http://www.astro.czuby.net/photos/Ksiezyc_(55)/apollo%2017%20-%20large%20lunar%20boulder.jpg
Pat Flannery,
Since their superimposed Earth is merely worth 1.9°, it's fairly
obvious that the Hasselblad 6X6 format camera lens must have been that
of an in between custom/stealth lens that supposedly wasn't within
their standard inventory, offering a moderate diagonal telephoto ratio
of roughly 28:1 (diagonal FOV = 28 x 1.9 = 53°). Of course those
pesky 85% albedo clouds of Earth are unfortunately not all that much
brighter than portions of that unusually clean and essentially
moon-dust free rock that's sharing an albedo close to 70%, with the
moonscape being within the realm 50+%. Perhaps that big moon rock
that's so reflective was actually a large rock like formation of their
moon guano, or possibly of dirty moon salt/sodium.

Since Earth should have been an extremely vibrant bluish orb as having
it's extra kilometers worth of an atmospheric layer plus such highly
reflective clouds, I can't but wonder why they felt it so necessary as
to having turned down the color saturation of so many of their color
prints to roughly 10%~5% of normal? Even in B&W format the near-blue
and near-UV spectrum worth of our Earth should have been extremely
vibrant to that of an optically unfiltered Kodak eye that's typically
extra sensitive to such bluish and even a bit of the UV-a color
spectrum.

Too bad the likes of Venus or any other planet wasn't ever within frame
upon any of their EVA expeditions, whereas compared to mother Earth is
where the likes of Venus would obviously have been the much smaller
item but otherwise downright blinding to the unfiltered Kodak eye
(especially without such optics having a fairly substantial UV filter).
The same can be said of the near-blue and UV-a worth of Sirius that
must have always been hiding itself directly behind the moon. Of
course within two of those Apollo missions is where Venus would have
been downright impossible to have excluded, yet somehow they managed.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch1.htm
"Hasselblad EL. Electric; interchangeable 80-, 105-, 250-, and 500-mm
focal length lenses; 105-mm lens transmits ultraviolet (UV)
wavelengths."

BTW; Their Westinghouse Color TV Camera also had no such near-UV/UV-a
deep cutoff filter. Though having a farily low resolution at 200
lines, but otherwise having offered a darn good dynamic range of
operation from 5 to 12,000 f-c (that's a nifty DR of 2400 which is way
better than double that of their film, yet still no such other planets
nor stars that even film should have recorded).

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
Here we have our naked moonsuit of roughly 85% albedo, accommodating
our brave and obviously rad-hard DNA astronaut as walking upon our
totally gamma and otherwise hard-X-ray moon, plus having to endure
loads of direct and of secondary IR that should have been efficiently
reflected at 33% off the otherwise nearly 7% average visual albedo
instead of the apparent 55+% visual albedo of their very guano like
moon that was so nicely covered in such a nifty thin layer of clumping
and non-electrostatic portland cement and cornmeal. Notice how the
darkest of that moon-dust which should have been infused with the likes
of titanium. iron and carbon/soot isn't hardly below the 20% albedo
mark. Notice how the upper surface of that big rock is offering
somewhat less of an incline yet accommodates no such moon-dust
whatsoever (must have been cleaned off from all of that solar wind).
Notice how the not so distant terrain that's unless you're standing
upon a hill simply can't be hardly more than a km to the horizon, yet
our moon seems to be offering such an unusually clean terrain which
hasn't hardly another such rock or much less of any dark and nasty
meteorites to spare, or even one lousy exposure worth of the nearly
coal like darkness worth of lunar basalt in sight. This image is
actually suggesting they were within somewhat of a crater like
depression with all of those nicely eroded soft hills surrounding that
perhaps should not ave any more moon-dust upon them than thar hills
than upon that nifty terrestrial looking rock.

BTW No.2; I believe that most of those camera lenses did so happen to
incorporate a neutral polarised filter, that which should have made for
their portland cement and cornmeal surface of their otherwise guano
like moon record as somewhat darker than otherwise recorded w/o benefit
of such an optical element. I'll also gladly post links to those
official color and even of those UV sensitive B&W images of our red,
white and blue flag that oddly recorded such colors as though being of
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated. Imagine that, apparently our sun upon
our naked moon is actually a raw xenon illumination spectrum with damn
little UV and essentially contributing nothing of hard-X-rays or
otherwise adding to the horrific cosmic gamma influx.

Apollo-11 July 20th, 1969 (distance from the surface of moon to surface
of Earth)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth
12:00 UTC July 21, 1969 View from Moon: 379,829 km above 8°19'S
75°7'E

The average distance = 384,467 km or 384,401 km depending on which
US/Russian science you'd care to select. Aparently the actual average
distance is just about anything you'd care to make it as pertaing to
whatever lat/long position upon this Earth you're stiuated at, and of
course since Earth's tilt has been continually shifting about is
certainly why there's hardly any absolute way of folks knowing the
center to center average distance from any one given surface location.
Again, it's too bad that we still haven't established anything as
efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone
that would have told us damn near everything we'd care to know, and
then some.

Supposedly (according to NASA) their "normal 80-millimeter lens could
be easily replaced with a 105-millimeter, 250-millimeter, or
500-millimeter lens". Of course with moonsuit gloves it's nearly
impossible if not simply unwise to change a given lense once you're on
the EVA go. There's also the fairly nasty electrostatic moon-dust
consideration plus the continuous extremes of IR that's obviously
direct as well as per secondary that's contributing roughly another 33%
as reflected, as essentially providing extra IR energy for man and
machine to deal with, along with a thin/(low density) of a nearly
crystal clear atmospheric layer of a few of those highly insulative
elements to boot. Gee whiz folks, besides all of the gamma/hard-X-rays
and of being so damn hot and nasty in ways of being so coal like
carbon/soot worthy of being electrostatic dusty and of avoiding
whatever's actually tens of meters deep in places, and yet we're still
supposed to perceive there's no insurmountable problems to behold.
-
Brad Guth