lots of photos,
had my own darkroom and a few exhibitions of my photos.

Hasselblads were always a bit too expensive for me. But a Russian clone
was the 'Kiew' and I owned such a piece. So, even if this camera does
not match the superb quality of a Hasselblad, it has similar weight and
equivalent operations procedures.

My impression was: way too hard to use, bulky and heavy. So I sold it
again (the Russian Kiew).

This is why I think, I have some sort of experience, but certainly not
with the model used.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.05.2013 23:14, schrieb Government Shill #2:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:28:30 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Wrong, of course!
>>
>> It is about a mid-format SLR camera, that was predominantly used by
>> professional photographer in the realm 'beauty, advertising, pre-press...'.
>>
>> The question was, if that kind of camera would be chosen, if someone
>> wanted to fly to the moon.
>>
>> My answer was: No! That would be silly.

..


> "The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut�s helmets

> restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted
> with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right
> direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were
> trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission.
> They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them
> afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on
> private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming
> the camera."

Yes I know. I have seen this page before.

But a Hasselblad IS a *SLR*-camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera

The middle part of the camera is the housing of the mirror. But why do
you want to use a mirror housing and not the viewfinder?
If you don't need the viewfinder, you don't need the mirror neither and
without a mirror, you don't need the housing.

That part was undoubtedly used, but why?

E.g. such a camera would fit better:
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Linhof_Technorama_617

not exactly the right kind, but better, because it has an external
viewfinder (is not a slr-camera).

Something of that kind should have been chosen - possibly modified and
somehow enhanced.


TH

[Government Shill #2]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:47:17 AM UTC+10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.05.2013 23:14, schrieb Government Shill #2:
>
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:28:30 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Wrong, of course!
>
> >>
>
> >> It is about a mid-format SLR camera, that was predominantly used by
>
> >> professional photographer in the realm 'beauty, advertising, pre-press...'.
>
> >>
>
> >> The question was, if that kind of camera would be chosen, if someone
>
> >> wanted to fly to the moon.
>
> >>
>
> >> My answer was: No! That would be silly.
>
> ..
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut�s helmets
>
> > restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted
>
> > with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right
>
> > direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were
>
> > trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission.
>
> > They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them
>
> > afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on
>
> > private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming
>
> > the camera."
>
>
>
> Yes I know. I have seen this page before.
>
>
>
> But a Hasselblad IS a *SLR*-camera.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera
>
>
>
> The middle part of the camera is the housing of the mirror. But why do
> you want to use a mirror housing and not the viewfinder?

For fuck's sake!

READ. FOLLOW THE LINKS.

It took me 2 minutes to find this:

http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx
"Modification, carried out by NASA, involved removing the lining, mirror, focusing screen and hood, among other things, to make the camera lighter."

It's not a fucking government secret.

Try READING this:
http://www.tested.com/tech/photography/308213-camera-apollo-astronauts-used-shoot-moon/
"The standard mirror waist-level viewfinder was also replaced by a square gridded eye level finder since astronauts could not look down from their spacesuits to take a photo."

[george152]

On 14/05/13 09:14, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:28:30 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Wrong, of course!
>>
>> It is about a mid-format SLR camera, that was predominantly used by
>> professional photographer in the realm 'beauty, advertising, pre-press...'.
>>
>> The question was, if that kind of camera would be chosen, if someone
>> wanted to fly to the moon.
>>
>> My answer was: No! That would be silly.
>>
>> The ideal camera for such a purpose would have features like:
>> - remote control
>> - autofocus
>> - auto exposure
>> - extremely light weight
>> - very large magazines
>> - possible to operate with gloves
>
>
> Do you enjoy looking like an idiot?
>
> http://sterileeye.com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
> "The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on
> experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different
> kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines
> were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines
> (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop

> recommendations were �/5.6 for objects in shadow and �/11 for objects in the

> sun. For some of the more important photographs, the astronauts utilized
> exposure bracketing, varying the exposures one stop up and/or down from the
> recommended setting, to ensure a good result."
>
> "The focusing system was similar to a lot of consumer compact cameras of the

> era. The f-stop was kept relatively high (the lowest being �/5.6). Combined with

> the wide-angle lens (60 mm) this results in a relatively large depth of field
> (increasing with increasing f-stops). This meant the astronauts only had to get
> the focusing distance approximately right to get a sharp image. Instead of an
> infinitely variable focus ring, it was divided into three preset positions:
> near, medium and far. Although not extremely accurate, it did the job."
>

> "The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut�s helmets

> restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted
> with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right
> direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were
> trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission.
> They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them
> afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on
> private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming
> the camera."
>
>

So in other words the astronauts were trained to use the cameras...Now
watch the kooks wriggle as they try to change that wee fact

[Warhol]

You are gone attract all the moonstruck lunatics shills like flies
with a informative thread as this one...

This lunatic in video below is Guilty of lying to his own progeny
... watch his all telling eyes when he says another "heavenly
body"...

http://youtu.be/XCTU1eLTYWM

btw the whole space travel joke is/are cheap tricks perpetuated on
people who believe this evil moonstruck lunatics, it was a farce, the
whole world knows it... and the lie continues to rise questions while
there are no question... Space travel is evil Lie... the truth and
nothing then the truth is they can't even fly higher then 70 miles
above the surface of planet Earth... on that level I must admit that
German engineering failed to take man go higher then 70 miles/ 110 km
altitude... Thats Von Braun fault... but let us not forget the man
left us a confession on his deathbed... "ITS A LIE".... "ahhh
Lieeee".... and he died.

