Apollo 16 Lunar Rover footage

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Elvicious1

Maybe you could help by pointing to the specifics.

Then you could answer my questions about whether film protected inside a silver reflective container got to a temperature that would be a problem. The fact that the film, specifically developed for the missions and inside cameras designed for the missions, recorded details not known about at the time but confirmed by multiple probes since suggests that the film worked just fine.

Questioning veracity does not imply impropriety.

Asking you to back up your argument isn't trolling.

1) Does your Ice melt when you put it in an insulated cooler?
Yes. Nothing can stop it from melting, especially when the outside is hotter than the inside of the cooler. Insulation only retards the process.
2) I'm not going to read the manual to you, this is not storybook time at kindergarten. Take the initiative to do it yourself.
3) There is no argument. I provided proof and fact that you refuse to read. Your comments after such actions constitutes trolling.
4) Questioning my veracity after refusal to investigate provided details constitutes trolling.
Therefore: Occam's Razor would indicate you are a troll or you have an underlying vendetta, neither of which disproves the given data.
Please refrain from questioning my intelligence and further displays of yours.

a reply to: Elvicious1

Since when was asking for evidence considered "trolling"?

Have some manners, please.

I seem to recall that you accused me of "trolling" for simply asking you to post a link.

Your questions have been addressed patiently and in detail by very knowledgeable members.

Here you go again.

originally posted by: Elvicious1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Elvicious1

Maybe you could help by pointing to the specifics.

Then you could answer my questions about whether film protected inside a silver reflective container got to a temperature that would be a problem. The fact that the film, specifically developed for the missions and inside cameras designed for the missions, recorded details not known about at the time but confirmed by multiple probes since suggests that the film worked just fine.

Questioning veracity does not imply impropriety.

Asking you to back up your argument isn't trolling.

1) Does your Ice melt when you put it in an insulated cooler?
Yes. Nothing can stop it from melting, especially when the outside is hotter than the inside of the cooler. Insulation only retards the process.

It depends on how well insulated the cooler is, what is heating it, how it is being heated and for how long.

2) I'm not going to read the manual to you, this is not storybook time at kindergarten. Take the initiative to do it yourself.

I have. I find no reference to the specific film used, nor do I find anything that convinces me that a film inside a reflective container in a vacuum will reach a temperature anything like enough to cause a problem. If you know different, show us.

3) There is no argument. I provided proof and fact that you refuse to read. Your comments after such actions constitutes trolling.

You're assuming I didn't read it. You're wrong. I've been through it several times looking for the specific information you claim is there. It isn't. Asking you to back up your claim isn't trolling. If I'm mistaken you can easily prove me wrong. If you can't be bothered to do that and have just turned up here to abuse people, then that's trolling.

4) Questioning my veracity after refusal to investigate provided details constitutes trolling.

You're assumption that I haven't investigated is incorrect. I'm questioning the veracity of your evidence. Failure to support your claim with specific references when asked is pretty much an admission that you don't have anything.

Therefore: Occam's Razor would indicate you are a troll or you have an underlying vendetta, neither of which disproves the given data.

You need to work on your definition of Occam's razor as well. I asked you to back up your claim. You haven't been able to do so with any data or information.

Please refrain from questioning my intelligence and further displays of yours.

I'm yet to see evidence of any worth questioning. What I'm questioning is whether the doucment you linked to contains the evidence to support your claim. My examination of it suggests it doesn't. By all means prove me wrong.

The facts are that Apollo images, be they on 16mm or 70mm film, were taken on film specifically developed for the program. They are not the standard issue films referred to in the brochure you linked to. The fact is that the temperature extremes cited refere to those over the entire lunar day, not a few hours at a time in the lunar morning. The fact is that the photographs and video show details not availble prior to the missions but confirmed since.

I actually saw this little fact put forward by a moon hoax idiot: something in permanently exposed lunar sun takes 14 days to go from the minimum of -183 Celsius to a maximum of 106 Celsius (the numbers they quoted)..

That's about 8.5 degrees a day, or 0.35 degrees wn hour. Over a 6 or 7 hour EVA the temperature of an object in continous direct sunlight would rise about 2.5 degrees.

For a reflective surface not always exposed to the sun, even less than that. Ice would survive for quite sometime in a coolbox on the moon.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Elvicious1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Elvicious1

Maybe you could help by pointing to the specifics.

