I'd argue that there's more than a wee little confidence problem with
believing most anything NASA/Apollo. However, once again and again,
we're being continually snookered and/or dumbfounded to death by those
having all the right stuff.

These kind folks in charge of promoting anything and everything NASA/
Apollo need to share and share alike, for example telling as to why
Jupiter and Io got depicted as so unusually pastel? and where the
heck are those pesky stars?
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1..._100907_11.jpg
Unlike Venus, Jupiter isn't exactly getting well enough illuminated,
nor is it all that albedo/reflective, and that onboard camera of such
nifty CCD performance image processing being worth 16+db and having
nothing but the very best available optics isn't exactly wussy in the
dynamic range(DR) department. As for imaging the likes of Pluto will
demand a great deal of such CCD dynamic range, and most certainly that
onboard camera and terrific optics are in fact well suited for that
task.

BTW, Venus as rather easily viewed from our physically dark and naked
moon was not ever a point source of any star like dim illumination,
and only those scientists willing to destroy their job security and/or
any future possibility of related employment would dare go on record
as sharing in this truth, although there have been many other
qualified reputations that have fully supported the NASA/Apollo hoax,
as for exactly what it really was another part of our mutually
perpetrated cold-war, exactly as orchestrated along by those pesky
Zion Yids that made the likes of their Hitler into such a royal pain
in the butt, and now doing the same puppeteering on behalf of
orchestrating our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).

However, just like Messenger's absolutely **** poor image of Earth and
apparent inability to record our physically dark moon, the New Horizon
CCD image of Jupiter and Io had also been extremely DR limited, as to
offering not much better or even as good of DR than my free cell-phone
camera could provide (certainly far worse off than Kodak film). Why
would they only utilize 1% or less of their CCD Dynamic Range?

Do you folks think JAXA's Senene CCD images are going to be as
intentionally DR limited?

Kodak KAI-1003 has a DR of 70 DB
Kodak KAI-2020 has a DR of 68 DB
Kodak KAI-4011 has a DR of 60 DB
Fairchield's Condor CCD486 or CCD3041 are only that much better yet,
along with most of such cameras processing out any given 16 bit or 16
DB worth of that CCD's extended DR, means that it should be next to
impossible as to exclude stars unless having intentionally done so via
the firmware or subsequent software instructions. Of any given FOV or
composite image that offers the likes of Earth and our moon side by
side, under identical illumination and using the very same exposure
scan is less than child's play for this generation of impressive
instruments, and anything Kodak or Fairchield can muster is certianly
matched or surpassed by whatever Sony, Fuji or others are capable of
doing.
- Brad Guth -