Werner Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret & The Luna Spell

http://youtu.be/Oi609wEL0sg

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, May 13, 2013, 9:28pm (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

==================

This was the late 1960's. Autofocus and TRUE remote control are years
away. Ditto auto exposure.

Weight isn't a concern under Luna's 1/6 gravity.

Operate what? Can't push a button with gloves? The lens assembly is
large enough to be easily manipulated with gloves.
-----------------------------

.
such functions you would like to have on a camera in a space
environment. Extremely fine grain is not THAT important, hence you would
not chose 6x6cm roll-film.

=====================

Fine grain was CRITICAL, as details of the surface were needed.
-----------------------------------

But the Hasselblad was practically impossible to operate under the
conditions of the Apollo program. And the camera did not fulfil the
demands. To disable the viewfinder of a slr-camera is hilarious, because
mid-format cameras without a viewfinder are much lighter and I cannot
imagine any reason to remove such a function (the viewfinder) if that
would not bring any benefit (e.g. lower mass, smaller size ..).

===================

A Hasselblad is NOT a SLR camera. The viewfinder is seperate.
---------------------------

This has nothing to do with doubts upon the official stories about the
Apollo mission, (only it does not give extra trust).
So, maybe the USA has sent a man (or two) to the moon, but certainly not
with such a camera.
TH

--
"If you have to eat a turd, don't stare at it beforehand."--

M.H.--

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

NASA selected Hasselblads and Nikons due to their overall quality.

I can assure you even a used Hasselblad is outside my budget.

Since these would be custom units; modifications for ease of use were
available.

[BDK]

In article <avct72...@mid.individual.net>, ttt...@web.de says...

I knew it. You're kOOkery is confirmed.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.05.2013 00:17, schrieb Government Shill #2:

> READ. FOLLOW THE LINKS.
>
> It took me 2 minutes to find this:
>
> http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx
> "Modification, carried out by NASA, involved removing the lining, mirror, focusing screen and hood, among other things, to make the camera lighter."
>
> It's not a fucking government secret.
>
> Try READING this:
> http://www.tested.com/tech/photography/308213-camera-apollo-astronauts-used-shoot-moon/
> "The standard mirror waist-level viewfinder was also replaced by a square gridded eye level finder since astronauts could not look down from their spacesuits to take a photo."
>

very interesting links.
This is a NASA manual for photography with the Hasselblad:

http://www.hasselblad.com/media/2207875/astronauts_manual_singlepage_lr.pdf

On page 7 and 8 picture 9 to 14 the procedure to change the magazine is
explained. You need to slide in the 'darkslide', press the button, bend
the magazine slightly down and unhook it. Then put a new magazine in,
push against the body and take the slider out.

This is quite difficult to do with gloves. This is also hindered by the
L-shaped hook, with what the camera was mounted to the 'emu' (the piece
with the control-knobs in front of the chest).

To change the film must have been annoying, since the camera had to be
unscrewed from that hook, too, because no downwards/backwards movement
was possible to the magazine:
http://www.tested.com/tech/photography/308213-camera-apollo-astronauts-used-shoot-moon/


TH

[Government Shill #2]

You are probably right. It would be difficult to do while wearing gloves.

Who said it was *done* while wearing gloves?

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

[george152]

On 15/05/13 09:16, Government Shill #2 wrote:

> You are probably right. It would be difficult to do while wearing gloves.
>
> Who said it was *done* while wearing gloves?

:)
But not impossible in the LEM
I see the Astronauts on the current orbiter out there with pliers and
screwdrivers to replace a piece of kit :)
Hey. Just maybe those gloves aren't all that much of a hindrance

[Government Shill #2]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:40:20 AM UTC+10, george wrote:

> On 15/05/13 09:16, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>
> > You are probably right. It would be difficult to do while wearing gloves.
> >
> > Who said it was *done* while wearing gloves?
>
> :)
>
> But not impossible in the LEM

Exactly. That was what I was getting at...

[george152]

The trouble about common sense is in its rarity

[Warhol]

and how many photos did they bring back from the moon?

[Government Shill #2]

All of them.

[Warhol]

youre full of shit...

[george152]

All of them.
Next wet question

[Government Shill #2]

It was a pretty dumb question, wasn't it?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.05.2013 06:39, schrieb Government Shill #2:

>>> and how many photos did they bring back from the moon?
>>>
>> All of them.
>> Next wet question
>
> It was a pretty dumb question, wasn't it?
>

You may ask whatever you like, as long as you find someone who listens.
Only the answers may be dumb - or not.

But the question can be answer anyhow.
There exist statistics about how many photos were made, when, where and
by whom.

Right now I'm slightly too lazy to search for that. But I found
something else interesting:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/cameras_lg.gif

This is the set of equipment, they had on the Apollo 11 mission.

As you see, there is something missing: magazines.

Apparently, they had to load the film into the magazines themselves,
because I cannot spot any spare magazines.

TH

[Government Shill #2]

Sigh!

