• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

foolsgold

Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,042
Reaction score
7,158
Some men's egos are so warped they are unable (or unwilling) to accept their very small place in the universe.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
The xray machine at security is what you were implying, correct? If so, that machine will not hurt film in a camera. In the past, I've sent many rolls of film inside of carry on bags, through the airport xray machine with no ill effects observable in the pics once developed.

As for how the film was protected, read the following. It gives a perfectly reasonable (imho) answer to your question.

Just for starters though, I think you'd agree that rolls of film are quite small and could easily be contained in a heavier than normal container without adding much extra weight to the vehicle, would you not?

 

EricTheCat

An ant on a hill.
Gold Chaser
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
8,025
Location
Southern MN
This is a film pic that went through airport x-ray. Is it showing any issues as a result? I didn't do anything special to protect it. Elitechrome 200 slide film, if that matters.

AZ-2005-Scan897S.jpg
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
This is a film pic that went through airport x-ray. Is it showing any issues as a result? I didn't do anything special to protect it. Elitechrome 200 slide film, if that matters.

View attachment 256245
WB looks a little off. Did you send it through checked bag or carry on? So, are yall saying enormous amounts of radiation has zero effect on film? Throw that roll in the microwave for 15 seconds and get back to me.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,447
Reaction score
5,207
They (flat Earthers) say it's either because of the Earth moving upwards @9.81/meters/sec squared, (this would exceed the speed of light in less than a year's time, but they would prefer that you ignore that part of it) or because of density. They're not sure which it is yet.
Earth is not moving upwards at the rate of acceleration. Nonsensical bullshit.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
WB looks a little off. Did you send it through checked bag or carry on? So, are yall saying enormous amounts of radiation has zero effect on film? Throw that roll in the microwave for 15 seconds and get back to me.
He simply posted a picture saying that it was from film that went through the x-ray at the airport.

Your extrapolation that "ya'll" "are saying enormous amounts of radiation have zero effect on film" is a testament to the muddied mindset of the spherical Earth skeptics.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Throw that roll in the microwave for 15 seconds and get back to me.
Throw a person in a microwave for 15 seconds and it wouldn't be good for them either, I would imagine.
....and is radiation in space the same as microwave radiation? You seem to suggesting that it is.
 
Last edited:

mtnman

Platinum Bling
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
5,829
Reaction score
14,515
Location
East Tennessee
A lot of post for one simple problem. If the Earth is flat show me the edge. Problem solved.
 

EricTheCat

An ant on a hill.
Gold Chaser
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
8,025
Location
Southern MN
WB looks a little off. Did you send it through checked bag or carry on? So, are yall saying enormous amounts of radiation has zero effect on film? Throw that roll in the microwave for 15 seconds and get back to me.
Carry on. None of us said zero effect. Either they went through the x-ray along with all my stuff, or they pretended to.

What does 15 seconds in the microwave have anything to do with it? Nothing? Am I right? Nothing?
 

EricTheCat

An ant on a hill.
Gold Chaser
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
8,025
Location
Southern MN
WB looks a little off.

From what I am reading, carry on sometimes is not exposed to high enough x-rays to have much of an effect compared to checked luggage. That said, X-rays can effect the white balance on color film.

Interesting thing about space radiation,pixels on digital cameras used long term on the space station develop hot pixels very much more quickly than on Earth. As a result, some of the ISS footage you can see specs all over the image that never change in color if they are using a camera that has been up for a long time.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
From what I am reading, carry on sometimes is not exposed to high enough x-rays to have much of an effect compared to checked luggage. That said, X-rays can effect the white balance on color film.

Interesting thing about space radiation,pixels on digital cameras used long term on the space station develop hot pixels very much more quickly than on Earth. As a result, some of the ISS footage you can see specs all over the image that never change in color if they are using a camera that has been up for a long time.
On that topic, thinking about the pinhole camera I made back in the day, it was the light passing through the pinhole that reacted with the film, that once exposed to chemicals in the darkroom, displayed images. So speculating here, in order for "radiation" to affect the film I'd presume it would have to penetrate whatever enclosure the film is in and hit it with at least the intensity of visible light. Does that sound it all reasonable?
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
Do you think I am on the NASA payroll?
Who knows? Half the people on this thread are on some government payroll. Maybe you are on NASA's payroll still pushing your moon landing psyop from fifty years ago, butting heads against folks from the CIA who are pushing the flat earth psyop these days. Wouldn't surprise me at all. :-)
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
Some men's egos are so warped they are unable (or unwilling) to accept their very small place in the universe.
It's not my ego that won't fit into a very small place.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
Throw a person in a microwave for 15 seconds and it wouldn't be good for them either, I would imagine.
....and is radiation in space the same as microwave radiation? You seem to suggesting that it is.
Actually, I'm suggesting that radiation in space is exponentially more destructive than what a simple microwave is capable of. Now, how in TF could film survive bouncing around on the moon look flawless. That is what I want to know.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
A lot of post for one simple problem. If the Earth is flat show me the edge. Problem solved.
Check the thread - I posted some pictures of the edge a while back after my last vacation.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
how in TF could film survive bouncing around on the moon look flawless. That is what I want to know.
It's all explained in that link I posted.

