If the moon landing was faked...

wrote:
I've been watching the Shuttle (STS-121) in orbit and docked with the
ISS.
The astronauts have begun their space walk and I've noticed that in all

the video and still shots they are showing, there are no stars in the
background.

Why do you suppose that is ??

Simple; would you folks like some internet posted examples, of film
and/or of CCD obtained images that unavoidably included our physically
dark moon along with a few other pesky items, such as Mars, Jupiter,
Venus and Mercury, plus even a few of those having included the
brighter of available stars?

Actually from the vantage of photographing from the actual lunar
surface it would have been impossible not to have included a few other
items, of at least one or two extras at a time none the less. Too bad
we can't get a terrestrial look-see at Sirius within frame as parked
next to the physically dark terrain of our gamma and hard-X-ray nasty
moon that's still a rather salty moon none the less.

That's rather odd, since the relatively **** poor DR of unfiltered
Kodak film has absolutely no problems in recording better than a dozen
other items (obviously not all at the same time) in addition to the
physically dark moon of 0.07 albedo, as being unavoidably within the
same frame. Of course, the MESSENGER mission further proves that you
can intentionally select the lower portion of any given CCD DR and/or
spectrum band-pass and thus easily filter out in order to suit whatever
you'd like to have depicted (a three year old kid should know how to
accomplish that much). The MESSENGER dynamic range was intentionally
set so freaking low that even the 0.07 albedo moon didn't record, thus
only of whatever was of 0.1 albedo or brighter could be recorded,
although extra special efforts were also made in order to avoid
including the likes of any other illuminated planets that would
otherwise have been recorded, especially including Venus as being out
of sight and thus out of mind.

Why are only Jewish Republicans as incest dumb and dumber perverts like
yourself?

What other part(s) of your mostly Jewish and thereby Republican incest
infomercial-science, that which simply can not be replicated unless
you're God or a member in good standing with your Third Reich, should
we believe in?

Please be absolutely specific, and I shall specifically reply as to
exactly whatever it is that you've got to offer.

Would you folks like another list of primary or of worthy sub-topics to
select from?
-

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."
-Brad Guth

"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
-Stanislaus I

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes,
but having new eyes."
-Marcel Proust

"Truth is given, not to be contemplated, but to be done. Life is an
action, not a thought."
-F.W. Robertson
~
Even Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree that; WAR is WAR, thus "in war
there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason why honest
folks are having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been
playing by whatever the supposed rules, such as our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) having invented WMD seems to come to mind.

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Christ Brad, I just asked a simple question and then you start up with
all your incest clone crapola.

Simple; would you folks like some internet posted examples, of film
and/or of CCD obtained images that unavoidably included our physically
dark moon along with a few other pesky items, such as Mars, Jupiter,
Venus and Mercury, plus even a few of those having included the
brighter of available stars?

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

"If you're not looking for the truth, you will not find it."

You are the one who is not looking for the truth.

On 8 Jul 2006 14:13:20 -0700, "
wrote:

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

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.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 14:13:20 -0700, "
wrote:

No, I just want an answer to my question, why are there no stars in the
background during the recent ISS/Shuttle space walk ??
I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

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.
---

That old NASA/Apollo infomercial argument about "no stars" being the
norm wasn't valid in the beginning, and it certainly isn't valid now.

The dynamic range(DR) of their Kodak film was in fact sufficient to
have included a dozen or more items besides the moon and Earth, and of
those CCD images of today are offering a good 32 fold better yet at
having extended that DR capability that should knock our socks off with
having unavoidably included a few stars, with some of those best
performing CCDs being capable of offering better than a 100:1 improved
DR ratio.

Therefore, it is not the "10 thousand hundred million times better than
the cameras of Apollo" as stipulated by "Secret237", but none the less
it's an impressive improvement, though still offering somewhat less
pixel density or population per mm capability since the positive
transparency/slide film can be scanned down to something below a micron
which is typically 10 fold better off than what the average camera lens
can manage to transfer.

