Are There Any Honest Rep. Suppliers Here?

[kbh]

knowledge is powerful

 

Now will you shut up about the moon landings?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22

Great link> I'd be much more prone to believe the Mythbusters team that this whacko.

 

Ipcress, what's your explanation for them bouncing a laser off the laser reflector that was left on the moon. That seems pretty hard to debunk.

[tomhorn]

I can't believe this thread is still alive ....

[dovo1695]

It's the gift that keeps right on giving. It's like front row seat to a half-wit Troll exhibit. Everybody get's a bucket of peanuts with their ticket stub, and people just can't help feeding trolls

[ww12345]

Watch the following exposure of the moon landings and accept the facts about the shadows consistent with studio lighting, the waving US flag in the 'solar winds', the Hasselblad pictures and how they focused the manual lenses to get such sharp results? Like MANUAL CAMERAS being focused from inside massive space suits that they couldn't operate let alone see thru?! Then remember the grainy TV Pictures just like 9/11 TV pictures, all low quality faked pictures for easier manipulation and obscuring the reality of the fakery.

 

Aargh... OK, just to clarify (again) about the Hassys used on the moon. You mentioned that they had no visual references for the cameras, and how they focused a MANUAL CAMERA to get sharp results. It may surprise you to know that many people, including myself, can manage to operate a camera without any kind of automated anything. Matter of fact, I don't own a camera with auto anything - my newest camera is a 1984 FM2n that has exposure guidance. Other than that, pure manual all the way. The Hassy they used was very much the same - no exposure control and as you pointed out, no focus aids. Here's the thing, though - most "true" photographers don't need any of that. As a matter of fact, it gets in the way. A lot. You wind up chimping to what the camera is telling you to do rather than focusing on composition.

 

Also, a good portion of photographers (myself included) use the "no viewfinder 'zone focused'" camera when doing street photography. What one does, is through a series of pretty basic math calculations and the scale gauge on the lens, set it to include, for example, everything from 5 to 15 feet in focus, or everything from 10 feet to infinity in focus. After you've set the focus, you just hold the camera at approx. chest level, pretend like you're messing with settings, and snap away. That way, the people you're photographing have no idea, and you get genuine street scenes. This is how many photographers from the first half of the 20th century photographed - zone focusing - and that is how the astronauts photographed. It doesn't take skill, and actually can be done by pretty much anyone. Also, Hasselblads are pretty easy to focus, and they sold 2 or 3 different focus levers if you felt it was too difficult. However, the astronauts didn't even have to do that, as the Hassys they took were heavily modified to have 3 zone focus tabs that just clicked into position. Easy-peasy.

 

Furthermore, yeah, the TV pictures sucked. The TV pictures sucked of the Beatles' first concerts too. I didn't once think the Beatles never toured... TV quality in the '60s was just not what it is today. HOWEVER, a Hasselblad and Ektachrome are still two of the highest quality photographic materials, and the original pictures (which you can view at full resolution at the LOC site) are definitely a testament to that. George and Victor definitely spent good money researching so that they could provide the best quality materials to the general public as well as professionals. Have you ever shot a camera? Like, any kind? (I mean manual, pre-1985 so you can see what the older cameras felt like to operate - definitely not hard, so I'm pretty sure even you could do it).

[ww12345]

It's the gift that keeps right on giving. It's like front row seat to a half-wit Troll exhibit. Everybody get's a bucket of peanuts with their ticket stub, and people just can't help feeding trolls

 

It's kind of interesting, in a sick way, like watching a train wreck... You can't believe it will go any further and then it does...