From a link *you* gave us earlier:

http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx
"Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong"..."The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back."

[BDK]

In article <babd3401-77da-4c08...@googlegroups.com>,
gov....@gmail.com says...

He's doing the kOOkdance, trying desperately to make something out of
thin air.

[Warhol]

On May 15, 8:06 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 15.05.2013 06:39, schrieb Government Shill #2:
>
> >>> and how many photos did they bring back from the moon?
>
> >> All of them.
> >> Next wet question
>
> > It was a pretty dumb question, wasn't it?
>
> You may ask whatever you like, as long as you find someone who listens.
> Only the answers may be dumb - or not.
>
> But the question can be answer anyhow.
> There exist statistics about how many photos were made, when, where and
> by whom.
>
> Right now I'm slightly too lazy to search for that. But I found
> something else interesting:
>

> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/camera...

>
> This is the set of equipment, they had on the Apollo 11 mission.
>
> As you see, there is something missing: magazines.
>
> Apparently, they had to load the film into the magazines themselves,
> because I cannot spot any spare magazines.
>
> TH

Here I found something of interest... the shill wont like...

The actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771
exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on
the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS
OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to
find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS
WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is
readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon,
REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO
EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how
much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360
degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk
with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages,
find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to
various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty
TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous
experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned
Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve
Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7
pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with
Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and
deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/
document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM.

Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with
Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel
drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/
document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with
Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel
drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions,
including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/
document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return
to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 17..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and
deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with
Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel
drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous
experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks,
conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and
subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for
taking photos
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240 minutes), leaving 230 minutes for
taking photos
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180 minutes), leaving 385 minutes for
taking photos
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 750 minutes for
taking photos
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 854 minutes for
taking photos
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480 minutes), leaving 844 minutes for
taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031 minutes............3.90 photos per
minute
Apollo 12.......504 photos in 230 minutes............2.19 photos per
minute
Apollo 14.......374 photos in 385 minutes............0.97 photos per
minute
Apollo 15.....1021 photos in 750 minutes............1.36 photos per
minute
Apollo 16.....1765 photos in 854 minutes ...........2.06 photos per
minute
Apollo 17.....1986 photos in 844 minutes ...........2.35 photos per
minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many
photos in so short a time?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.05.2013 10:11, schrieb BDK:

>>>
>>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/cameras_lg.gif
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the set of equipment, they had on the Apollo 11 mission.
>>>
>>> As you see, there is something missing: magazines.
>>>
>>> Apparently, they had to load the film into the magazines themselves,
>>> because I cannot spot any spare magazines.
>>
>>
>> Sigh!
>>
>> From a link *you* gave us earlier:
>>
>> http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad/hasselblad-in-space/space-cameras.aspx
>> "Hasselblad EDC (Electric Data Camera)
>> This is a specially designed version of the motorized 500EL intended for use on the surface of the moon, where the first lunar pictures were taken on 20 July 1969 by Neil Armstrong"..."The 12 HEDC cameras used on the surface of the moon were left there. Only the film magazines were brought back."
>
> He's doing the kOOkdance, trying desperately to make something out of
> thin air.
>

Well, now we have google and google knows everything. This does include
the number and magazines of lunar Hasselblads.

They are in a museum now:

http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apollo11/objects/apolloartifact.cfm?id=A19791524000

http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apollo11/objects/apolloartifact.cfm?id=A19791526000

http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apollo11/objects/apolloartifact.cfm?id=A19980007000

http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apollo11/objects/apolloartifact.cfm?id=A19980009000


http://airandspace.si.edu/events/apollo11/objects/apolloartifact.cfm?id=A19980006000

Only magazines R and S were used on the lunar surface. This means, they
had no spare magazines with them. But two were enough, since that were
200 b/w pictures and 160 in colour.

TH

[george152]

On 15/05/13 20:26, Warhol wrote:

> So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many
> photos in so short a time?
>

Yes.
Next wet question

[Warhol]

what next question???

The Moon Landing thing you defending here is a hoax.

It's been debunked by Special Effects Artists. They saw thru the
bullshit like... very easily.

They call the Moon Landing a Hoax.

[Thomas Heger]

The faking of photos does not mean, there was no moon landing.
I would personally think, the 'show part' (films, tv, photos) was
actually a fake on large scale. But this does not mean the entire
program was a fake.

Most likely the hoax story is a fake as well and we should think about
other motivations. So, what could be motivations to cheat the public big?

Well: money and power are most often reasons, but also to hide something.

There could have been Moon-landings, but the 'show' aims to protect the
technology. Or they found something unwanted...

Or the entire thing was a mockery and intended to test the stupidity of
people.

Or maybe it aims to create mental stress by something called 'cognitive
dissonance'.

Or the money was just stolen, since plywood is cheaper than titanium.


Nobody knows, and I do neither. But we could speculate and maybe we find
some plausible explanation.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.05.2013 03:29, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
>

> such functions you would like to have on a camera in a space
> environment. Extremely fine grain is not THAT important, hence you would
> not chose 6x6cm roll-film.
>
> =====================
>
> Fine grain was CRITICAL, as details of the surface were needed.

A much more critical subject was mass.

The mass of any item on the lander had to be accelerated several times:
on start from Earth, deceleration on landing, restart from lunar surface
and return to Earth.