Without having involved a narrow visual spectrum bandpass and/or at
least that of a near-UV and UV cutoff applied to the lens, the likes of
the bluish Spica and especially the far-blue, violet, near-UV and the
considerable UV-a spectrum worth of those Sirius stars are going to be
unavoidably showing up in those unfiltered images. So, besides the
obvious planets that should have been available, such as in
relationship to the physically dark lunar horizon; where the heck were
the likes of Spica or Sirius throughout those NASA/Apollo missions?

Besides a number of such stars, Venus should have been downright pesky
in at least two of the Apollo missions, as unavoidably getting into
several of those unfiltered Kodak moments. Seems that you'd also have
wanted to have intentionally included the rather nearby impressive
likes of Venus as could only have been included as easily photographed
from the moon.

After all, the average terrain of our moon is worthy of something
similar to the likes of sooty coal, of 0.07 albedo and otherwise
typically being illuminated at something less than a 45 degree of that
raw solar influx (actually of most missions being accomplished shortly
after sunrise, thus perhaps as little as 10 degrees above the horizon),
of which unless looking towards the direction of the sun is going to
photograph at a much darker amount of surface reflected light, and as
only having been recorded as darker yet because of their having used a
polarised optical element, whereas earthshine that's capable of being
as illuminating as 76 fold greater intensity than moonshine should have
given a few faint but otherwise easily recorded shadows within those
primary solar shadows.

Those well published images via "moonpans" of a typically 55%
reflective lunar terrain that's rather similar to that of a guano
island that has been artificially dusted with the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal plus the available guano itself is not exactly what
our moon should have looked like. The red white and blue American
flags as having been Xenon lamp spectrum illuminated is yet another
rather obvious photographic error that shouldn't need any further
argument.

Moon and Spica (first magnitude of 0.98)
http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...051225_02.html
Date: December 25, 2005
Time: 6:35 a.m. MST
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Camera: Olympus OM-1 35mm SLR on fixed tripod
Film: Fuji Provia 100F slide
Focal length: 600 mm (200mm lens with 3X tele-extender
Apertu f/11 (effective f/32)
Exposure time: approximately 1/2 second
Scanner: Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 (cropped slightly)

Sirius at a visual and terrestrial atmospheric filtered magnitude of
-1.42 is essentially a humanly visual 2.44 magnitude brighter item than
Spica, and if that same look-see at Sirius were having been
photographed as from the physically dark lunar deck without optical
filters (as NASA/Apollo claimed) is where it would be easily have been
recorded as 10+ times again as vibrant as Spica would have recorded
upon the very same Kodak film exposure, that's actually relatively
sensitive to the near-UV and UV-a. Sirius being a G2V as opposed to
the somewhat wussy Spica and of it's B1V spectrum is once again where
that lack of an atmosphere and thus having absolutely no attenuated
near-UV or UV-a as photon filtering is a pretty damn hard factor to
ignore, which should therefore have offered a rather impressive
vibrance of Sirius to behold, and otherwise unavoidable as to keeping
such pesky bright stars continually out of frame. Although, it's only
so much worse off for the task of having to keep the likes of other
nearby planets and especially that of the 80+% albedo of Venus out of
each and every one of those frames, and I believe we're talking about
thousands upon thousands of such frames as being a rather neat trick.

You see, or rather it's of what you folks simply don't humanly see,
whereas the unfiltered Kodak eye does in fact perceive as it
photographically should have recorded upon that Kodak film, a wider
than human spectrum that's actually extremely sensitive to the near-UV
and UV-a part of the starshine spectrums (including that one of our own
star), as being of what really counts the most if taking those
unfiltered pictures from the naked moon. Of those bluish bright stars
like Spica and even the photographically brighter Sirius would each
have delivered quite the added illumination benefit if those items were
being photographed as optically unfiltered and from our physically dark
and atmospherically naked moon.

