ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: mako88sb on August 31, 2016, 12:29:07 AM
-
I don't know if this has ever been discussed here before but he does bring up something I never seen before. I did do a bit of a search and nothing really came up here. Anyway, instead of linking the youtube site since I know a lot of people don't care for it, I thought I'd just post the comments between us. His first post I dealt with pretty effectively and I didn't back from him till today.
***["Comparing the photos from Russian probes that actually landed on moon, we can see one big difference: Russian photos have many little spots on the dark sky. They are not stars, but the effects of radiation from solar wind. What is missing from Apollo photos are not stars, but the radiation effect on the films. The camera they used had no protection from radiation or extreme heat and cold, so they shouldn't have worked, or at least not having those high quality photos. You cannot just bring an untested camera to the moon and get such great results. There are many experienced photographers baffled by the super sharp and perfectly framed photos taken by Apollo astronauts. Ask their opinion and you might get a better understanding why the photos are still very controversial."]***
--->
Russian probes that landed on the moon did not use film. They had optical-mechanical cycloramic cameras and the pictures taken with them were transmitted back to Earth. The only Soviet probes that actually returned film to Earth via soft-landings were the Zond-5,6,7 & 8 fly-by missions. I just had a look at the pictures developed from the film of those probes and there's nothing wrong with the quality of them that could be attributed to radiation. Obviously, the Russians had no such issue that hoaxheads like to claim would have affected the Apollo missions.<---
["You cannot just bring an untested camera to the moon and get such great results. There are many experienced photographers baffled by the super sharp and perfectly framed photos taken by Apollo astronauts. Ask their opinion and you might get a better understanding why the photos are still very controversial."]
--->Like you supposed radiation damaged film photo's, you obviously did zero research about this. Google "Hasselblad in Space - Hasselblad" and you'll see the camera was far from untested prior to Apollo 11. Make sure you read all 5 pages of it.
As for your second point, they had months of training on how to use the camera mounted at chest height. The first time they used them, they had lousy results but they got better after a few months went by. Google "The Apollo 11 Hasselblad Cameras The Sterile Eye" to read all about it. Seriously, you think they wouldn't take the time to train the astronauts for something like this? The only controversy is amongst people like you who believe everything hoax sites say without checking into the details and getting the facts straight.
While you're at it, google "Clavius: Environment - radiation and photographic film" so you can see how someone deliberately exposed the film to much higher levels of radiation than any Apollo mission ever experienced.<---
This was all from back on August 11. Today I got this from him:
***["Since you edited the post, I can see you are a better person than most other youtubers, though not glad to see words like "Zero Research" or "Hoaxhead". I also agree with you that the photos from Luna-9 and Luna-13, which landed on the moon, are not good examples because they used phototelevision cameras, not films.
I am here to debate that there should be radiation damage on the films, for the simple truth that space is full of radiation. It might not be lethal, but it does exist. When you use a camera with thin aluminum cover on the moon surface for hours you should get fake stars in the dark area, not because of the sky, but because of radiation and particles.
First let me be clear that Soviet Zond spacecrafts are heavily protected, USSR style. You can see the pictures here:
Zone 5: http://www.planet4589.org/space/misc/moscow/p0266.JPG
Zone L1S: http://space.skyrocket.de/img_sat/l1s__1.jpg
So the image from those cameras should be free of radiation, given how heavy the shield was. Zond-6 is bad example because it crashed and film canister was broken. However, Zond 7 gave us some interesting pictures:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_1.jpg
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg
Zoom in and see the bright dots in the shadow of moon and space:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_B.jpg
Zond 8 had the same problem:
Many stars in the sky:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond08_01.jpg
And many other pictures show the same thing. First time I saw those photos, I thought Soviet union was doing a bad job or film quality was bad. Then these came along.
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond08_10.jpg
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond08_15.jpg
There were few stars in the sky, some spots in the moon area and that's it.
The explanation is obvious. Those bright spots are caused by particles in space. They are randomly occurring like wind blowing. Some pictures have a lot but some have few. The common thing is they all have it. It's just a matter of few or a lot.
Now look back at Apollo program. The Hasselblad cameras were exposed on the moon surface for many hours with only thin aluminum shell, not lead. No protection in the ring area and lens. Shutter leaves are very thin. So overall there should be much more bright spots in films, aka fake stars. Remember films are rolled up tight in a cartridge. If just one particle went through. It could leave a mark on tens of films at one time. However, we don't see those bright spots. Why? It only make sense if those photos were taken on the ground.