All these accelerations, decelerations had to do with energy of some
kind, that had to be supplied or the spaceship had to get rid of.

So more mass means MUCH more fuel and even more mass.

So anything should be particularly light weight. But these cameras were not.

Anyhow...

I found this astonishing page:
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/20944/lot/253/

Apparently there were film positives sold from Apollo 15 mission. Is
Nasa that poor, they have to sell such historic material in internet
auctions? (Apparently not very expensive, since they got only 1500 $.)


TH

[Government Shill #2]

"...duplicate positives from Hasselblad magazines used on Apollo 15"

Duplicate

D U P L I C A T E

Duplikat

Not originals.

You can buy all sorts of stuff from NASA. They have a shop.

http://shopnasa.com/store/

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.05.2013 07:22, schrieb Thomas Heger:

I found this page.


http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/25/lot/60889/

That was a complete surprise, so i must post it somewhere:

Quote:
"
Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Flown flag

Lot closed - Winning bid:$20,000

Description:

Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Flown flag, This flag measures 7 ½ x 12" and was
flown to the Lunar Surface. The accompanying signed COA reads, "This
American Flag (7 ½" x 12") was flown on Apollo 11 to the Lunar Surface
aboard Lunar Module #5, "Eagle". This flag was given to me by the crew
upon their return, and has been in my possession ever since." The
consignor worked for NASA in procurement ordering designated items to be
flown. He also worked with the crews upon their return and was often
given mementos including this flag. There are 2 small holes in the upper
left corner, in the blue field. This occurred while in storage for the
past 40+ years. "


TH

[Warhol]

On May 16, 8:35 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 16.05.2013 07:22, schrieb Thomas Heger:
>
> I found this page.
>

> http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/25/lo...

>
> That was a complete surprise, so i must post it somewhere:
>
> Quote:
> "
> Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Flown flag
>
> Lot closed - Winning bid:$20,000
>
> Description:
>
> Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Flown flag, This flag measures 7 ½ x 12" and was
> flown to the Lunar Surface. The accompanying signed COA reads, "This
> American Flag (7 ½" x 12") was flown on Apollo 11 to the Lunar Surface
> aboard Lunar Module #5, "Eagle". This flag was given to me by the crew
> upon their return, and has been in my possession ever since." The
> consignor worked for NASA in procurement ordering designated items to be
> flown. He also worked with the crews upon their return and was often
> given mementos including this flag. There are 2 small holes in the upper
> left corner, in the blue field. This occurred while in storage for the
> past 40+ years. "
>
> TH

The truth is that the entire space program is fake and No, No one EVER
went to the Moon

Even to this day, there exists no suit on Earth that can shield a
human from the extremes of temperature that would be experienced on
the moon. PERIOD. Yet we did it in the 60's??? ROFL You idiots will
fall for anything.

When you add it all up......the hasselblad photos..... the dune
buggy.....the tin foil lander.....the asstronots themswelves......the
historcal setting of 1969......coffee boys constant closed minded
shilling.....NO ONE DID GO TO THE MOON OR ANYWHERE NEAR THE MOON.

Got it now?

The moon hoax theory was actually PUT OUT BY NASA... by the so called
errors as below...

These are supposedly the latest images from the Pinocchio satellite
orbiting MARS.

http://www.space.com/images/i/2354/i02/070402_seven_sisters_02.jpg?1292265481

NASA forgot to equip the Mars satellite with modern photographic
cameras. They forgot! They used the old Hasselblad of Apollo-11

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,

I'm not laughing but -- yeah -- Just one more massive fraud on our
parents, on us and on our progeny..

Anyone else fed up with this bullshit yet?

FFS, how fawkin dumb is NASA trying to make you?

NASA forgot to equip that satellite with the Google earth camera.

NASA had the technology since the late 50's...

http://edc2.usgs.gov/pubslists/factsheets/fs09096.pdf

above pdf-file can still be found in archive.org but the declassified
stuff is gone...

http://web.archive.org/web/20120505065952/http://edc2.usgs.gov/pubslists/factsheets/fs09096.pdf

BTW the above Satellites pictures from the NASA edc2.usgs.gov website
are taken from airplanes and count on NASA when they discover an error
they also will be fast to remove the data from their sites and even
from the archives sites...

http://web.archive.org/web/20120805015918/http://edc.usgs.gov/products/satellite/declass1.html

[Thomas Heger]

Well, who knows...

actually here we have something odd:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5875.jpg

This is a high resolution picture of the flag on the moon. You see, the
'moon-flag' has a certain method, how it is connected to the rod.
There is a piece of string used and two holes are there, to put the
string through.

But the auctioned flag has no such holes, hence cannot be the 'moon-flag'.
See here:
http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/25/lot/60889/

So, something is wrong, but I cannot say, what is wrong.

But certainly a weird story in any case...


TH

[george152]

On 17/05/13 08:03, Thomas Heger wrote:

> This is a high resolution picture of the flag on the moon. You see, the
> 'moon-flag' has a certain method, how it is connected to the rod.
> There is a piece of string used and two holes are there, to put the
> string through.

