If the moon landing was faked...

wrote:
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 ?? "
There should have been. I wonder what's wrong with their CCD cameras
that my cellphone camera can so easily outperform?

One more new and improved contribution for the old gipper:
There's absolutely nothing that's technically wrong or even all that
insurmountable, or otherwise the least bit improper about utilizing "A
scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon -
photogrammetric rectification", whereas I tend to believe that it's
just going a bit way overkill and thus unnecessary as to taking it that
far when the available science of what's sufficiently of hard-science
and of easily replicated evidence is so substantial, proving that we've
not walked upon that physically dark and DNA lethal moon of ours. Thus
far, I can't even manage to prove or otherwise substantiate that any
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander mission (USSR or USA) ever accomplished
anything better off than having impacted our moon; can you?

Here's yet another improvement or polished effort upon of my recent
contribution to this ongoing argument, as to what the actual
photographic truth is having to offer, that the old NASA/Apollo
infomercial (AKA damage-control) argument about their having "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
become further extended via spendy optical filters.

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

Without having involved a narrow visual spectrum bandpass and/or at
least having that of a near-UV plus fully UV spectrum cutoff optical
element 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 obtained images. So, besides the
obvious planets that should have been available, such as depicted 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
within at least two of those Apollo missions, as unavoidably getting
into several of those unfiltered Kodak moments. Seems that you'd also
have intentionally wanted to have included the rather nearby and
visually 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 far less than a 45 degree of
receiving all 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 the camera were to be
looking towards the direction of the sun is going to photograph that
physically dark lunar terrain at something that seemingly representing
that of a much darker amount of surface reflected light, and perhaps as
only having been recorded as half again darker yet because of their
having used a polarised optical element, whereas the much softer
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 and thus extremely high
contrast solar shadows.

Those well published images via "moonpans" of a typically 55%
reflective lunar terrain that's rather similar to that of depicting a
guano island that has been artificially dusted with the likes of
portland cement and cornmeal, plus whatever's of the available guano
itself, is not exactly what our physically dark 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?

You folks do realize as to what UV/black-light causes those
secondary/recoil photons of near-blue to emerge?

External to our somewhat polluted and otherwise highly UV filtering
atmosphere is where the likes of Spica and especially Sirius are
unavoidably going to become rather extra intensive stars, especially to
the unfiltered Kodak eye. Even our local starshine is going to become
somewhat extra special, as is that portion of solar energy being
derived so efficiently off Venus at reflecting from an influx value of
2650 w/m2 is simply going to photographically record as though being
extra 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 towards the
near-UV and UV-a part of the starshine and moonshine 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 especially of the
photographically brighter Sirius would each have delivered quite the
added illumination impact benefit if either of those items were being
photographed as optically unfiltered as from our physically dark and
atmospherically naked moon.

Would you folks like to see some other posted 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 representing a bit worse off radiation dosage than
whatever's within the worse dosage zones of what our Van Allen belts
have to offer?

-

Oops! sorry about this final extra pesky update, but it looks as though
I'd previously dropped an f-stop; therefore it's not the 1/125th at
f4, but rather 1/250th at f4 as per utilizing that very same
ASA/ISO/DIN 100 slide film while residing external to Earth or
essentially the same as being on the physically dark and salty moon
that's otherwise so freaking gamma and hard-X-ray lethal.

As per accommodating your continual infomercial-science basis of
imposing your usual naysay buttology mindset, as having to exclude
evidence and as having been based entirely upon those NASA/Apollo
conditional laws of physics, as well as that of your brown-nose logic
worth of typical denial upon denial that's still stuck in the
mainstream status quo of auto-naysay mode, exactly like that buttology
mindset of your good buddy and partner in crimes against humanity, GW
Bush.

Obviously you're going to remain as another one of those diehard
e-spook, e-mole or borg like damage-control folks that's going to have
to remain as forever rejecting upon all other science regardless of
wherever it comes from (even if it's Kodak's physics of photons and of
whatever's pertaining to their film, of what's absolutely hard-science
that's 100+% replicated isn't good enough, is it?), the same goes as
for no matters how much WW-III takes as another bite out of humanity
and contributes to whatever's left of our global warming fiasco,
whereas you're sticking to your perpetrated cold-war guns. That's my
good boy!

You've intentionally overlooked that little tricky part of f32 that was
involved with having obtained that unretouched terrestrial image of our
moon and Spica, that which if it were having been 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 a bluish, far-blue, violet and of the near-UV worth
of primary spectrum would also have to be at the very least twice again
as bright. Gee whiz, folks, I can't but wonder what using f4 might
otherwise have accomplished as to the 100 ASA film and shutter speed?