I don't care about the Clavius guy and his experiment. It doesn't change the fact that while Zond photos show us all the effects of radiation and space particle, Apollo show us none, which should show us a lot more fake stars for its weak camera protection.
Go to this website and see all the photos from Zond program:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm
Then take a look at these pictures:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Apollo_11_lunar_module.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/610213main_S73-22871_full.jpg
Do you still think there is nothing wrong with it? There is no radiation in the space or the cameras can really deflect all particle in the space, better than the heavy steel shell of Zond?
The 2nd point is also obvious for all the pro or semi pro photographer. It's discussed in detail in other youtube videos by Marcus Allen. Don't want to extend it too much here. You can google them yourself."]***
I guess the one thing that I've been able to kinda figure out is that those white spots he refers to are not caused by any sort of radiation damage. However, I'm not positive about this so anybody else who might know better, it would be great to hear from. As for the images with the moon and Earth and what he claims to be stars, I'm sure somebody has an explanation. I'm assuming an astronomy program would be able to prove one way or the other but I'm not too handy with them. Anyway, be interesting to hear what you guys/gals think?
-
His first job should be to ascertain where those Russian images came from. A lot of circulated versions of Apollo images include 'stars' which are actually just dust on the equipment used to scan and reproduce them. Consider the infamous 'C-rock' photo as evidence of what happens when scanning equipment gets contaminated. Before he can claim the spots in the Russian images are radiation effects he must show he has considered and eliminated all other options, such as dust, reproduction defects, film damage due to other things, and so on. His statement about radiation and shielding is inadequate, as this is a field dominated by numbers. Nobody disputes the existence of radiation in space. If he wants to claim the shielding was not up to the job of protecting the film in the camera he needs to do the mathematics to prove that.
-
This guy is assuming a lot without evidence. As Jason pointed out, he can't just assume that the spots on the prints are radiation hits. I think Occam's Razor has something to say about "massive conspiracy/cover-up!" versus "dust on the negative/printing equipment". He is guilty of petitio principii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) - using a premise that has yet to be proven to support his argument.
He does it again when he says,
I am here to debate that there should be radiation damage on the films, for the simple truth that space is full of radiation. It might not be lethal, but it does exist. When you use a camera with thin aluminum cover on the moon surface for hours you should get fake stars in the dark area, not because of the sky, but because of radiation and particles.
He has not quantified the radiation environment (flux and energy). This directly affects whether or not (and to what extent) a specific film is susceptible to that radiation environment. This, in turn, begs the question of what type and thickness of shielding is sufficient to reduce radiation damage to that film.
He also has not quantified the difference in radiation sensitivity between the Kodak Ektachrome film used by the Americans and whatever the Soviets were using.
He is flat-out wrong about "...the heavy steel shell of Zond":
First let me be clear that Soviet Zond spacecrafts are heavily protected, USSR style. You can see the pictures here:
Zone 5: http://www.planet4589.org/space/misc/moscow/p0266.JPG
Zone L1S: http://space.skyrocket.de/img_sat/l1s__1.jpg
So the image from those cameras should be free of radiation, given how heavy the shield was.
(Note that the pictures show the Soyuz with the thick external heat shield)
Zond's skin is an aluminum alloy, possibly with some titanium in the construction.
Here is a Soviet paper about radiation measurements made during the Zond 5 & 7 flights: Link (http://cds.cern.ch/record/864491/files/p484.pdf)
It specifies the shielding as "similar to aluminum,' with a thickness of 3 g/cm2. Iirc, Apollo's shielding was ~7-8 g/cm2. I do not know what the camera's thickness was. Perhaps Jay can chime-in.
The conclusion of the Soviet paper is quite clear:
...should no solar flare occurs, (sic) seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view
****************************************
As an afterthought, I should point out that the Soviets used special film emulsions to capture the particle tracks and thus measure the radiation flux and energy. In other words, they were looking for the same kind of radiation effects that your HB says should be common on the Apollo photographs. This is where the specifics of the photographic emulsioon becomes crucial. The Soviets wanted clear, easy-to-measure-and-quantify radiation signatures. Thus they used very sensitive emulsions and laid them on thickly - 400 microns or nearly half a millimeter. The Apollo film was intended to record fine-grained images of brightly-lit landscapes. It had an ISO-equivalent of ~160 - which is a fairly low sensitivity.
-
Perhaps Jay can chime-in.