Not used to flags are you..
Along with all your dipshit claims this one is a cracker..
Hint: Get thee to a bunting tosser who will explain (when suitably
refreshed with brewed liquids) as to how it all works

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.05.2013 08:16, schrieb Government Shill #2:

>>
>> Apparently there were film positives sold from Apollo 15 mission. Is
>> Nasa that poor, they have to sell such historic material in internet
>> auctions? (Apparently not very expensive, since they got only 1500 $.)
>
> "...duplicate positives from Hasselblad magazines used on Apollo 15"
>
> Duplicate
>
> D U P L I C A T E
>
> Duplikat
>
> Not originals.
>
> You can buy all sorts of stuff from NASA. They have a shop.
>
> http://shopnasa.com/store/
>

Well, things are STRANGE...

E.g. this :
http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/12/lot/27681/

Quote:
"Apollo 15, 1971, 70mm. NASA Film Roll, This metal reel is marked out
the outside Apollo 15 and on the film leader "Apollo 15 / Mag. M". The
NASA film index for this flight indicates that this reel contains
extensive lunar footage as well as EVA footage. This reel should be an
important addition to the collection of anyone interested in this flight.
Estimated Value $100 - 150"
Was sold for 260 $.

Is that all fake?

isn't faking collectibles illegal?

But, on the other hand, hasn't NASA lost track of Apollo films? so there
might a small chance, that actually original material made its way to
the flee-market. Than a roll of real fotos from the moon for 260$ were
actually a bargain.


TH

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, May 16, 2013, 10:03pm (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

=====================

The astronauts only had one flag to plant.

The flag you saw was carried by either Armstrong or Aldrin in their
personal gear. Astronauts did that as a favor to those who had helped
them.

After Apollo XIV astronaut Alan Shephard, a native of New Hampshire,
gave the state a small state flag he had taken with him, as well as a
small amount of lunar rock in Lucite.The state commissioned a portrait
of Shepherd in his Mercury suit; these items are on display in the
lobby of the State House in Concord (along with the flags of various
N.H. units that had served in the Civil War).

--
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."--

Frank Zappa--

[Government Shill #2]

There's a chance you might be a fucking idiot. A large chance.

Shill #2
--
With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Friedrich von Schiller (1759 - 1805)

[joeturn]

On May 15, 2:06 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 15.05.2013 06:39, schrieb Government Shill #2:
>
> >>> and how many photos did they bring back from the moon?
>
> >> All of them.
> >> Next wet question
>
> > It was a pretty dumb question, wasn't it?
>
> You may ask whatever you like, as long as you find someone who listens.
> Only the answers may be dumb - or not.
>
> But the question can be answer anyhow.
> There exist statistics about how many photos were made, when, where and
> by whom.
>
> Right now I'm slightly too lazy to search for that. But I found
> something else interesting:
>

> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/camera...

>
> This is the set of equipment, they had on the Apollo 11 mission.
>
> As you see, there is something missing: magazines.
>
> Apparently, they had to load the film into the magazines themselves,
> because I cannot spot any spare magazines.
>
> TH

Did you also notice how much solar flare activity was evident on each
supposed mission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M&feature=player_embedded

My question is why did they not carry an ex-ray machine for their
photography?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.05.2013 06:57, schrieb joeturn:

>
> Did you also notice how much solar flare activity was evident on each
> supposed mission?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M&feature=player_embedded
>
> My question is why did they not carry an ex-ray machine for their
> photography?

The danger of the Van Allen belt comes from fast particles, that smash
against metal part of the spaceship and this causes what bears the
German name 'Bremsstrahlung'.

This is roughly like sound: imagine small objects, that smash against a
gong. The higher the pace, the harder the tone.

The van Allen belt surrounds the Earth. That is like a bubble, the
Earth rests inside. The moon rests inside a bubble, too, only it is way
weaker than the Earth' belt, because of much lower mass.

This means, the danger is not on the Moon, but between Earth and Moon.
Radiation on the moon is stronger, but not as strong as you think.

But in respect to photography we would need VERY strong UV filter and
very good infrared protection, because otherwise these frequencies would
dominate the picture. This would lead to very different pictures, since
the ambient light is very different on the moon in respect to
distribution and spectrum.

That should be compensated by special films and certain filters.

I'm not sure about the spectrum of light on the moon, but certainly it
is more in the direction 'hard' (higher frequency). This would mean more
bluish colours and dimmer reds.

x-rays are of much, much higher frequency. Such radiation could be
dominant light on the moon, but in fact I don't know.

TH

[george152]

On 17/05/13 16:57, joeturn wrote:


> My question is why did they not carry an ex-ray machine for their
> photography?
>

Is there a stupidity competition between the resident kooks ?

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Fri, May 17, 2013, 9:15pm (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

======================

Are you trying to out-Guth Brad?

The Van Allen Belts are formed not by mass of the planet, but by the
magnetosphere. The Moon, being geologically inert and only revolving
once a month has virtually no magnetic field.

The Apollo spacecraft flew fast enough to pass through the belts in a
couple of hours

Film can be formulated to be non-sensitive to ultraviolet. UV-blocking
filters are readily available.

[joeturn]

Well now how long were they exposed to the gamma radiation between the
moons belt and the earths belt since the space craft was not lined
with lead
would they not be like in a microwave oven?

Just saying!