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 gamma and hard-X-ray aspects of our naked moon that's
offering worse off radiation dosage than what the worse of our Van
Allen belts have to offer?
-
Brad Guth

The reason the Apollo astronaut photos that were taken while on the
Moon contains no stars in the pictures can be explained in this manner:

If you were to stand on the Moon each square meter of lunar soil would
reflect about 10% of the light it receives, which works out to be about
one 125 Watt incandescent light bulb for every one square meter. This
would be for early morning on the Moon, as the day goes on the surface
brightness goes up.
This would ruin your night vision making it very hard to see any stars
at all in the sky. (Not to mention you would also be wearing sun
glasses) You would have to seek some type of shade and wait several
seconds before your eyes would adapt to the darkness. But if you were,
say behind a large boulder you would still have to look toward and over
the large boulder, not looking at the bright surface behind you, in
order to see stars. Of course the dark side of the boulder would still
reflect some of the lunar surface behind you, so even standing behind a
large boulder it would be difficult to see stars. You would be able to
see the dark side of the boulder, as your eyes adjusted to the
darkness, from the reflection of the lunar surface.


Brightness (APPARENT (or visual) magnitude, NOT ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE )

Sun -26.72
Full Earth (as seen from the Moon) -13.8
Full Moon (as seen from the Earth) -12.6
Venus -4.4
Mars -2.8
Jupiter -2.0
Sirus -1.46
Canopus -0.72

A star that is one magnitude number lower than another star is about
two-and-a-half times brighter. A magnitude 3 star is 2.5 times brighter
than a magnitude 4 star. A magnitude 4 star is 2.5 times brighter than
a magnitude 5 star.
A star that is five magnitude numbers lower than another star is
exactly 100 times brighter. A magnitude 1 star is 100 times brighter
than a magnitude 6 star.

mf - mb = x (mf = magnitude faintest)
-12.6 - -26.72 = x
-12.6 - -26.72 = 14.12
x = 14.12

2.5x = variation in brightness
2.514.12 = variation in brightness
2.514.12 = 415,827

Difference in brightness between the Sun and Moon is 415,827 times.
(This is a conservative number)

This variation in brightness between the Sun and Moon is the reason
there are no photos of the Sun and Moon together in the same frame
without the Sun being masked off.
Now, the variation in brightness in this photo of the Moon and Spica
(magnitude of .98)

http://pages.prodigy.net/pam.orman/j...051225_02.html

The Moon in this photo is about 40% full not as bright as a full Moon
with a magnitude of about -9 so this means a variation in brightness
between the two objects of 10 magnitudes or about 9,500 times.

Solar illumination on the Moon is about 110,000 lumens per square meter
when the Sun is directly overhead. If the Sun is not directly overhead
the intensity of sunlight per unit area is decreased. A typical Sun
elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the
illumination per square meter was about 22,000 lumens. Since the Moon's
surface reflects only about 10% of the light it receives, each square
meter of surface reflects about 2200 lumens. This is about equivalent
to the luminosity of a 125-watt incandescent light bulb every square
meter. This is more than enough to ruin my night-vision !!

A 60-watt incandescent bulb, for example, produces about 800 lumens.
(read the package)

Object Lumens/square meter Apparent Magnitude
Sun 110 E3 -26.72
Full Moon 0.267 -12.6
Full Earth 0.800 -13.8
Venus 1.4 E-4 -4.4
0 Magnitude Star 2.65 E-6 0
1st Magnitude Star 1.0 E-6 1
6th Magnitude Star 1.0 E-8 6


Therefore the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon
and say Venus is over 15 Million times.
Whereas the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon and
½ full Earth is about 10,000 times, a much easier photo.

Please let me know if I've many any mistakes.


(Only objects brighter than -4.0 can cast a shadow so therefore only
the Sun, Moon and Venus can cast a shadow on Earth and the Sun, Earth
and Venus can cast a shadow on the Moon.)

What an absolute certified liar, liar and pants on fire borg you are
(incest cloned none the less).

If you can photograph the physically dark moon, it's therefore
technically impossible not to have photographed Venus, and from time to
time within the same frame as that of the dark and nasty moon itself.

Christ almighty on a stick, there's even official NASA/Apollo
Ektachrome as having our sun and moon within the same frame. I guess
the DR of that film was even better off when having been extra
double-IR boiled and otherwise gamma and hard-X-ray radiated to death.