I don't have a figure for the shield factor specifically, but the original spec for the cameras required shielding up to 600 rads. The guy is assuming quite a lot about the Hasselblad longroll magazines.
-
Thanks guys. Some very useful info there. That was interesting to read about the Russians and the specific purpose emulsions to look for particle tracks and measure the radiation flux and energy.
Hi Jay, I found the NASA pdf that has the camera design specs so along with the 600 rad shielding requirement you mention, there was the following design criteria:
Some of the parameters for the lunar exploration camera are
given in reference 2. A hand-held lunar photographic system
would be required to meet the following environmental criteria:
{1) an acceleration up to ±20 G's for 3 minutes in any direction;
(2) a shock of 30 G's for a period of 11 milliseconds; (3) air
pressure variations from sea level to less than 10-10 millimeter of
mercury; (4) a temperature range from -186° centigrade to
+114° centigrade; (5) solar flare radiation of 600 rads; and (6)
the possibility of 100 percent relative humidity, including condensation
for 5 days in a temperature range of 80° to 160° F.
I'm pretty curious about that point# (6). What was the reasoning behind that one?
Edit: I forgot to mention I found this link during my first dealings with the HB and found it pretty interesting:
http://mentallandscape.com/V_Cameras.htm#Luna9
-
I have debated with a hoaxer who claims to work in the space radiation field in a European country. There was another guy debating him also and his belief that all Apollo images show a small amount of radiation damage. I had not heard of this and I didn't choose to argue the point and give the hoaxer a debating point that Apollo believers can't even agree on the amount or lack of image effects.
Any thoughts from any of the film oriented people?(Including Jay, of course)
-
I'm pretty curious about that point# (6). What was the reasoning behind that one?
I'm guessing, but I'd have to say contingencies such as ECS failure in the CM cabin and/or floating in a life raft in the Pacific waiting to be rescued after an errant landing.
-
The other example for the HB to check out are the lunar orbiter images, where film was exposed and developed in space.
At least one of them (Lunar Orbiter 1) had radiation counters on board, with the results detailed in this report:
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19690029828
I have a hard copy of that one.
All in all it seems to be just a variation of the 'Searing Radiation Hell' argument based entirely on the assumption that no photographic film ever had a defect.
-
As an afterthought, I should point out that the Soviets used special film emulsions to capture the particle tracks and thus measure the radiation flux and energy. In other words, they were looking for the same kind of radiation effects that your HB says should be common on the Apollo photographs. This is where the specifics of the photographic emulsioon becomes crucial. The Soviets wanted clear, easy-to-measure-and-quantify radiation signatures. Thus they used very sensitive emulsions and laid them on thickly - 400 microns or nearly half a millimeter. The Apollo film was intended to record fine-grained images of brightly-lit landscapes. It had an ISO-equivalent of ~160 - which is a fairly low sensitivity.
Just a point - the Zond radiation detection emulsion was a separate experiment from the cameras used to photograph the Moon and the Earth. Similar emulsion detectors were flown on Apollo.
-
The other example for the HB to check out are the lunar orbiter images, where film was exposed and developed in space.
At least one of them (Lunar Orbiter 1) had radiation counters on board, with the results detailed in this report:
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19690029828
I have a hard copy of that one.
All in all it seems to be just a variation of the 'Searing Radiation Hell' argument based entirely on the assumption that no photographic film ever had a defect.
I'm on a slow internet connection and 179M will take a long time to download, would you give me a readers digest of the report?
-
The other example for the HB to check out are the lunar orbiter images, where film was exposed and developed in space.
At least one of them (Lunar Orbiter 1) had radiation counters on board, with the results detailed in this report:
https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19690029828
I have a hard copy of that one.
All in all it seems to be just a variation of the 'Searing Radiation Hell' argument based entirely on the assumption that no photographic film ever had a defect.
I'm on a slow internet connection and 179M will take a long time to download, would you give me a readers digest of the report?
I'll strip out the radiation pagesat home and post them :)
-
Just a point - the Zond radiation detection emulsion was a separate experiment from the cameras used to photograph the Moon and the Earth. Similar emulsion detectors were flown on Apollo.