[joeturn]

On May 17, 7:34 pm, ogro...@webtv.net (Padraigh ProAmerica) wrote:
> Re: Hasselblad 500
>
> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Fri, May 17, 2013, 9:15pm (EDT+6) From:

> ttt_...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

> Am 17.05.2013 06:57, schrieb joeturn:
> Did you also notice how much solar flare activity was evident on each

> supposed mission?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M&feature=player_embedded

What protected them from the drastic temperatures on the moons
surface?

c&p

The average daytime temperature on the Moon is around 107°C (225°F),
but can be as high as 123°C (253°F).

When an area rotates out of the sun, the "nighttime" temperature falls
to an average of -153°C (-243°F).

The temperatures near the poles (which get the least solar heating)
can fall as low as -233°C (-387°F). This is only 40°C above absolute
zero

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Sat, May 18, 2013, 4:12am (EDT-3) From:
joetu...@yahoo.com (joeturn)

==========================

1) They landed before 'lunar noon' while the sun was lower in the sky.

2) The suits were white to deflect the heat.

3) The large backpacks contained an efficient climate control unit
keeping the interior of the suit comfortable.

4) The boots had very thick, non-conductive soles
---------------------------

c&p
The average daytime temperature on the Moon is around 107°C (225°F),
but can be as high as 123°C (253°F).
When an area rotates out of the sun, the "nighttime" temperature falls
to an average of -153°C (-243°F).
The temperatures near the poles (which get the least solar heating) can
fall as low as -233°C (-387°F). This is only 40°C above absolute
zero

[BDK]

In article <20870-519...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,
ogr...@webtv.net says...

Sometimes it seems like he is.

>
> The Van Allen Belts are formed not by mass of the planet, but by the
> magnetosphere. The Moon, being geologically inert and only revolving
> once a month has virtually no magnetic field.

A "small detail" ignored by Tom, yet he obsesses over all kinds of total
nonsense.

>
> The Apollo spacecraft flew fast enough to pass through the belts in a
> couple of hours
>
> Film can be formulated to be non-sensitive to ultraviolet. UV-blocking
> filters are readily available.

Seems odd that he wouldn't know that, yet has all kinds of knowledge,
well, supposed knowledge, about cameras.

Such is the way of the loon.

[joeturn]

On May 17, 3:15 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:

Here is something you need to take into consideration also!

http://www.wellaware1.com/astronut.shtml

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.05.2013 01:34, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
>

> Film can be formulated to be non-sensitive to ultraviolet. UV-blocking
> filters are readily available.
>

All well assorted photography supply shop have them. But I'm not
certain, whether they had one on the moon.

This is the set of equipment they had:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/cameras_lg.gif

So where are filters?

TH


>

[joeturn]

On May 18, 10:11 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 18.05.2013 01:34, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
>
>
>
> > Film can be formulated to be non-sensitive to ultraviolet. UV-blocking
> > filters are readily available.
>
> All well assorted photography supply shop have them. But I'm not
> certain, whether they had one on the moon.
>
> This is the set of equipment they had:
>

> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/camera...

>
> So where are filters?
>
> TH
>
>
>

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What kept the rubber wheels on the space rover from catching a
fire,I'm sure that had to have smokeless boots also!

[Warhol]

Let us put a astronut into an oven heated up to 107°C (225°F) for one
hour and see how he does make it out... death or alive

Fried Astronuts on the menu today.

....in 2013....a storm is coming...
http://youtu.be/h1GuNqt6jBg

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Sat, May 18, 2013, 4:11pm (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

========================

If they had the proper film, a filter would be superfluous.

Or the optics could have been formulated to be opaque to UV.
--------------------------

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Sat, May 18, 2013, 7:21am (EDT-3) From:
joetu...@yahoo.com (joeturn)

======================

The wheels were wire mesh. not rubber. Rubber was ruled out in the early
1960's. Aside from designing a light, flexible metal tire the real
problem was formulating a lubricant for the wheel bearings.

The boot soles were a non-flammable non-rubber composition that was also
non-heat-conducting.

[george152]

On 18/05/13 23:12, joeturn wrote:

> What protected them from the drastic temperatures on the moons
> surface?

Their bulky suits and the cooling systems incorporated...
Are you really trying to prove that you're that stupic

[Government Shill #2]

Screwed onto the front of the camera lens? Same place as any filter.

http://cdn.mos.photoradar.com/files/articles/techniques/may2011/camera-lens-cleaning-step01.jpg

Do you know anything?

[Government Shill #2]

That's easy. They weren't rubber.

Moron!

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html
"The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and an 81.8 cm diameter, 23 cm wide
tire made of zinc coated woven 0.083 cm diameter steel strands attached to the
rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50% of the contact
area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 64.8 cm diameter bump stop frame
to protect the hub. "

What a fuck-knuckle.

Shill #2
--
Resonant Frequency,Radio Frequency and Radiant Energy are all one in
the same,Tesla called it aether.
slowjoe (joetu...@yahoo.com)
alt.conspiracy 03Apr12

[joeturn]

On May 18, 8:29 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  slowjoe (joeturn2...@yahoo.com)
>  alt.conspiracy 03Apr12- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-michelin

[Government Shill #2]

>http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-michelin


Your point being that you *are* a fuckin' moron?

From your cite:

"a new lunar wheel"

"for the next generation of NASA moon rover vehicles"

"made of breakthrough composite materials"

Good job. I already knew that though. I've known you were a fucking moron for
ages.

