[Curious Squirrel]

A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:

Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves.

Honestly, at this point you should stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Excellent, I knew they'd come up with an explanation of 100% perfect photos. Centered and focus each and every time by he film crew. Kodak got involved also with super duper film rolls too that withstand cosmic rays and temp swings no doubt.

I see stink has come up with Kodak's contribution to landing on the moon thru the belts of no return.

Not sure about you, but it seems far more likely to me that they simply only published the better quality/'perfect' ones. Why bother publishing images that are a blurred mess, or you can't see anything on?

[J-Man]

Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh

50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby

[J-Man]

And before you get too excited about oh yeah we pulled off the photo shoot on the moon. Do just a little research into the fakery. No camera/film could have survived.

"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-van-allen-probes-reveal-dynamics.html#jCp

So Mr. Critical thinktank, if you can fake the moon landing you can surely fake skylab and some cliff divers from Ringlings performing.

[JHelzer]

Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh

50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby

Where have you been for the past year?
SpaceX lands their rocket cores now.

[J-Man]

Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh

50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby

Where have you been for the past year?
SpaceX lands their rocket cores now.

Wait, really? Lets watch one.

Awesome, didn't even have to buy popcorn.

[CriticalThinker]

All very interesting and I fear headed away from the original question and premise.  Skylab was a low orbit, temperature controlled, oxygenated environment where the astronauts could easily maneuver around without any of the moon landing equipment on.  Solar charging and stable temperatures means that camera battery life from inside skylab is not an issue.  The skylab film would have been transported only through interior cabins and air locked connection ports.  So all of the film/camera/hand dexterity issues brought up just recently are a moot point for the film in question.  The skylab film can't be explained away by CGI, underwater filming, wires, parabolic flight so....  As far as I can tell it must be real which means we've been in low orbit and could see the convexity of the earth.

Please explain how the skylab film from the first post was faked.  I didn't post a movie of the moon landing and skylab didn't go to the moon so it's irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[J-Man]

The zapruder film was fake and so is yours. fake fake fake

The tech was available for your cliff divers.

[Curious Squirrel]

Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh

Never said I did. Commented that I see no reason to suspect the ones published would have been the only ones taken. Wedding photographers take hundreds of pictures looking for that 'perfect shot'. You appear to be assuming they didn't. Fairly easy search later though, I see reports of nearly 6000 photos taken over the course of the 6 missions to the moon.

But as CriticalThinker points out, this doesn't really have anything to do with the original SkyLab footage.

Where is your evidence the Zapruder film was fake? I already refuted your one rebuttal about Emmy's. Please try again.

[3DGeek]

Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh

Ah - this is the old "NASA lost the plans to the Saturn V moon rocket" bullshit isn't it?

This ridiculous notion was printed in a book published by John Lewis called "Mining the Sky" in 1996.  He claimed that the blueprints to the Saturn V had been lost.  Nobody knows why he's say such a bizarre thing and he's never provided his sources for this crazy claim.

When saner people asked NASA, a guy called Paul Shawcross, from NASA's "Office of Inspector General" said:

"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, (...) has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents, (...) Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."

When asked if NASA could build a Saturn V today if they needed to, Shawcross said:

"The problem in recreating the Saturn 5 is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware, and the fact that the launch pads and vehicle assembly buildings have been converted to space shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from."

Full story is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100818173517/http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html

So, no - NASA didn't lose any records...this is just more bullshit from the idiot moonshot deniers.  Do these people not know how to use Google or something?

[CriticalThinker]

J-man

The Zapruder film might be fake.  Not my worry today.  You really think that any obstacle between greed and its target won't be removed quickly, forcibly and permanently whenever the opportunity presents itself?  Humans are very destructive critters.  Still doesn't make all film faked.  Too damn much effort for not a lot of payout.  Skylab maybe could be faked, but to what purpose and for how long before some low level disgruntled employee burned it all over a stupid red stapler.  The real question you should ask is why, if the skylab video was faked, they didn't make it more entertaining?  I mean, I enjoy watching half naked men play grabass in microgravity as much as the next man but if the internet has taught me anything useful, it's that they would have had a much bigger budget if the video featured half naked playmates instead.  You want to really get a big budget?  Give the people what they want.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/52/cd/45/52cd452efc17ba9470609bfe7a29a79f--staplers-demotivational-posters.jpg

CriticalThinker

[StinkyOne]

A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:

Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves.

Honestly, at this point you should stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Excellent, I knew they'd come up with an explanation of 100% perfect photos. Centered and focus each and every time by he film crew. Kodak got involved also with super duper film rolls too that withstand cosmic rays and temp swings no doubt.

I see stink has come up with Kodak's contribution to landing on the moon thru the belts of no return.

Yes, because I'm sure the they are going to show off the blurry pics. They took rolls and rolls of pics. You've seen a handful. And yes, we can shield against radiation. C'mon, you're not even trying anymore.

[mtnman]

And before you get too excited about oh yeah we pulled off the photo shoot on the moon. Do just a little research into the fakery. No camera/film could have survived.

"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-van-allen-probes-reveal-dynamics.html#jCp

So Mr. Critical thinktank, if you can fake the moon landing you can surely fake skylab and some cliff divers from Ringlings performing.

I looked at the article you quoted. How odd that you didn't quote the paragraph that followed the one you quoted:

"NASA built these spacecraft to be super tough, and thank goodness we did," says APL's Nicky Fox, Van Allen Probes deputy project scientist. "The instruments are seeing the exact sorts of damaging effects we designed the spacecraft to survive."

And I'm not even going to dwell on the irony that you are using results taken from a space mission, to explain how space missions are fake.