So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.
edrho,
So you're into calling hard-science and the regular laws of physics as
bing "a clown"?

Apparently the hard-science as to lunar sodium/salt isn't real, any
more so than the gamma and hard-X-rays are not for real.

You obviously haven't a freaking clue as to how their unproven
fly-by-rocket landers even managed w/o momentum reaction wheels, as
well as still no documentation or demo R&D prototype whatsoever, much
less a clue about all of the gamma/x-ray dosage or of their Kodak
moments that couldn't possibly be those obtained while on our terribly
dark and nasty as well as reactive moon?

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.
All of them (you pick and I'll share my observationology expertise upon
any such image). How's that for being perfectly clear?

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.
Lens opening/shutter exposure has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with excessive IR, gamma or of hard-X-rays. The average moon albedo of
7% is getting damn near coal/soot like black and nasty, as well as for
being highly reactive and otherwise electrostatic charged to well above
millions of volts, not to mention all of that moon-dust getting tens of
meters deep in places.
-
Brad Guth