Shill #2
--
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
one of us is a moron,
I think that it's you.

[joeturn]

On May 18, 9:27 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-mi...

>
> Your point being that you *are* a fuckin' moron?
>
> From your cite:
>
> "a new lunar wheel"
>
> "for the next generation of NASA moon rover vehicles"
>
> "made of breakthrough composite materials"
>
> Good job. I already knew that though. I've known you were a fucking moron for
> ages.
>
> Shill #2
> --
> Roses are red,
> violets are blue,
> one of us is a moron,

> I think that it's you.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=nasa+hot+wheels

[Government Shill #2]

Lame.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 19.05.2013 02:26, schrieb Government Shill #2:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:11:01 +0200, Thomas Heger<ttt...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.05.2013 01:34, schrieb Padraigh ProAmerica:
>>>
>>
>>> Film can be formulated to be non-sensitive to ultraviolet. UV-blocking
>>> filters are readily available.
>>>
>> All well assorted photography supply shop have them. But I'm not
>> certain, whether they had one on the moon.
>>
>> This is the set of equipment they had:
>>
>> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/cameras_lg.gif
>>
>> So where are filters?
>
> Screwed onto the front of the camera lens? Same place as any filter.
>
> http://cdn.mos.photoradar.com/files/articles/techniques/may2011/camera-lens-cleaning-step01.jpg
>
> Do you know anything?

Sure I do.

But there are no filters screwed in front of any lens (as far as that is
possible to see).

The type of film is also known (Kodak Ektachrome):
http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/25/lot/55785/

Even lenses are sold in auctions:
http://goldbergcoins.auctionserver.net/view-auctions/catalog/id/25/lot/60867/

But no filters.

TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 19.05.2013 06:45, schrieb joeturn:

>>> http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-mi...
>>
>> Your point being that you *are* a fuckin' moron?
>>
>> From your cite:
>>
>> "a new lunar wheel"
>>

>> "for the next generation of NASA moon roving vehicles LVR"

>>
>> "made of breakthrough composite materials"
>>

The device was called 'lunar roving vehicle'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPaSAVFli4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpmox-_bDM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

quote:
"The wheels were manufactured by General Motors Defense Research
Laboratories. Ferenc Pavlics was given special recognition by NASA for
developing the "resilient wheel".[20] They consisted of a spun aluminum
hub and a 32 inches (81 cm) diameter, 9 inches (23 cm) wide tire made of
zinc-coated woven 0.033 inches (0.84 mm) diameter steel strands attached

to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50

percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a
25.5 inches (65 cm) diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust
guards were mounted above the wheels"


TH

[joeturn]

On May 19, 11:55 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 19.05.2013 06:45, schrieb joeturn:
>
> >>>http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-mi...
>
> >> Your point being that you *are* a fuckin' moron?
>
> >>  From your cite:
>
> >> "a new lunar wheel"
>
> >> "for the next generation of NASA moon roving vehicles  LVR"
>
> >> "made of breakthrough composite materials"
>
> The device was called 'lunar roving vehicle'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPaSAVFli4
>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpmox-_bDMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

>
> quote:
> "The wheels were manufactured by General Motors Defense Research
> Laboratories. Ferenc Pavlics was given special recognition by NASA for
> developing the "resilient wheel".[20] They consisted of a spun aluminum
> hub and a 32 inches (81 cm) diameter, 9 inches (23 cm) wide tire made of
> zinc-coated woven 0.033 inches (0.84 mm) diameter steel strands attached
> to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50
> percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a
> 25.5 inches (65 cm) diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust
> guards were mounted above the wheels"
>
> TH

The problem is we cant see it on the surface of the moon even with the
hubble telescope.The army used the hubble to identify the dc snipers
vehicle location! The hubble can read a license plate number and can
also identify a quarter(25 cent piece) but like the filters it cant
pull up any space debris left behind by the Apollo Misions on the
moon.

The reason is the Apollo misions were filmed at the mgm studio in
london by Stanley Kubric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fUG6spgLs

[Government Shill #2]

Thank you for repeating exactly what I told slowjoe on Saturday.

[joeturn]

On May 20, 12:22 am, "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you for repeating exactly what I told slowjoe on Saturday.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

All you told me is what NASA says.NASA is a sham milking the herds out
of billions of tax payers money and have never been any higher than
23,000 miles above the surface of earth and humans have never gone
past 1,000 miles above the Earths surface.

Von Braun told them they could not build a rocket large enough to haul
the fuel for such a trip and if they built such a montrosity it would
not take off the ground because it would be too heavy to fly.

With that report President Johnson said if you cant make it lets fake
it and the FAKE moon travelers started even John Glen never orbited
the moon.

Yet today NASA is still milking the herd using federal funds to keep
the poor,pooer and the rich,richer$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Government Shill #2]

And all you gave me to prove me wrong was a link to some toys on eBay.