Then you could answer my questions about whether film protected inside a silver reflective container got to a temperature that would be a problem. The fact that the film, specifically developed for the missions and inside cameras designed for the missions, recorded details not known about at the time but confirmed by multiple probes since suggests that the film worked just fine.

Questioning veracity does not imply impropriety.

Asking you to back up your argument isn't trolling.

1) Does your Ice melt when you put it in an insulated cooler?
Yes. Nothing can stop it from melting, especially when the outside is hotter than the inside of the cooler. Insulation only retards the process.

It depends on how well insulated the cooler is, what is heating it, how it is being heated and for how long.

2) I'm not going to read the manual to you, this is not storybook time at kindergarten. Take the initiative to do it yourself.

I have. I find no reference to the specific film used, nor do I find anything that convinces me that a film inside a reflective container in a vacuum will reach a temperature anything like enough to cause a problem. If you know different, show us.

3) There is no argument. I provided proof and fact that you refuse to read. Your comments after such actions constitutes trolling.

You're assuming I didn't read it. You're wrong. I've been through it several times looking for the specific information you claim is there. It isn't. Asking you to back up your claim isn't trolling. If I'm mistaken you can easily prove me wrong. If you can't be bothered to do that and have just turned up here to abuse people, then that's trolling.

4) Questioning my veracity after refusal to investigate provided details constitutes trolling.

You're assumption that I haven't investigated is incorrect. I'm questioning the veracity of your evidence. Failure to support your claim with specific references when asked is pretty much an admission that you don't have anything.

Therefore: Occam's Razor would indicate you are a troll or you have an underlying vendetta, neither of which disproves the given data.

You need to work on your definition of Occam's razor as well. I asked you to back up your claim. You haven't been able to do so with any data or information.

Please refrain from questioning my intelligence and further displays of yours.

I'm yet to see evidence of any worth questioning. What I'm questioning is whether the doucment you linked to contains the evidence to support your claim. My examination of it suggests it doesn't. By all means prove me wrong.

The facts are that Apollo images, be they on 16mm or 70mm film, were taken on film specifically developed for the program. They are not the standard issue films referred to in the brochure you linked to. The fact is that the temperature extremes cited refere to those over the entire lunar day, not a few hours at a time in the lunar morning. The fact is that the photographs and video show details not availble prior to the missions but confirmed since.

Had you read the films specifications and handling procedures like you said, you would have come across:

Page 101: Film Storage and Handling Procedures;

Page 102: Warm up times no less than 1 hour at specific interval;

Page 103: X-rays and Radiation specifications;

Page 105: Processed Film Storage Parameters including Background Ambient Radiation specifications;

.....AND...

Page 106: Don't store it near hot pipes (~212°F).

Pretty sure the Moon experiences temperatures Colder than 0° --10°F and hotter than 212°F, which if you had read the specs, does not fall within acceptable parameters of film safety and degradation not to mention Radiation exposure. In addition to that there is the subject of humidity within the module cockpit in relation to temperature differences outside (spotting, fogging etc. of film.

One simply had to read the pertinent portions of Kodak's document to glean the information I just posted.

I'm done. Have a nice day. Anything else and I will only be repeating myself.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Elvicious1

Since when was asking for evidence considered "trolling"?

Have some manners, please.

I seem to recall that you accused me of "trolling" for simply asking you to post a link.

Your questions have been addressed patiently and in detail by very knowledgeable members.

Here you go again.

As stated above, when one doesn't research provided information and continues to demand results it can be said they are trolling.
Manners? I couldn't be more polite. Restructure your perception
"very knowledgeable members" is relative to one's personal intelligence and experience. You know NOTHING of my knowledge, yet passive aggressively you insulted me greatly by discounting MY knowledge and intelligence.
"A rose by any other name has thorns". I call a "spade"...a "spade". Heed your own advice concerning "manners".

a reply to: Elvicious1

You seem a bit....touchy?

I second what you have explained.
At least your reply was not reliant on NASA links.. a reply to: Elvicious1

a reply to: Elvicious1

Read the pertinent portions thanks, none of those apply to the specifically designed film or the parameters of the mission. Had you done your research you'd know that.

If you want to tell the class which hot pipes and x-ray machines the films were stored next to we're all ears.

a reply to: Bella1

You asked for information. You were given it. If all you wanted was cherry picked falsehoods to confirm your bias you should have said.

