If the moon landing was faked...

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

wrote:
I know this, I just want Brad to see this as well, after all, it is the
truth that he's looking for.

Oops, sorry about my having broken Usenet again, or at least my PC came
to a screeching halt.

Here's another improvement of my contribution to this ongoing argument,
as to what the actual truth is being, that the old NASA/Apollo
infomercial (AKA damage-control) argument about "no stars" as being the
photographic 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 fully capable of offering a good 32 fold
better yet at their having extended that DR capability that should
knock our socks off with having unavoidably included a few stars, with
some of those best performing of NSA spy satellite CCDs being capable
of offering better than a 100:1 improved DR ratio, that which can be
further extended via spendy optical filters.

Therefore, it is not the "10 thousand hundred million times better than
the cameras of Apollo" as having been 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 having 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.

You folks do realize how extra near-UV and UV-a intensive our own raw
solar influx is, don't you?

External to our somewhat polluted and otherwise highly UV filtering
atmosphere is where the likes of Spica and Sirius are unavoidably going
to become rather extra intensive stars. Even our local starshine is
extra special, as is that being derived so efficiently off Venus is
simply impressive as all get out.

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 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?
-
Brad Guth

On 8 Jul 2006 22:15:18 -0700, "
wrote:

I know this, I just want Brad to see this as well, after all, it is the
truth that he's looking for.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Come to think of it, there are no stars in the Gemini photos either!
Hmmmmm....
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Brad Guth wrote:
Jud McCranie wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 22:15:18 -0700, "
Come to think of it, there are no stars in the Gemini photos either!
Hmmmmm....

There should also have been other planets and multiple stars as easily
depicted within those fairly recent MESSENGER images of their unusually
naked Earth fly-by, as well as having such terrific CCD and optics as
having easily incorporated that of our physically dark moon, at least
from a little before and after having zoomed so quickly past mother
Earth, as our physically dark moon would have been unavoidably in
frame.
-
Brad Guth

STILL no answer:

"Why are there no stars in the background during the recent ISS/Shuttle
space walk ?? "

wrote:
Still no answer from Brad.

I asked:
"Why are there no stars in the background during the recent ISS/Shuttle
space walk ?? "


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 fully capable of offering a good 32 fold
better yet at their having extended that DR capability that should
knock our socks off with having unavoidably included a few stars, with
some of those best performing of NSA spy satellite CCDs being capable
of offering better than a 100:1 improved DR ratio, that which can be
further extended via spendy optical filters.


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.

This does not answer my question
Yes it does, and then some.

This seems (I'm not 100% sure) to try to answer why there should have
been stars in the Apollo photos.

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?

No, fool, I just would like an answer to my ONE ( not dozens )
question:

"Why are there no stars in the background during the recent ISS/Shuttle
space walk ?? "
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.

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?

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?

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

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.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

*From:* h (Rand Simberg)
*Date:* Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:26:15 GMT

On 8 Jul 2006 12:17:51 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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 ??

Well, duhhhh! They're obviously faking it on a movie set. With their
top-secret zero-gravity machine.


It's done in a pool of very clear water with no bubbles AT ALL !!!!!!!
:-)

Malcolm B

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

wrote:
38 From: Brad Guth - view profile
Date: Sun, Jul 9 2006 6:06 pm
Email: "Brad Guth"
Groups: sci.astro.amateur, sci.astro, sci.space.history,
rec.models.rockets, sci.math
Rating: (1 user)
show options

By way of cutting your exposure to the absolute minimums will drag
whatever camera DR down to the baasement, whereas you can even
eliminate most of a full moon while otherwise getting a sufficiently
good enough local/foreground image of ISS, or that of the Shuttle, of
good old mother Earth below and of course including any of those white
spacesuits. You can accomplish this basic task with a conventional
film camera, or easier with a $100 CCD camera, or with that of a
$1,000,000 CCD camera, you pick the camera and shoot. Running whatever

through a given PhotoShop level of automatic moderation also will get
you pretty much whatever you'd like, by way of the program easily
excluding pre-selected items. Some of the fancy cameras can have this
feature built right in, and even end-user modifiable in order to suit
each and every given client or application.


Ok, I got you to give me an answer and no, I am not going postal, you
posted your answer after my previous post as shown above.

Why then, would they (NASA) want to, or have to, cut their exposure ( I
assume here that you mean "Shutter Speed" even though they use CCD
cameras in a video mode ) to the absolute minimums ??
Why would they do this on a space walk ??

It would seem to me they do that because they have to, or else the
space walking astronauts would be overexposed.

Good grief, it's a good thing that you can't even do a good job of
going postal.

There's so much spare CCD DR that you can't hardly over-expose
anything, not even if you try. Some of the better CCD cameras are
capable of dealing with 16 db, and the overexposed pixels don't even
care because, unlike film they don't seem to explode. A full pixel
photon bucket is merely a fuil bucket, whereas it doesn't get itself
any fuller nor does it spill over to the next photon bucket.

Obviously you're bluffing again, pretending that you're either God or
that you're dumb and dumber, arnt you. I think you're trying to buy
yourself a few more days so that you can retire before all the official
crapolla hits the fan.

The images posted by not one but dozens of honest folks proves that the
DR of film was in fact more than sufficient. Once that positive
transparency film is scanned at nearly the micron level, from there
it's PhotoShop until you drop. Creating eye-candy is after all the one
and only such official images that ever get published by NASA or by
anyone else, including all of those Apollo mission images that were
subsequently pushed and/or skewed to whatever extent it took.

Would you folks like to see some of the NASA/Apollo shots that are
proven and officially accepted as being 100% phony, as having been
big-time promoted and published as being the real thing?

Would you like to see a few of their blue-screen oops shots?

Why don't we just tell it like it is to The Washington Post?
-
Brad Guth