Recent Posts

1

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by bknight on October 07, 2024, 07:55:11 PM »

I was curious about the "Apollo Detectives" a somewhat new group for me.  Well I Googled it and found a video discussing in part the same "issue" that we are discussing here.  Who are the "Apollo Detectives"?  In the video, an email from them lists Marcus Allen @17:44, Scott (AKA Glenn) Henderson and a third individual who I didn't write down in this ~hour video.

Seems like the Grifter Allen is back to his old tricks.  Anyway, the video gives a lot of information on the camera and film and the deceptions that the "Apollo Detectives"

2

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by JayUtah on October 07, 2024, 04:03:44 PM »

The Corona photo reconnaissance satellites, unlike their Zenit counterparts in the USSR, were not pressurized and utilized film. If outgassing was an intractable issue, they also would have been affected.

That's what the super thin Estar base and SO-135 emulsion were designed for. The degree and rate of outgassing depends on the amount of material present. The trick was for them to outgas rapidly and completely early in the mission, before it became an operational constraint.

The lunar surface Hasselblad magazines were kept in the MESA, and were not sealed. There was a darkslide, but that is not gas tight. The magazines had 80 hours or so in hard vacuum to acclimate and complete their outgassing prior to being used.

3

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by raven on October 07, 2024, 05:34:07 AM »

The Corona photo reconnaissance satellites, unlike their Zenit counterparts in the USSR, were not pressurized and utilized film. If outgassing was an intractable issue, they also would have been affected.

4

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by Bryanpoprobson on October 06, 2024, 03:22:57 PM »

The Apollo SO Film had a layer of estar over the Emulsion layer, so the emulsion was never exposed to a vacuum. The reason this is known is because the film was ordered for Apollo-Soyuz but with a small change, the QX807 FILM specially ordered for this orbital flight had the estar layers changed to include a yellow dye this had the effect of being a 2A Wratten Filter. For that to have a filtering effect it must have been over the Emulsion layer. The reason this was done was to counter the blueing effect of the Ozone layer in the Earths atmosphere as this was a LEO mission.

https://www.filmlabs.org/technical-section/film/tom-philos-list-of-kodak-film-numbers/

The only comeback I had from the Apollo Detective comics was, get a roll and show us. 😂🤣. Kodak special order films cost $20,000 for a batch of 200 (minimum order), yeh right. That was at 1973 prices.

5

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by TimberWolfAu on October 05, 2024, 09:06:12 AM »

The source of the claim is largely the 'Apollo Detectives'. They've insisted that the film in the Lunar Orbiter needed to be pressurised in order to protect it, when in fact mininal pressure of 1-2 psi of Nitrogen was used to make sure the fllm stayed where it was supposed to during exposure.

They found a tame physicist with access to a vacuum, and duly exposed off the shelf film to vacuum several times. The end result was: perfectly acceptable photographs that could (in the hands of a skillful developer) have easily been colour balanced correctly. Nautrally they claimed victory, saying the film was ruined, but it really wasn't.

There's an Aulis article about it.

Didn't the guy doing the vacuum tests also come to the conclusion that it wasn't the vacuum itself that did the main damage but the repeated cycling in and out of a vacuum?

And from what I can recall, the original Lunar Orbiter also developed the photos in lunar orbit, scanned the result, and transmitted the picture back to Earth. Pretty sure you would need a pressurised vessel for that. Fortunately, Apollo waited until they got back to Earth, and left the developing to professional like Terry Slezak (first non astronaut to be 'contaminated' by lunar dust).

6

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by bknight on October 04, 2024, 12:53:46 PM »

I don't know if it the same as you are asking, but I have a vague remembrance of a film where either Percy or Allen demonstrated the film in an oven and later a film in a microwave oven indicating that filming would be impossible during Apollo.  This was maybe 10years ago, that is why I called it a vague remembrance.

7

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by Allan F on October 03, 2024, 04:21:27 PM »

Was it that experiment where they put film in an ordinary oven, and destroyed it, claiming the same temperature would be relevant on the moon?

8

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by onebigmonkey on October 03, 2024, 12:34:32 PM »

The source of the claim is largely the 'Apollo Detectives'. They've insisted that the film in the Lunar Orbiter needed to be pressurised in order to protect it, when in fact mininal pressure of 1-2 psi of Nitrogen was used to make sure the fllm stayed where it was supposed to during exposure.

They found a tame physicist with access to a vacuum, and duly exposed off the shelf film to vacuum several times. The end result was: perfectly acceptable photographs that could (in the hands of a skillful developer) have easily been colour balanced correctly. Nautrally they claimed victory, saying the film was ruined, but it really wasn't.

There's an Aulis article about it.

9

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by Peter B on October 02, 2024, 06:08:32 PM »

...Now I'm really curious what the exact claims are...

LOL! Do hoax believers ever make "exact" claims? It wouldn't surprise me that the claim is just "outgassing!", like "radiation!" or "destroyed the technology!".

10

The Hoax Theory / Re: Film Outgassing

« Last post by jfb on October 02, 2024, 04:59:48 PM »

I know they had to change out the lubricants in the cameras because they were worried about how they'd behave in a vacuum (mostly by vaporizing/outgassing and depositing schmutz on the lenses), but I've never heard any concerns about the film.  This is a new one to me.   

Plastics, including film, outgas at normal atmospheric pressures ("new car smell" is basically outgassing vinyl).  If it were going to be a problem for film, it'd be a problem on the ground as well as in space. 

Now I'm really curious what the exact claims are.  We could test those claims relatively easily -- buy a batch of Ektachrome, stick half of it in a vacuum chamber for a few days (lab grade vacuum isn't a hard vacuum like on the lunar surface, but it should be good enough to encourage rapid outgassing), shoot and process it, compare results.