 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
It's all explained in that link I posted.

Nothing there but speculation. " Doesn't convince me, work on it". Your war face, that is.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Nothing there but speculation. " Doesn't convince me, work on it". Your war face, that is.
How does the following not make sense? Keep in mind that they did not use same film you and I had access to.

We had been developing special film emulsions for use in difficult environments for a decade before the Apollo missions. Films used in Spy satellites were developed to handle such radiation as they orbited the earth photographing Soviet military sites starting in 1958. The film magazines also protected the film from vacuum conditions and the extreme cold or heat at points in the orbit. All information that would be used in the making of the Apollo film cameras.

If they had in fact been working on radiation protection for film for over a Decade, how is it such a stretch to think that the same film wouldn't have worked for Apollo missions?


Most of the film cameras used on the Lunar surface or within the capsule were Hasselblad ELs with rather large film magazines (and using many times special Ektachrome 70mm film). The magazines, being metal, gave a significant amount of shielding to the film, in some ways more than the spacesuits gave the astronauts.

 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Who knows? Half the people on this thread are on some government payroll.
Really? That's some theory. Have you even a shred of evidence outside of sheer emotion to convince a neutral party to these extraordinary claims?

Have you not seen foolsgold & Eric the cat's home astronomy/photography setups?
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
How does the following not make sense? Keep in mind that they did not use same film you and I had access to.

We had been developing special film emulsions for use in difficult environments for a decade before the Apollo missions. Films used in Spy satellites were developed to handle such radiation as they orbited the earth photographing Soviet military sites starting in 1958. The film magazines also protected the film from vacuum conditions and the extreme cold or heat at points in the orbit. All information that would be used in the making of the Apollo film cameras.

If they had in fact been working on radiation protection for film for over a Decade, how is it such a stretch to think that the same film wouldn't have worked for Apollo missions?


Most of the film cameras used on the Lunar surface or within the capsule were Hasselblad ELs with rather large film magazines (and using many times special Ektachrome 70mm film). The magazines, being metal, gave a significant amount of shielding to the film, in some ways more than the spacesuits gave the astronauts.
But, where did this come from? Who wrote it? Where's any semblance of documentation? "Being metal", what kind of metal?
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Actually, I'm suggesting that radiation in space is exponentially more destructive than what a simple microwave is capable of. Now, how in TF could film survive bouncing around on the moon look flawless. That is what I want to know.
What is knowledge is you speculation of radiation based in? What materials have you absorbed to lead you to your understanding of physics?

I'm getting a sense of one of those who picks and chooses the brainwashing that they choose to believe/accept.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
What is knowledge is you speculation of radiation based in? What materials have you absorbed to lead you to your understanding of physics?

I'm getting a sense of one of those who picks and chooses the brainwashing that they choose to believe/accept.
Just asking questions, bruh.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Just asking questions, bruh.

"Actually, I'm suggesting that radiation in space is exponentially more destructive than what a simple microwave is capable of"

^That is not a question bruh
 

mtnman

Platinum Bling
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
5,829
Reaction score
14,515
Location
East Tennessee
Check the thread - I posted some pictures of the edge a while back after my last vacation.
No, it's 23 pages long. Post them again.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
But, where did this come from? Who wrote it? Where's any semblance of documentation? "Being metal", what kind of metal?
The film magazines were made of aluminum.



From the article titled,

Multilayer radiation shield for satellite electronic components protection


Abstract

In this paper, various multi-layer shields are designed, optimized, and analyzed for electron and proton space environments.
Edited to add: keep in mind that electrons and protons are what comprise most of space radiation.


Posted at:


Says.....


"The common material in space hardware is aluminum as both a radiation shield and structural enclosure, therefore the designed multi-layered shields are compared with 2 mm thickness of Al."





Those aluminum film magazines were almost certainly housed in a larger container that was also likely made from aluminum. Possibly with its own extra shielding in order to protect the film.

However they stowed the flim for the journey, they knew it had to be protected, as there was only one chance to get it right. That's why they used Hasselblad to begin with. If anyone knew cameras in the time of Apollo, it was them. They supposedly have mid-range cameras that cost as much as a cheap Tesla.
 
Last edited:

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
Those aluminum film magazines were almost certainly housed in a larger container that was also likely made from aluminum. Possibly with its own extra shielding in order to protect the film.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
"Actually, I'm suggesting that radiation in space is exponentially more destructive than what a simple microwave is capable of"

^That is not a question bruh
If I am wrong here, please enlighten me, kind sir.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Those aluminum film magazines were almost certainly housed in a larger container that was also likely made from aluminum. Possibly with its own extra shielding in order to protect the film.
Why wouldn't it (the film) have been stored together?