Could that have become worthy of seven f-stops, or rather 1/250th of a
second at f4?

Actually, that previous example image as having used 100 ASA/ISO/DIN
slide film was more than likely closer to being underexposed by an
extra half f-stop, as due to the optical losses that may have been
unavoidably imposing as much as another half f-stop loss 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
spectrum worth of Spica. (more glass elements = less UV)

Could it be that you folks that continually claim everything
NASA/Apollo is the one and only truth, that you know absolutely nothing
about cameras, lens, filters and much less about film that responds
measurably different as to the various raw sources of the illumination
spectrums at hand.

I can only further surmise that you're all having Muslim for dinner,
and that's not per say as being any guest, whereas the ends continually
justifies the means which goes for what justifies the actions of those
insisting that we've been there and done that moon walking thing.
-
Brad Guth

Jeff Findley wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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 ??

Because they're far too faint to see. Put another way, the brightness of
everything else in the pictures means that the exposure is far too short to
see any stars. To see stars, you'd have to really over expose everything
else in the picture.

I mean the cameras of today must be 10 thousand humdred million times
better than the cameras of Apollo, why no stars ??

Today's cameras aren't that much better in terms of the amount of contrast
they can capture.

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

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

You don't understand basic photography/videography.

Jeff

What an absolute infomercial pile of your incest crapolla, Jeff.

Only the mutually perpetrated cold-war was the all-or-nothing basic
ruse/sting of our hocus-pocus century, whereas everything NASA/Apollo
simply fell rather nicely into line (AKA Job creation and nearly
unlimited job security for both sides). Of course, each of us were
honestly trying our level best plus every other possible trick in the
book in order to actually soft-land something/anything, and to
otherwise walk on that physically dark and nasty moon of our's without
having to die in the process, whereas our best efforts were directly
accomplished by way of what we'd taken from the Third Reich and of
their Jewish collaborators being in yet another win-win situation. All
that I can say is, better rad-hard luck next time around.

As to those NASA/Apollo EVA photographics; I'll say this one again,
that it depends extensively on the film or that of the CCD ASA/ISO/DIN
equal, and of the DR that obtainable is obviously different for each.
Besides having loads of direct photographic examples to select from,
It's all perfectly set, as in down in B&W as well as in Kodak color
film results as being of the best available hard-science that's fully
replicated, and even along with our NASA informing us village idiots as
to exactly what the raw solar spectrum is like throughout the entire
human visual perception, plus a little of what extra film records, that
which the human eye is terribly insensitive or doesn't even detect.

Of secondary/recoil photons is yet another perfectly hard-science
matter of photographic evidence that shouldn't need any further
testing, don't you think?

Some films offer their DR as representing a somewhat ****-poor tonal or
contrast range of 512 or 9 bit/f-stops worth of contrast steps, whereas
others should be capable of nearly 10 bit or 10 f-stops for
accomplishing 1023:1, along with good secondary scanning that might
yield 10.5 bit and possibly achieving a maximum 11 bits worth of
technically recovered DR that can become the ultimate
film--scanner--PhotoShop case.

If using an f2 lens is certainly going to further improve the image of
recording of more than a few bright stars at 125th of a second. A
sufficiently saturated star shot as taken from the lunar surface at f2
might demand a full second if using ISO 200 or perhaps even ISO 100
film would be sufficient, but then we're not actually looking for lots
and lots of stars, now are we?

However, in order to cut to the absolute minimum chase, why not merely
focus your naysay mindset upon the likes of having imaged Jupiter or
the much brighter Venus, whereas either of those suckers as well as the
Sirius star system as depicted above that physically dark moon terrain
of 0.07 albedo should have been unavoidably included within any number
of those NASA/Apollo images. That's giving you folks at least three
relatively bright items to pick from, that which the worse possible
film DR would have recorded. You pick and then you tell us supposed
village idiots where each or any one of those three significant items
(4 items if you'd care to include Spica) were situated throughout each
of those NASA/Apollo missions.

Then please do explain less fortunate (brown-nose deprived) minions as
to why there was never one frame out of thousands as having included
any one of just those three or four items, especially of that
absolutely vibrant Venus item. Then we'll talk specifically about
Kodak film and of it's color saturation of various spectrum issues,
which applies to B&W as well as for color transparency films.
-
Brad Guth

Therefore, it is not about the absolutely silly if not dumbfounded "10
thousand hundred million times better than the cameras of Apollo" ...

Hey now, you know that was funny.

Kinda like !0 million kazillion and 3 times .... geeze, I must be
tired.

