Hoaxnut thinks Apollo photo calibration charts prove fake

[BertieSlack]

Apollo hoax nutcase 'APOLLOREALITY' thinks the dates on pre-flight calibration frames prove the mission photos were taken BEFORE the missions:

Anybody want to explain to him why he's wrong and what the purpose of the calibration charts actually was? Apparently he's already consulted 'experts'.

[Willoughby]

I left a comment, but I expect some sort of rejection from him. 

I'll briefly explain it here :

They loaded up a good amount of film (enough to cover the mission) into several camera backs, which on the cameras used, were interchangeable - even with partially completed rolls.  They then took a photograph of a calibration chart out of each roll.  In other words, every roll of film the astronauts used had one shot already taken out of it - of the calibration chart.

The purpose of these shots was literally quality assurance.  These are important photographs, and they only have one shot at processing these negatives.  When the astronauts returned, they clipped just the calibration shot off the roll and processed that by itself to make sure all their chemistry was right and if not, had a baseline for the adjustments needed to process the rest of the roll.

Since it would be silly to have an astronaut take these calibration shots en route to the moon (or leave one unexposed negative out of each roll to be used for calibration when they returned), they logically decided to take these calibration shots - one on each roll - before they left. 

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about the timing of the photos.  Even if you don't know the purpose of the calibration charts, there is nothing to be suspicious about.  It baffles me.

[Willoughby]

His confusion seems to stem from his assumption that you can't remove film from a camera mid-roll.  Because of this, he doesn't understand how there is a calibration shot on each roll prior to them leaving.  In other words, he understands the logic behind taking a calibration shot before they left, but actually asks "who takes the calibration shot on the NEXT roll" as if it wouldn't be possible until you have shot up the entire first roll before you can remove it - in which case they would be IN the mission.  That's why he believes ALL the photographs would have had to have been taken before the launch - since there is a calibration shot to start the LAST roll, and he believes that shot could not have been taken until all previous rolls were shot up.

[BertieSlack]

The purpose of these shots was literally quality assurance.

Thanks for the explanation. I guessed it was something like that. I wonder what his response will be. Denial, probably.

[bknight]

Of course he does not have the knowledgably  of the camera, and I suspect he has never taken a picture with a camera using film.

[Willoughby]

Of course he does not have the knowledgably  of the camera, and I suspect he has never taken a picture with a camera using film.

Actually, I think he has SOME knowledge of film cameras; just not with a medium format camera with a removable film cartridge.  He's probably shot on a standard 35mm camera where once you put the film in, you can't take it out until you have shot up the whole roll without ruining every picture.  So to him, when he sees the first picture of the 6th roll of film used on the moon, and its of a calibration chart, his experience with a standard 35mm film camera tells him that it's impossible that the picture was taken on the moon if the film couldn't have been loaded into the camera until they were on the moon and the first picture was taken on Earth.  I think a person would have to be a LITTLE bit educated on at least a basic 35mm camera to realize that it would indeed be impossible with your standard run-of-the-mill camera where you load the film directly into the camera.

In other words, it WOULD be impossible to use a standard 35mm film camera without a removable film cartridge to have 15 rolls of film, and the first picture on each roll is taken on Earth while the rest are taken on the moon.  It could not be done with that kind of camera.

It's actually a reasonable error to make.  That said, I've had interactions with this person before, and he has no interest in explanations.  A reasonable person - upon realizing that in the particular camera system Apollo used, film backs could be changed out mid-roll - would simply say, "Oh, now I get it" and move on abandoning the argument completely.  Unfortunately, the uploader of that video is not a reasonable person.

I'd also add that the same concept applies to the 16mm film footage.  The first few frames were of the calibration charts, and the film cartridges for those were CERTAINLY removeable.   

[JayUtah]

He's probably shot on a standard 35mm camera where once you put the film in, you can't take it out until you have shot up the whole roll without ruining every picture.

Nah, I was taught how to change standard 135 cartridges in mid-roll.  Of course you do it in a darkroom, and not all 35mm cameras were set up to let you do this.  And you have to be careful when rewinding not to let the head of the film strip get sucked into the cartridge irretrievably.  But we used to do this all the time.  You rewind almost to the end, then finish in a darkroom with the back open.  Then you pop out the cartridge (technically, a cassette, but that's getting into nuances of library science) and put it in an opaque canister until you're ready to use it again.  It's prudent to mark on the canister how many shots on that roll were already exposed.

To restart the cartridge, you put it back in the camera as usual, but then click through the number of exposures you already took, in a darkroom or with the lens cap on.  And then a couple more, to make sure you don't accidentally overlap your last previous exposure.  Then you're good to go again.

This practice fell out of favor when automated 135 processing became the norm.  Not all automatic film processors would respect a change in frame spacing, as inevitably occurs.  But as long as you suck with manual development and printing, you could still do this.