Lame, TrollBoi. Lame

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, May 20, 2013, 2:00am (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

===================

So... if the film is unresponsive to UV, you don;t need a filter.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Sun, May 19, 2013, 9:22pm (EDT-3) From:
joetu...@yahoo.com (joeturn)

On May 19, 11:55 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
Am 19.05.2013 06:45, schrieb joeturn:
http://www.inautonews.com/wheels-for-nasa-moon-rover-vehicles-from-mi...
Your point being that you *are* a fuckin' moron?
 From your cite:
"a new lunar wheel"
"for the next generation of NASA moon roving vehicles  LVR"
"made of breakthrough composite materials"
The device was called 'lunar roving
vehicle'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMPaSAVFli4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbpmox-_bDMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle
quote:
"The wheels were manufactured by General Motors Defense Research
Laboratories. Ferenc Pavlics was given special recognition by NASA for
developing the "resilient wheel".[20] They consisted of a spun aluminum
hub and a 32 inches (81 cm) diameter, 9 inches (23 cm) wide tire made of
zinc-coated woven 0.033 inches (0.84 mm) diameter steel strands attached
to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50
percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a
25.5 inches (65 cm) diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust
guards were mounted above the wheels"
TH
The problem is we cant see it on the surface of the moon even with the
hubble telescope.

========================

The Hubble has never been aimed at the moon. The relected light would
burn out it's electronic camera.
---------------------------------------

The army used the hubble to identify the dc snipers vehicle location!

===================

Bullshit lie. Hubble has never been aimed at Earth for the same reason.
--------------------------------------

The hubble can read a license plate number and can also identify a
quarter(25 cent piece) but like the filters it cant pull up any space
debris left behind by the Apollo Misions on the moon.
The reason is the Apollo misions were filmed at the mgm studio in london
by Stanley Kubric.

====================

Google Image "Luna Recon Orbiter +Apollo Sites".

Shill #2 is right- you really ARE a fuck-knuckle
--------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3fUG6spgLs

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, May 20, 2013, 12:04am (EDT-3) From:
joetu...@yahoo.com (joeturn)

=====================

Of course not; Glenn was grounded for his own safety after his orbital
flight (but later did fly on the Shuttle). Only two MERCURY astronauts
flew in Apollo- Wally Schirra on the first earth-orbit flight Apollo
VII, and Alan Shephard on moon-landing flight Apollo XIV.
======================

Yet today NASA is still milking the herd using federal funds to keep the
poor,pooer and the rich,richer$$$$$$$$$$$$$

=================

Complete and utter bullshit. There are HUNDREDS of reliable sites on the
web, and you always manage to find the one that has zero facts, just
some spittle-spewing wackadoodle with an IQ of 14.

[BDK]

In article <20870-519...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,
ogr...@webtv.net says...
>

Or the filter could just be added to the lens assembly in the first
place. It's amazing how the kOOks lack imagination about how stuff
really works, yet are driven by a need to invent "questions" about
meaningless stuff.

[george152]

On 20/05/13 19:23, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> And all you gave me to prove me wrong was a link to some toys on eBay.
>
> Lame, TrollBoi. Lame
>

Well at his mental age toys would be his expertise especially them as go
ZOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[joeturn]

On May 20, 3:23 am, "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And all you gave me to prove me wrong was a link to some toys on eBay.
>
> Lame, TrollBoi. Lame

No I gave you evidence that the moon rover never made it to the moon
and that John Glenns splash down module would have roasted him alive
upon re-entry.You chose to ignor the fact and argue about wheels that
never made the trip.You might find them in one of NASAs hidden museums
on Earth somewhere or on display at Cape Canaveral.

It is said that the Eagle undocked from the Orbiter and floated to the
surface of the moon,then blasted off and redocked after the moon visit
was complete.I say such a collision of re docking is impossible and
you think you have proved me wrong by stating ficticous BULL SHIT.

[joeturn]

Just look at this heat resintant rubber built especially by GE

So re-entry would not allow them to sink.

http://astroplus.perso.neuf.fr/explospa/apollo8_7.jpg

[Thomas Heger]

Am 20.05.2013 06:22, schrieb joeturn:

> The problem is we cant see it on the surface of the moon even with the
> hubble telescope.The army used the hubble to identify the dc snipers
> vehicle location! The hubble can read a license plate number and can
> also identify a quarter(25 cent piece) but like the filters it cant
> pull up any space debris left behind by the Apollo Misions on the
> moon.
>
> The reason is the Apollo misions were filmed at the mgm studio in
> london by Stanley Kubric.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqvlu_di6A
>

The opposite of a lie is not truth. So the opposite to 'something wrong'
is not 'something right'.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCQTYxTj5sE

This (nice) film clearly shows, that Kubrick's film are no match to the
Apollo films.


TH

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Hasselblad 500

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Tue, May 21, 2013, 5:52pm (EDT+6) From:
ttt...@web.de (Thomas Heger)

=====================

The problem to faking a lunar landing in 1969 was this: lunar gravity.

Gravity on Luna in 1/6 Earth normal.

We can fake zero G in a studio.

We have NEVER been able to fake 1/6 gravity.

Even today, 44 years after Apollo XI, even with CGI and other special
effects, we can NOT fake low gravity.

[george152]

slowjoe repeats his nonsensical view of science, achievement and history.
BTW which of John Glenns re-entry vehicles wold have 'roasted him alive
upon re-entry' ???

[Government Shill #2]

Basically, he was caught out lying and has reverted to troll mode.

He's not worth dealing with.

Shill #2
--
I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964)

[joeturn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFAZoVGxqY4&feature=player_embedded