No time, we have guests.

wrote:
No time, we have guests.
wrote:
No time, we have guests.
How silly, how pathetic, how typically excluding of hard-science and of
the replicated evidence that's plain as day, which clearly shows that a
few other items besides our moon may coexist within the very same
unretouched frame, thus proving and re-proving as often as you'd like
that I'm right, and that many others are right, and also having proved
that you're all certified liars and intellectual bigots just like our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that also needs to get tried for crimes
against humanity, and then publicly hung or best handed over to Usama
bin Laden since he'd lied his born-again butt off to Usama and many
other Muslims before.
-
Brad Guth

So you admit that you don't know why there are no stars in the recent
ISS space walk and all you can say about it is "There should have
been".

To start, let's just keep it simple, the problem is simply a matter of
having a bright object in the same field of view as the stars, stars
being a low source of light. You turn everything down so as not to
wash out the things you are there to photograph, the astronaut in the
white suit.



Brad Guth wrote:
There should have been. I wonder what's wrong with their CCD cameras
that my cellphone camera can so easily outperform?

One more new and improved contribution for the old gipper:
There's absolutely nothing that's technically wrong or even all that
insurmountable, or otherwise the least bit improper about utilizing "A
scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon -
photogrammetric rectification", whereas I tend to believe that it's
just going a bit way overkill and thus unnecessary as to taking it that
far when the available science of what's sufficiently of hard-science
and of easily replicated evidence is so substantial, proving that we've
not walked upon that physically dark and DNA lethal moon of ours. Thus
far, I can't even manage to prove or otherwise substantiate that any
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander mission (USSR or USA) ever accomplished
anything better off than having impacted our moon; can you?

Here's yet another improvement or polished effort upon of my recent
contribution to this ongoing argument, as to what the actual
photographic truth is having to offer, that the old NASA/Apollo
infomercial (AKA damage-control) argument about their having "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
become further extended via spendy optical filters.

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

Without having involved a narrow visual spectrum bandpass and/or at
least having that of a near-UV plus fully UV spectrum cutoff optical
element 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 obtained images. So, besides the
obvious planets that should have been available, such as depicted 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
within at least two of those Apollo missions, as unavoidably getting
into several of those unfiltered Kodak moments. Seems that you'd also
have intentionally wanted to have included the rather nearby and
visually 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 far less than a 45 degree of
receiving all 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 the camera were to be
looking towards the direction of the sun is going to photograph that
physically dark lunar terrain at something that seemingly representing
that of a much darker amount of surface reflected light, and perhaps as
only having been recorded as half again darker yet because of their
having used a polarised optical element, whereas the much softer
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 and thus extremely high
contrast solar shadows.

Those well published images via "moonpans" of a typically 55%
reflective lunar terrain that's rather similar to that of depicting a
guano island that has been artificially dusted with the likes of
portland cement and cornmeal, plus whatever's of the available guano
itself, is not exactly what our physically dark 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?

You folks do realize as to what UV/black-light causes those
secondary/recoil photons of near-blue to emerge?

External to our somewhat polluted and otherwise highly UV filtering
atmosphere is where the likes of Spica and especially Sirius are
unavoidably going to become rather extra intensive stars, especially to
the unfiltered Kodak eye. Even our local starshine is going to become
somewhat extra special, as is that portion of solar energy being
derived so efficiently off Venus at reflecting from an influx value of
2650 w/m2 is simply going to photographically record as though being
extra 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 towards the
near-UV and UV-a part of the starshine and moonshine 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 especially of the
photographically brighter Sirius would each have delivered quite the
added illumination impact benefit if either of those items were being
photographed as optically unfiltered as from our physically dark and
atmospherically naked moon.

Would you folks like to see some other posted 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 representing a bit worse off radiation dosage than
whatever's within the worse dosage zones of what our Van Allen belts
have to offer?

-

Oops! sorry about this final extra pesky update, but it looks as though
I'd previously dropped an f-stop; therefore it's not the 1/125th at
f4, but rather 1/250th at f4 as per utilizing that very same
ASA/ISO/DIN 100 slide film while residing external to Earth or
essentially the same as being on the physically dark and salty moon
that's otherwise so freaking gamma and hard-X-ray lethal.

As per accommodating your continual infomercial-science basis of
imposing your usual naysay buttology mindset, as having to exclude
evidence and as having been based entirely upon those NASA/Apollo
conditional laws of physics, as well as that of your brown-nose logic
worth of typical denial upon denial that's still stuck in the
mainstream status quo of auto-naysay mode, exactly like that buttology
mindset of your good buddy and partner in crimes against humanity, GW
Bush.

