wrote:
Once again you have tried to answer my question and I still do not see
an answer.

This time you even say that you have answered my question, when you
have not.

Jud did answer my question and here is what he said:

The same reason that there aren't stars in the Apollo photographs.
The
camera is set to photograph something pretty bright, and the stars are
very dim in comparison.

Here is your answer, you answer with a question:

Would you folks like to see some other examples of our moon as having
been photographed along with other planets and stars, or would you care
to discuss the lethal gamma and hard-X-ray aspects of our naked moon
that's a bit worse off radiation dosage than what the worse dosage of
our Van Allen belts have to offer?

Since you do not seem to know I will tell you that you do not answer a
question with a question, unless you do not understand the question.

Then you go on with this crap:

Because you're snookered and summarily dumb and dumber, as in totally
dumbfounded beyond the point of no return.
I see that your MIB as e-spooks have been quite active at bringing my
PC/internet and Usenet access to a crawl once again. Do you folks
think that's funny?
Your continual infomercial-science basis of your buttology mindset
worth of denial is in normal auto-denial mode, just like that of your
good buddy and partner in crimes against humanity, GW Bush.

And then more totally absurd junk that I should just delete that has
nothing to do with what I asked

Obviously you're going to reject upon all science regardless of
wherever it comes from (even Kodak's physics of photons and of
whatever's of their film hard-science that's 100+% replicated isn't
good enough, is it?), the same as no matters how much WW-III takes as
another bite out of humanity and away from whatever's left of our
global warming fiasco, you're sticking to your perpetrated cold-war
guns. Good boy!
Obviously you've intentionally overlooked that little tricky part of
f32 that was involved with obtaining that terrestrial image, that if
obtained external to Earth's atmosphere you'd have to cut that same
exposure by a least half again, thus we're talking at most 1/4 second
at f32, and of course Spica being of such far-blue, violet and near-UV
primary spectrum would have to be at the very least twice again as
bright. Gee whiz, folks, I wonder what using f4 might otherwise do to
the 100 ASA film shutter speed?

I am not rejecting anything, I am not overlooking anything and then you
mention something about a terrestrial image ... I never said anything
about a terrestrial image, I never asked either. What terrestrial
image ??
Totally absurd, as usual.

Could that become 125th of a second at f4?
Actually that previous example image using 100 ASA/ISO/DIN slide film
was more than likely closer to being exposed as an f48 at 1/2 second,
as due to the optical losses that may have been unavoidably imposing
another half f-stop in addition to what the 3X tele-extender
application itself represented, which by the way should also have
further contributed to having attenuated the UV-a.

Could it be that you know absolutely nothing about cameras, lens,
filters and much less about film?

HA, I am a photographer, astrophotographer as well.

I can only further surmise that you're having Muslim for dinner, and
not as any guest.

The only thing I can think of to say to this is that you are a jack ass
for saying something like that.


Here is the answer to my question, because I do already know the answer
and since you obviously do not READ THE TRUTH:

The same reason that there aren't stars in the Apollo photographs.
The
camera is set to photograph something pretty bright, and the stars are
very dim in comparison.

This is an example of an answer, it is not the answer that I am looking
for, but it is the answer that I expected.

Good Christ almighty on another stick.
Now you're going absolutely Usenet postal. Isn't that against your
Republican Jewish rules, or something?

This is an example of an answer, it is not the answer that I am looking
for, but it is the answer that I expected.
I totally agree, that your naysay and otherwise perverted mindset
actions of excluding evidence, of using your conditional laws of
physics as backed up with all of your wag-thy-dogs to death worth of
your NASA infomercial-science, are of exactly what I've expected. So
what's new?

So, when exactly are you planning upon giving me the answer(s) that I
am looking for?
-
Brad Guth