They were going to the Moon. I highly doubt they did like @Buck does on vacation and just toss the film magazines on the floorboard and hope they don't accidentally get tossed out with the old Taco Bell wrappers. Lol


I provided more proof that the film could in fact have been protected.

Now, how 'bout showing some evidence that space radiation is just like microwave oven radiation?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
If I am wrong here, please enlighten me, kind sir.
You're the one who made the claim.

You challenged me on the material the film mags were made of and I provided documentation of it, along with evidence that the material can in fact shield the film from space radiation.
 

Buck

Mother Lode Found
Midas Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
25,102
Reaction score
33,261
They were going to the Moon. I highly doubt they did like @Buck does on vacation and just toss the film magazines on the floorboard and hope they don't accidentally get tossed out with the old Taco Bell wrappers. Lol
it's the aluminum in the empty beer cans that help preserve everything that's on the floor of my truck, including my original copies of the moon walk...well, that and the drizzle that's left in the bottom that never seems to remain in the can when i toss it on the floor
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
You're the one who made the claim.

You challenged me on the material the film mags were made of and I provided documentation of it, along with evidence that the material can in fact shield the film from space radiation.
From your source of choice: NASA

The most penetrating ionizing radiation (gamma rays and galactic cosmic rays) can pass through aluminum but is stopped by thick and dense material such as cement.

 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
From your source of choice: NASA
???

I haven't quoted nasa.


In these discussions I try to avoid quoting them.
....but since you quoted them, do they say that cement is the only thing that will work?
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
1,029
Just to answer one of your laundry list items....


Could it be that Neil practiced with the camera prior to the mission?

Think about it. If you were gonna spend the $$$ to send some dudes to the Moon to gather data for you, wouldn't ya make darn sure they practiced using the camera to a degree that would ensure they could accurately use them?

Relative to a Moon mission, film is cheaper than dirt and tons of it could have easily been used in testing and practice for the astronauts prior to the mission.
....and practice of anything enough times will get a person, at the least, proficent at it.
....but you already knew that, but still asked "how on Earth could they possibly take good pictures?" anyways.


Btw, I specified "Neal" because he was the only one with a camera attached to his suit. Which is why almost all the pics showing a person, are of Buzz.
There were 7 Apollo missions that claimed to land on the moon, not 1. No it's impossible to get every picture perfect even with years of practice. Again the camera was strapped rigidly to their chests. They had to move their entire body to move the camera. It didn't rotate at all independently of their bodies. They'd never been in 1/6 G conditions. Even with a sight finder on a planet he has spent his entire existence on, a professional photographer doesn't get 100% of the pictures perfectly centered.

Also in addition to the one in a billion occurance, how did film survive the temperature extremes. Again the manufacturer of the cameras (Hasselblad) specified that there was nothing different done to the moon cameas than their earth cameras. Regardless of how the film was stored before and after use (bulletproof cement box? lol), it had to be loaded inside the camera when it was being used...and that was several hours minimum to go through a roll. Temperatures on the moon would get to 400+ F. Stick some film in your oven at 400 and let me know how it turns out.
 
Last edited:

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
978
Reaction score
1,036
There were 7 Apollo missions that claimed to land on the moon, not 1. No it's impossible to get every picture perfect even with years of practice. Again the camera was strapped rigidly to their chests. They had to move their entire body to move the camera. It didn't rotate at all independently of their bodies. They'd never been in 1/6 G conditions. Even with a sight finder on a planet he has spent his entire existence on, a professional photographer doesn't get 100% of the pictures perfectly centered.

Also in addition to the one in a billion occurance, how did film survive the temperature extremes. Again the manufacturer of the cameras (Hasselblad) specified that there was nothing different done to the moon cameas than their earth cameras. Regardless of how the film was stored before and after use (bulletproof cement box? lol), it had to be loaded inside the camera when it was being used...and that was several hours minimum to go through a roll. Temperatures on the moon would get to 400+ F. Stick some film in your oven at 400 and let me know how it turns out.
Wait a second, are you saying 400 degrees in your oven is the same as 400 degrees on the moon? How could you come to this conclusion?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,468
Reaction score
17,650
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Stick some film in your oven at 400 and let me know how it turns out.
Temps in your oven is not the same as temps in space. Ie: you are making an apples to oranges comparison.
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Site Supporter ++
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
42,208
Reaction score
67,330
Location
Qmerica
Temps in your oven is not the same as temps in space. Ie: you are making an apples to oranges comparison.
He is talking from his glutes.

400 KELVIN IS NOT = 400 FAHRENHEIT