Neil Armstrong’s Shadow Found in Thin Section?

On Apr 23, 10:21*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:03*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

*and their Kodak film wasn't even anything
special.

Not true. Do your homework. Even Wiki mentions Kodak's special, thin-
emulsion film. The lens which Zeiss helped produce for Hasseleblad's
lunar camera went on to become commercially available. The simplest
facts are often more interesting than creative knee-jerk cynicism and
paranoia. When you constantly wade up to your armpits in bull**** it
is difficult not to stain everything you post. Measure twice. Post
once.

The film used exactly the same plastic, coated with the exact same
photo-chemicals and processing. Thinner emulsion only improves some
of the details and it can otherwise increase the ASA/ISO speed of
recording photons in low light conditions, and that didn't even
measurable improve upon its dynamic range. Those NASA/Apollo missions
didn't need or having demonstrated any of those benefits.

The lens (all of them) was terrestrial standard optics with the exact
same coatings.

Your Semite run government lies to us so much of the time that you
think everything is exactly as it should be, as long as the whole
truth and nothing but the truth never gets out.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”