Thanks. I meant to point out that the radiation detection emulsion was a separate experiment from the cameras, but I lost the thread while I was typing. I work the night shift, and by the time I hit "post" I was <150 seconds from unconciousness. :)
-
Here you go. the relevant pages from the Lunar Orbiter report:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2enm5ckgi23cud/LO_radiation.pdf?dl=0
As an aside, I noticed that my hard copy was addressed to a Mary Fitzpatrick at NASA HQ in Washington. Turns out she was a NASA PAO and spokeswoman :)
-
Is there something available from Hasselblad regarding what exactly they did to meet the NASA requirements for the Apollo cameras? I was hoping to find some kind of publication about it but not having any kind of luck. There is the Compendium 2nd edition that came out in 2011 that looks promising but it's a bit pricey so would need more info about it before buying it. There doesn't seem to be much online info aside from what's covered over at Clavius.
-
I'm pretty curious about that point# (6). What was the reasoning behind that one?
5 days in 100% humidity is consistent with the jungle survival training the astronauts absolved (http://www.wired.com/2011/07/moon-landing-gallery/). Since planning is all about "what if?", there was the question of what if the landing happened even further away from nominal than Carpenter's :-) Think Amazonas.
-
But the film cameras would not have to work after earth landing. Several were left on the moon anyway.
Now I can understand a requirement that the film magazines withstand high humidity for at least several days.
-
Which white spots in which photographs, specifically?
I see a lot of transmission noise in the earlier pictures, especially Luna-3. Transmission was entirely analog in those days, and the artifacts depend on the transmission speed and modulation type.
Digital image transmission with error correction didn't really get going in the civilian space programs until the mid 1970s, e.g. with Viking on Mars. Even Lunar Orbiter's high quality images were transmitted as analog FM signals; the receiver tapes (made with modified professional video recorders) were dusted off and digitized some years ago with outstanding results. See the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP).
-
Which white spots in which photographs, specifically?
I see a lot of transmission noise in the earlier pictures, especially Luna-3. Transmission was entirely analog in those days, and the artifacts depend on the transmission speed and modulation type.
Digital image transmission with error correction didn't really get going in the civilian space programs until the mid 1970s, e.g. with Viking on Mars. Even Lunar Orbiter's high quality images were transmitted as analog FM signals; the receiver tapes (made with modified professional video recorders) were dusted off and digitized some years ago with outstanding results. See the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP).
From the HB's post:
["Zoom in and see the bright dots in the shadow of moon and space:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_B.jpg"]
The Zond flyby missions soft-landed back on Earth and the film from them was then processed. This is what the HB is going on about.
-
But the film cameras would not have to work after earth landing. Several were left on the moon anyway.
Now I can understand a requirement that the film magazines withstand high humidity for at least several days.
(6) the possibility of 100 percent relative humidity, including condensation
for 5 days in a temperature range of 80° to 160° F.
Like it's been mentioned, I originally thought about a possible jungle survival situation but the 80° to 160° F requirement has me thinking that in case there was some sort of event whereupon the crew perished and as Jay mentioned an ecs failure as well, then they would try to remotely control the CM to it's atmospheric re-entry and hope the camera footage would still be usable. Not something pleasant to think about but I guess there were probably all sorts of contingency plans for worst case scenarios.
-
["Zoom in and see the bright dots in the shadow of moon and space:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_B.jpg"]
I see a bunch of handling scratches, not much more.
-
["Zoom in and see the bright dots in the shadow of moon and space:
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_B.jpg"]
I see a bunch of handling scratches, not much more.
There's 4 white dots fairly close to the right edge. The furthest one to the right is a fair size. Plus there are a bunch of much smaller ones in the same general area. I know it's not what he's referring to in this quote: "The explanation is obvious. Those bright spots are caused by particles in space". Similar issues to the handling scratches or other possibilities as mentioned in reply #1.
-
Moon hoax from 1960!
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P1969.pdf
Seems suspicion about lunar photography goes waaaay back!
e2a - I got that link following my nose in references from a 1971 Rand corporation book "The view from Space". It also contains the Zond image linked to above, and that image does contain traces of at least some of the bright spots shown, although not as bright and obvious.
-
Moon hoax from 1960!
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P1969.pdf
Seems suspicion about lunar photography goes waaaay back!
April 1 1960.
-
Moon hoax from 1960!
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P1969.pdf
Seems suspicion about lunar photography goes waaaay back!
e2a - I got that link following my nose in references from a 1971 Rand corporation book "The view from Space". It also contains the Zond image linked to above, and that image does contain traces of at least some of the bright spots shown, although not as bright and obvious.
IIRC this may have been as a result of this countries belief that the Soviets did not have the technology to build such rockets and put satellites to the Moon. Arrogance indeed and the Soviets did nothing to help the situation with all the secrecy. It was an all out space race.