[dbane883]

Aargh... OK, just to clarify (again) about the Hassys used on the moon. You mentioned that they had no visual references for the cameras, and how they focused a MANUAL CAMERA to get sharp results. It may surprise you to know that many people, including myself, can manage to operate a camera without any kind of automated anything. Matter of fact, I don't own a camera with auto anything - my newest camera is a 1984 FM2n that has exposure guidance. Other than that, pure manual all the way. The Hassy they used was very much the same - no exposure control and as you pointed out, no focus aids. Here's the thing, though - most "true" photographers don't need any of that. As a matter of fact, it gets in the way. A lot. You wind up chimping to what the camera is telling you to do rather than focusing on composition.

 

Also, a good portion of photographers (myself included) use the "no viewfinder 'zone focused'" camera when doing street photography. What one does, is through a series of pretty basic math calculations and the scale gauge on the lens, set it to include, for example, everything from 5 to 15 feet in focus, or everything from 10 feet to infinity in focus. After you've set the focus, you just hold the camera at approx. chest level, pretend like you're messing with settings, and snap away. That way, the people you're photographing have no idea, and you get genuine street scenes. This is how many photographers from the first half of the 20th century photographed - zone focusing - and that is how the astronauts photographed. It doesn't take skill, and actually can be done by pretty much anyone. Also, Hasselblads are pretty easy to focus, and they sold 2 or 3 different focus levers if you felt it was too difficult. However, the astronauts didn't even have to do that, as the Hassys they took were heavily modified to have 3 zone focus tabs that just clicked into position. Easy-peasy.

 

Furthermore, yeah, the TV pictures sucked. The TV pictures sucked of the Beatles first concerts too. I didn't once think the Beatles never toured... TV quality in the '60s was just not what it is today. HOWEVER, a Hasselblad and Ektachrome are still two of the highest quality photographic materials, and the original pictures (which you can view at full resolution at the LOC site) are definitely a testament to that. George and Victor definitely spent good money researching so that they could provide the best quality materials to the general public as well as professionals. Have you ever shot a camera? Like, any kind? (I mean manual, pre-1985 so you can see what the older cameras felt like to operate - definitely not hard, so I'm pretty sure even you could do it).

 

I love my Fuji X100.  Set it to manual mode, preset the focus and/or aperture and snap away.  As long as my subjects are within a certain distance range (dependent on the aperture I set, not focus issues at all.

 

So seriously.  Ipcress does his so-called extensive evidence viewing (no real research) from video clips of projectiles, explosives and Van Allen belts yet does not bother to check out the basics of how a camera works??  Really IP?  really?  Shame on you.  Or should i say, sh-sh-sh-shame on y-y-y-you.

[ww12345]

Yeah, plus the astronauts were using pretty narrow apertures (f5.6 up through like f11, which on MF cameras is similar to f8 through approx f22) so depth of field, combined with the lovely 60mm Zeiss Biogon (equivalent to about a 35mm or 40mm lens on small format 35mm cameras, so just slightly wide angle without any distortions like the 40mm or 50mm Biogon that Zeiss also made for Hasselblad) and there would have been no focus problems whatsoever. Actually, that's something I forgot to mention: you know the lovely "out of focus" or "bokeh" areas in most studio portraits, where the background becomes very painterly and "blurry"? Almost impossible with a wide or even semi-wide angle lens. The wider the lens, the more stuff is in focus. It's why I don't like using 35mm in street situations - everything is in pretty sharp focus without me even trying... So, when the astronauts were using their slightly wide lens, they would have had more difficulty getting things out of focus than they would have getting everything in focus.

[Mike on a bike]

Besides the obvious entertainment value the wealth of knowledge shown by our members debunking these conspiracy theories is impressive.

[dovo1695]

It's not every forum that has particle physicists and vintage camera afficionados at the ready, that's for sure

[tomhorn]

As a former professional photographer myself who shot everything from 35mm to 8x10 I can confirm everything ww12345 put forth above.

 

I still haven't warmed to digital. Much prefer film for high quality images, but I do occassionally use a Sony point and shoot (with a Zeiss lens) for stuff I don't really care that much about.