Your infomercial-science simply isn't worth crapolla, even if it's
flowing like gang busters up hill.
Therefore the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon
and say Venus is over 15 Million times.
Whereas the variation in brightness between the surface of the Moon and
½ full Earth is about 10,000 times, a much easier photo.
Get rid of the atmospheric filtering and spectrum skew, eliminate any
optical filters (except for the polarised element that should have made
their guano and portland cement lunar surface darker) and try that math
once again, as to what the naked Kodak eye would have unavoidably
recorded. Grain per grain, or pixel per pixel (not of each whole
target), as such Venus simply would not have been 15 million times less
bright than the physically dark moon (we're talking nearly open pit
coal mine dark). Further proof that you're a liar, your "½ full
Earth" was not depicted as 10,000 times brighter than the moon (try 5
fold brighter). You can not use the whole target whenever you've got
more a full photographic grain or pixel worth of image to work with,
which proves that you're a liar because you claim being such an
all-knowing wizard.

Here's a nifty moon phase simulator link (recently contributed by Ami
Silberman), and for otherwise having A-17 at roughly 30°E is making it
look as though they had gotten that artificial image of Earth
sufficiently correct, even though it's still a xenon illuminated moon
that's very guano and otherwise portland cement like.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/animations/lps.swf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-134-20384.jpg

However, I still don't agree with the roughly 10% phase of Earth as
being that of a sufficient amount for the A-14 mission as situated 17
degrees west.

So, basically you're saying that I'm right about Venus hiding along
with all of those WMD, Usama bin Laden and of a few other pesky items
of sufficient photons that should have been available to their
unfiltered Kodak eye that should have recorded more than any human
spectrum of whatever's within that otherwise crystal clear black sky,
especially within such EVAs of Apollo 11, 14 and 16 would have been
technically difficult if not impossible to have excluded such a bright
Venus.

As for my being incorrect as to the illuminated phase of Earth as
viewed by their A-17 mission, whereas having supposedly landed roughly
30 degrees East would have seen Earth as slightly greater than half
phase illuminated for their first EVA (I hadn't realized how far East
the supposed landing site was situated on that passive guano and
portland cement moon of their's).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...87-cropped.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/Sect19_6.html
Apollo 17 being 30° E (46 hours 18 minutes)
* Landing: 113.00 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 117.00 GET, 15.3 deg.
o Finis: 124.25 GET, 19.0 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 140.50 GET, 27.3 deg.
o Finis: 148.25 GET, 31.2 deg.
* EVA-3
o Start: 163.50 GET, 39.0 deg.
o Finis: 170.75 GET, 42.6 deg.
At 75 lunar surface hours of having unavoidably received worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not even the least bit attenuated
while in those 75 orbits (148 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage), seems a neat trick all by itself.

However, the rather unusually slim crescent of Earth as depicted from
Apollo-14 seems a bit of a reciprocal or inverse stretch of the
imagination, even if having waited to the very last moment of their
second EVA should have shown a greater illuminated phase worth of
Earth. As it stands, it's looking as though having been an extra day's
worth of phase rotation past their last EVA.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...4/20149603.jpg
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9329
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS14-66-9331
A-14 being 17° W (28 hours 17 minutes)
* Landing: 108.25 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 113.50 GET, 13.0 deg.
o Finis: 118.50 GET, 15.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.25 GET, 22.0 deg.
o Finis: 135.75 GET, 24.3 deg.
At 33.5 lunar surface hours of unavoidably receiving worse than Van
Allen TBI gamma and hard-X-ray that's not the least bit attenuated
while in those 34 orbits (66.5 hours worth of somewhat spacecraft
shielded dosage) is still representing another neat trick.

Here's a good amount of xenon spot illumination that's roughly 16 hours
past sunrise, and otherwise offering mostly way under exposed images,
except for those impressive dynamic range examples as having included
the xenon lamp array itself (don't pay any attention to the images as
having those pesky short shadows, simply because of their having moved
that xenon lamp a bit closer).
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6789
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-46-6824
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7225

There are however a few of those believable images from orbit, of Earth
and of the somewhat dark golden/brownish orb that looks as though a
rather mineral/element rich moon that's not all that reflective.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?46
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...m/magazine/?47
Apollo 12
* Landing: 110.50 GET
* EVA-1
o Start: 115.25 GET, 7.5 deg.
o Finis: 119.25 GET, 9.5 deg.
* EVA-2
o Start: 131.50 GET, 15.8 deg.
o Finis: 135.50 GET, 17.8 deg.