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately, the uploader of that video is not a reasonable person.

"APOLLOREALITY" is one of the nicknames used by Sam Colby, who authored the "NASAScam" web site and habitually refers to his critics as "pro-Apollo nutters."  (Obviously from the UK.)  If this is him, then in now way is he a reasonable person.  He's that particularly odious combination of ignorance and arrogance that needs to be left alone.  And by ignorance I mean astounding ignorance.  He's one of the first people I encountered years ago when investigating Apollo hoax claims.  I remember thinking that if all hoax claimants were as ignorant as this guy, debunking it would be like shooting fish in a barrel of nothing but fish.

[bknight]

Unfortunately, the uploader of that video is not a reasonable person.

"APOLLOREALITY" is one of the nicknames used by Sam Colby, who authored the "NASAScam" web site and habitually refers to his critics as "pro-Apollo nutters."  (Obviously from the UK.)  ...

Yes the presenter uses the phrases "PAN" quite a number of times in this boring 16 minute video.

[Willoughby]

Of course, it is also apparent that he's not aware that the cameras used removable backs that were preloaded with film either - as loading the film requires a dark room too, now that you mention it. 

[JayUtah]

Yes the presenter uses the phrases "PAN" quite a number of times in this boring 16 minute video.

Definitely Sam Colby, then.  That guy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice.  I would say he can be safely ignored, but then it's not for me to say who others decide to engage or not.  My engagements with him have been pretty formulaic -- he makes a stupid statement, it's rebutted, showing his ignorance of the facts; he continues unabated or simply ignores you.

It would be fine if he were simply ignorant.  But he's also dishonest, which is to say he knows some of the stuff he presents is outright lies.  One of his former tactics was to obtain photos showing astronauts training on Earth for some activity or another, and present them as if they were "secret" photos of the missions being faked.  Since this blatant dishonesty plays a big part of his game, you can't expect him to debate in good faith.  He will lie.

[JayUtah]

Of course, it is also apparent that he's not aware that the cameras used removable backs that were preloaded with film either - as loading the film requires a dark room too, now that you mention it.

Or just a darkbox.  I agree he's unfamiliar with the notion of a magazine-fed camera.  Anyone who has ever used a "real" camera has had the privilege of loading and unloading magazines in a darkbox.  The closest thing to Apollo film is 120 film, which you buy on rolls shielded with paper.  The standard procedure is to put the magazine and darkslide into the darkbox and then go in with the film roll and work out how to unwrap it and thread it onto the spools of the magazine without being able to see what you're doing.  You will mess it up the first time.  But with the film properly spooled (you hope) and the darkslide in place (you hope), you can remove the loaded magazine from the darkbox and use it.  Naturally when the film is exposed, you must remove it from the magazine in the darkbox too.  That's a much easier process.

If any of you have seen me in The Truth about the Moon Landings (UK channel 4, Discovery, Nat Geo) you'll see me commenting on some aspects of one of the 120 rolls we shot in the desert.  The inside story is that we realized too late that we didn't have a darkbox out in the field.  ("Field" is optimistic; we were in the Mojave Desert 30 miles from the nearest other human being.)  We actually unloaded the film under a random dust cover we pilfered from the grip truck, with the result being that some of the frames were "moonstruck."  This turned out to be a boon because it illustrates how some of the Apollo frames are sunstruck.

But to make a short story longer, yes, there's no reason in the world why a roll of Ektachrome can't have been loaded in a magazine and tested, then unloaded and reloaded back in Apollo longroll magazines with the test frame rolled safely up into the takeup spool.  There is no insoluble marriage in that world between the roll of film and the magazine that carries it for some particular shoot.

[bknight]

But to make a short story longer, yes, there's no reason in the world why a roll of Ektachrome can't have been loaded in a magazine and tested, then unloaded and reloaded back in Apollo longroll magazines with the test frame rolled safely up into the takeup spool.  There is no insoluble marriage in that world between the roll of film and the magazine that carries it for some particular shoot.

Those crafty NASA engineers thought of almost everything.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Apollo hoax nutcase 'APOLLOREALITY' thinks the dates on pre-flight calibration frames prove the mission photos were taken BEFORE the missions:

Anybody want to explain to him why he's wrong and what the purpose of the calibration charts actually was? Apparently he's already consulted 'experts'.

Just a side track Bertie, finished my two final law exams yesterday, so I'm free for a meet up now. Apart from the week of the Silverstone F1 Grand Prix. I'm going to trust the vagaries of the English weather and go Camping for the week. The wife and I have hired a camper van.

[Glom]

Of course confusion based on experience with 35mm is understandable. A rational person would then question the breadth of his experience rather than conclude his understanding is infallible and therefore an implausible conspiracy has occurred.