Some more info:

www.workingonthemoon.com...

The data on that page shows temperatures for things in direct sunlight of the entirety of the mission reached a maximum of 69 degrees. That is not the same as the temperature of something exposed for a few hours. The temperatures are consistent with data from Soviet probes.

That page also reports crew experiences handling objects. The surfaces of some of them obviously did get warm. That is not the same as the temperature inside a silver object becoming too hot for film.

In terms of radiation, I've already posted links showing that measured radiation was not an issue for eother film or people. If you don't like NASA sources, Brian Harvey's book 'Soviet and Russian lunar exploration' describes how their lunar surface probes found that

"Levels of radiation on the moon were modest and would be tolerable for humans".

Pretty much every probe ever sent by any country to the moon has measured radiation. None of them have contradicted the Apollo experience.

You don't get to dismiss data and evidence just because you have some paranoid irrational dislike of the source. The data are correct or they aren't. If you think they aren't, prove it.

Responding with nonsense continuously, while refusing to accept irrefutable fact from the source in addition with the psychosis of needing to have the last word does not make one above reproach or correct in statement.

Go outside, breathe the fresh air, come back inside...

And TROLL someone else. I'm not lowering myself to your standards.

a reply to: Elvicious1

"Irrefutable proof?!!!

No.

Please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of trolling.


"Standards"?

Irony.

Other posters have patiently shown you the real science.

You respond with insults.

a reply to: wildespace

It's a miniature dummy in a 1/10 scale remote control car.

a reply to: Elvicious1

Says the guy who was done with the thread. How dare people have the temerity to defy your authoriteh? Pointing out where you got things wrong is not trolling, it's disagreeing with you. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, find a new echo chamber or do better fact checking.

Your irrefutable proof is nothing more than 'keep it in the fridge' advice for how to store standard films on Earth. It isn't proof of anything other than your misunderstanding of what it days and it's easily reputable.

It contains nothing specific about the film used or conditions experienced on the moon.

Kodak themselves are rather proud of their involvement with the Apollo programme. They gave away promotional material about it at the time and have websites devoted to it.

www.kodak.com...

onebigmonkey.com...

Kodak sent film to the moon that spent far longer there than the Apollo missions.

The actual evidence says neither temperature nor radiation were problems. Again: the maximum temperatures cited for the moon are for rocks in direct sunlight for two weeks, not objects inside a reflective container with intermittent sunlight for a few hours.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Elvicious1

Says the guy who was done with the thread. How dare people have the temerity to defy your authoriteh? Pointing out where you got things wrong is not trolling, it's disagreeing with you. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, find a new echo chamber or do better fact checking.

Your irrefutable proof is nothing more than 'keep it in the fridge' advice for how to store standard films on Earth. It isn't proof of anything other than your misunderstanding of what it days and it's easily reputable.

It contains nothing specific about the film used or conditions experienced on the moon.

Kodak themselves are rather proud of their involvement with the Apollo programme. They gave away promotional material about it at the time and have websites devoted to it.

www.kodak.com...

onebigmonkey.com...

Kodak sent film to the moon that spent far longer there than the Apollo missions.

The actual evidence says neither temperature nor radiation were problems. Again: the maximum temperatures cited for the moon are for rocks in direct sunlight for two weeks, not objects inside a reflective container with intermittent sunlight for a few hours.

I give you credit for being correct about one thing:
I'm done with this thread and you. BTW, isn't self-promotion of one's website or referring to oneself or your personally owned website as final authority against the rules of ATS' posting policy and forbidden? That seems to be the typical "Do as I say, not as I do" mantra of the present establishment. Further response is furthering an agenda that I do not physically or spiritually agree with. Rest assured this is my final response, so be sure to post further nonsense, knowing I won't respond. I believe that is another course the establishment loves to implement....
...annnnnd 3, 2, 1.... Go!

a reply to: Elvicious1

Remind me, before you go, again, what are this site's rules about calling other posters trolls?

The evidence of this is my common sense.
It is simply not possible or replicable to have a vacuum that has no seal.

You cannot have a vacuum next to free air /gas in earths strata or space or any other environment. a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

That tinfoil peice of junk they call a rover could not handle an actual trip to the moon....

No it's that tic-tac uap interdimensional consciousness based technology that is the real way to travel space.

a reply to: GoShredAK

It was in a module?