Once again, the impressive DR of that Kodak film is really something
extra special whenever the physically dark moon itself and the sun are
depicted within the same frame. Of course, their xenon lamp array as
simulating that sun is not nearly as intensive nor as spectrum skewed
as the raw unfiltered sun.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6951
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-47-6997
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7215
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../?AS12-49-7245
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...?AS15-87-11745

Here's a good collection of their guano island moon shots, of what's
typically of 0.55 to 0.65 albedo (reference moonsuit being 0.85 Albedo)
for as far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and we're talking
of 10+ km worth in all directions, and of being well past 45 degrees of
sunrise to boot, which exceeds their EVA-3.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap.../magazine/?117
Notice how the raw UV-a and near-UV spectrum of our sun is nowhere to
being found.

These images each look as though past 60 degrees of sunrise.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18849
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18850
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18827
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...AS16-117-18828
Whomever had the job of scanning these images was also all over the
place with those color saturation settings. For the most part the
overall color saturation isn't even half of what that Ektachrome should
have had to offer, even though there's only so much you can do with
such a guano island and portland cement moon having a few good items of
known color and contrast for our reference.

I hadn't realize they'd painted the nearly paper thin aluminum of their
Apollo-11 lander such a dark gray or flat black (they must have needed
the extra heat).
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/image...ature_195.html

Here are a few more of those somewhat corrected color and proper
saturation images of Earth and our physically dark moon, plus a little
something star like.
http://www.permanent.com/t-index.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...hotos/6550.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla..._earthrise.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...earth_moon.jpg
http://www.spaceshots.com/Merchant2/...0001/b2103.jpg
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/images/pl...n/earthr2.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020127.html

Here's a few other pesky examples of Venus and our moon
http://www.dustbunny.com/afk/planets/earth/moon.html
http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/N...n-venus-sm.jpg
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius.../moonVenus.jpg
http://www.starfirestudios.com/LUNAR/venus-moon.html
http://www.myastroshop.com.au/news/venus-moon.asp
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/noleen.htm
http://www.sas.org.au/noleen/3.Wan%2...us%2025398.jpg
(notice how the saturation of Venus is nearly as great as the moon,
even though extensively filtered by Earth's atmosphere)

Venus (a long ways off compared to A-14 and A-16) and our moon via
earthshine as obtained from Clementine (notice the rather bluish
earthshine and of the violet spectrum of Venus without any polluted
atmospheric filter getting in the way).
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...t/sunrise.html
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementi...s/venusbw5.tif

Once external to our global warming and otherwise polluted atmosphere,
Venus becomes not only much brighter to the human exe but otherwise
unavoidably and somewhat extremely brighter plus a little color
saturation skewed towards violet as observed by the unfiltered Kodak
eye, as easily obtained by what that excellent DR worthy Ektachrome
film should have recorded, with loads of photons to spare. There is
simply no good excuse for A-11, A-14 and A-16 not having recorded the
absolute impressive vibrance of Venus, as obtained from such extensive
EVAs or for that matter from orbit as having the better of camera and
telephoto lens, plus nearly unlimited film to burn. Without
atmospheric filtration, stars of near-UV and UV-a, such as Sirius,
should have been burning holes in that unfiltered film.

Here's some of that vacuum boil-off of the sodium atmosphere that our
physically dark moon has to work with (I wonder why no sodium was ever
one of the elements returned as within a lunar sample).
http://sirius.bu.edu/planetary/moon.html
-
Brad Guth

Nope, just going by the numbers, you do believe in math don't you ??
Our math that is ...

.... and that's the surface of the Moon being about 10,000 times
brighter than the 1/2 full Earth, not the other way around.

These were just rough numbers just to give someone the idea of what we
are talking about when we say we can photograph the surface of the Moon
and Venus in the same frame.

YES it can be done, but someone would have to go out of their way to do
it, it is not as easy as you make it seem, you say it should be
unavoidable, it is not, that's what my numbers were supposed to show.
It's hard enough just to find Venus without having your eyes adapted
to the darkness and with your sunvisor down, I don't know, I've never
gone out to look at the stars while wearing sunglasses, have you ??