[ww12345]

Ok, I know this is technically a Hasselblad 500C instead of an EL500, and a Distagon 50 instead of a Biogon 60, but it's one of the lenses I had with me on vacation (leaving the way more expensive 60 at home) and the general premise is the same.

 

Hyperfocal focusing (those red tabs) tell you everything is in focus from 3ft to 10ft at f22:

 

 

Stopped down to 5.6 everything from 4ft to 6ft is in focus:

 

 

Still at f5.6 but now everything from 8ft to 30ft is in focus:

 

 

And finally, at f16 (the highest probable setting they would have used) everything from 5.5ft to well past infinity is in focus:

 

[dovo1695]

Those Hasselbald pics are a little too convenient. What are the odds that ww12345 would have those pics at the ready, and the have in-depth knowledge of the camera's functionality to undermine Ipcress's evidence of a fake lunar landing? I'm beginning to suspect that ww12345 was planted by New World Order into this very forum 3 years and 5 months ago precisely to keep the rest of us sheeple in the dark when Ipcress arrived to educate us. And a particle physicist suddenly pops up out of the blue as well?

 

Too convenient indeed.

 

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

 

<end sarcasm>

[dbane883]

I demand a pic of the camera that's taking a pic of the camera that's taking a pic of the camera that's taking a pic of that Hasselblad.

[ww12345]

Damn it. Now my insecundercovops (or whatever the stupid acronym Ipcress used was) secret identity is out... Hahaha

[Ipcress]

"Have you ever shot a camera? Like, any kind? (I mean manual, pre-1985 so you can see what the older cameras felt like to operate - definitely not hard, so I'm pretty sure even you could do it)."

 

Good Morning,

 

I had a love affair with 35mm for 30 years and more, started with a Paxette Rangefinder as a 14 year old when starting out in the school dark room laboratories studying the 'O' level and ended with the Nikon F4s which I mainly used in manual mode...yes even me..I could just about manage that. It was my 'ultimate' camera so had to 'do' that sometime, found a mint(-) example with late serial number and thoroughly enjoyed it. All my favourite lenses were AIS, the best I had being 105mm F2.5 and the 50mm F1.2 but I did have a 24mm AFD too which was also nice and sharp with overall good optical performance.

 

Only 35mm, yes, and wanted for some time to go MF and a Hasselblad or other but don't have anything to take photos of any more as I live in a dark basement and never get out. Thanks for the info,  I get the settings for block/zone focusing etc and can see that MF at waist level in the street is the right way to go, not least because subjects aren't going to be jumpy or alter their behaviour if they spot someone with a camera if not freeze outright - so yes, more useful taking street photos especially today of course because if in London or NY for instance and at 'sensitive' areas one gets challenged by security so freaked out everybody is by terrorism and potential 'threat'....(OMG!!!) 'he's got a camera'!

 

As for Apollo tho', sorry it doesn't stack up - and I mean the whole picture, not you just explaining away how magically things were photographed 'on the moon'.

 

Oh yes, I also had an FM2(n?).... in fact I still do - but its broken and in a box someplace in the loft (ooops... just blown my cover). Got rid of all the 35mm gear last year and bought a little Sony Digital compact...in case I ever go out again.

 

All that aside, for all you and your buddies know about cameras here which is as interesting as Reps...more so to me in fact, its off at a tangent to the fakery of 9/11 that you've all swallowed hook line and sinker.

 

Now before another topic on say...fishing begins and somebody starts telling me about the best rod they've ever bought, or golf (because they played golf on the moon too you know...TV Pictures (poor ones...) showed that so it MUST be true (and 9/11 happened in 2001 ...not 1969 right? when tech, was way more advanced as was weaponry so why the fuzzy pictures?))) and which particular Jack Nicklaus irons they prefer for shooting into greens, I'm going to have to leave you all to it now, let you continue sleeping peacefully.

 

Kind Rgds

Edited June 27, 2014 by Ipcress