Just like there are no stars in the ISS/Shuttle flights, it's not all
that easy to do and everybody knows it, except you it seems, there is a
vast difference in brightness, even your own eyes adjust to the
variance in brightness.

They had adjusted their cameras to expose brighter objects than that of
the relatively dim (low lumens) stars, as they should have.

Stars are just not very bright, just like you.
(sorry, I shouldn't have said that, I just couldn't resist !!)

In message . com,
" writes
The reason the Apollo astronaut photos that were taken while on the
Moon contains no stars in the pictures can be explained in this manner:


snip

Please let me know if I've many any mistakes.


(Only objects brighter than -4.0 can cast a shadow so therefore only
the Sun, Moon and Venus can cast a shadow on Earth and the Sun, Earth
and Venus can cast a shadow on the Moon.)


I wish I thought all your hard work was appreciated by the kooks.

I've mentioned this before, but the fact that you can't easily see or
photograph stars from the Moon in daylight has been known and published
for at least 50 years - in his novel "A Fall of Moondust" Arthur Clarke
describes a TV camera with a "Star Gate" setting. In the story the
camera does have the dynamic range to see stars, but it's usually turned
off because that's not what the eye sees. It's only people who believe
what they see on "Star Trek" or in Herge's "Explorers on the Moon" who
expect to see stars.

But I don't follow some of your argument. Venus is much brighter than an
equivalent area of Moon, so you should be able to see it if you know
where to look and it isn't obscured by glare (highly likely, I suspect).
And the Earth is only about 10 x brighter than the Moon, not 10,000, so
exposures showing both in the same frame are correctly exposed.

In article . com,
says...
The reason the Apollo astronaut photos that were taken while on the
Moon contains no stars in the pictures can be explained in this manner:

No, you are confusing how the eye responds to light with how
photographic film responds to light.

Photographic film requires a certain minimum exposure to get any image
at all. (Keyword: threshold) Anything that falls below the threshold
will not appear on the film. With exposure set to keep sunlit white
astronaut space suits from being overexposed, stars fall well below
threshold.

Your local public library will have books by Ansel Adams about this
subject. They are worth reading...
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

What gets measured gets done. -- David Patterson

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Kevin Willoughby,
Kodak has all the necessary physics and replicated hard-science of
everything that's photographic.

There's no if's, and's or but's about it; we haven't landed upon that
moon of ours, not even robotically without having involved the creation
of a small impact crater.

If that physically dark moon can be recorded as depicted as so nicely
saturating throughout each frame, then there's no doubt whatsoever as
to allowing Venus and even the Sirius star system (if available) to
making their locations known to those unfiltered Kodak moments.

The Kodak Ektachrome "threshold", along with their having used that
polarised filter, is worth nearly 10 f/stops, which equals a dynamic
contrast ratio of 1023:1

For Christ's sake, folks, even those terrestrial hocus-pocus
NASA/Apollo images prove that much. Besides, those extra white
moonsuits of 0.85 albedo can be a little over saturated by at least one
if not a couple of f/stops, without such negatively or otherwise
adversely impacting the rest of the image that actually matters the
most anyway, especially since we all know what a moonsuit is supposed
to look like.

What we don't know is the color saturations as provided by the raw
sunlight, or of the near-blue of the unavoidable secondary/recoil of
having to deal with the considerable solar UV-a energy.

That film was more than a little UV-a sensitive, and certainly a whole
lot better off at being near-UV sensitive than any human eye.
-
Brad Guth


Kevin Willoughby wrote:
In article . com,
says...
The reason the Apollo astronaut photos that were taken while on the
Moon contains no stars in the pictures can be explained in this manner:

No, you are confusing how the eye responds to light with how
photographic film responds to light.

Photographic film requires a certain minimum exposure to get any image
at all. (Keyword: threshold) Anything that falls below the threshold
will not appear on the film. With exposure set to keep sunlit white
astronaut space suits from being overexposed, stars fall well below
threshold.

Your local public library will have books by Ansel Adams about this
subject. They are worth reading...
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

What gets measured gets done. -- David Patterson

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com