Obviously you're going to remain as another one of those diehard
e-spook, e-mole or borg like damage-control folks that's going to have
to remain as forever rejecting upon all other science regardless of
wherever it comes from (even if it's Kodak's physics of photons and of
whatever's pertaining to their film, of what's absolutely hard-science
that's 100+% replicated isn't good enough, is it?), the same goes as
for no matters how much WW-III takes as another bite out of humanity
and contributes to whatever's left of our global warming fiasco,
whereas you're sticking to your perpetrated cold-war guns. That's my
good boy!

You've intentionally overlooked that little tricky part of f32 that was
involved with having obtained that unretouched terrestrial image of our
moon and Spica, that which if it were having been 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 a bluish, far-blue, violet and of the near-UV worth
of primary spectrum would also have to be at the very least twice again
as bright. Gee whiz, folks, I can't but wonder what using f4 might
otherwise have accomplished as to the 100 ASA film and shutter speed?

Could that have become worthy of seven f-stops, or rather 1/250th of a
second at f4?

Actually, that previous example image as having used 100 ASA/ISO/DIN
slide film was more than likely closer to being underexposed by an
extra half f-stop, as due to the optical losses that may have been
unavoidably imposing as much as another half f-stop loss 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
spectrum worth of Spica. (more glass elements = less UV)

Could it be that you folks that continually claim everything
NASA/Apollo is the one and only truth, that you know absolutely nothing
about cameras, lens, filters and much less about film that responds
measurably different as to the various raw sources of the illumination
spectrums at hand.

I can only further surmise that you're all having Muslim for dinner,
and that's not per say as being any guest, whereas the ends continually
justifies the means which goes for what justifies the actions of those
insisting that we've been there and done that moon walking thing.
-
Brad Guth

wrote:
So you admit that you don't know why there are no stars in the recent
ISS space walk and all you can say about it is "There should have
been".

To start, let's just keep it simple, the problem is simply a matter of
having a bright object in the same field of view as the stars, stars
being a low source of light. You turn everything down so as not to
wash out the things you are there to photograph, the astronaut in the
white suit.

Unfiltered film that's properly exposed in order to record the nearly
coal like lunar surface has more than sufficient dynamic range to
spare, thus proving that you're nothing but a born-again liar.
Besides, there's a little pesky factor of gamma and of hard-X-rays plus
having a double dosage of IR to deal with.

There are no good reason(s) why the likes of Jupiter, Venus, Saturn,
even Mars and at a few times mercury, along with otherwise having more
than a couple of those sufficiently bright stars that simply would have
been unavoidably included in more than a few of those Apollo EVA
photographs. Remember that the nearly coal/basalt black lunar terrain
of 0.07 albedo and of what's also typically photographed shortly after
sunrise, thus having a low angle of the raw solar reflected light to
deal with as creating an even darker terrain, which meant that having a
proper though unfiltered exposure of their film would have demanded
that other such items of planets and a few stars would have been
unavoidably included. For God's sake, Venus certainly is not a dim
item, nor is it all that small nor hardly inconspicuous.

Of those supposed Apollo/EVA obtained images is often including their
0.85 albedo moonsuits, as well as those of any number of other easily
identified items that essentially establish as to what all of that
local albedo of their pretend moon that was more likely the composite
albedo worth of portland cement and cornmeal, plus having some good
amount of their local guano island as representing the highly
reflective and otherwise nearly colorless/gray substance that goes for
as far as their camera and unfiltered lens could see, as being that
depicted for supposedly representing our naked moon that's so unusually
clean.

The lack of having shown any flag color spectrum skew is what by itself
offers more than proof enough that there simply was no such raw solar
illumination to deal with, much less as having depicted any physically
dark lunar terrain. Thus everything associated with any such EVA
moonsuit walks upon such a dark and nasty moon of our's is what remains
as a pathetic joke, and nothing but a scientific lie upon lies as being
told by the very best of those highly bigoted individuals having
perpetrated the cold-war via those supposedly having the right stuff,
and of everyone going along for the ride being none better than Third
Reich collaborators as having previously exterminated so many innocent
souls in order to keep their highly profitable lies going and going in
spite of the truth, in spite of the consequences and without so much as
a stitch of remorse.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
A typical sunrise flag shot in full xenon spectrum illumination format,
without offering so much as a stitch of flag pole shadow or having any
sign of that pole as having been physically implanted into the
extremely thin layer of such clumping moon-dust. In fact, we're
talking of a somewhat sharp pixel cut-off at the base of that flag
pole, and I can't but wonder what was actually below that first inch or
two of such nonreactive, non-electrostatic and otherwise portland
cement and cornmeal composite like clumping moon-dust, that was so gosh
darn capable of holding up that pole and of it's offset mass of flag
(perhaps instead of basalt moon rock there was that nifty base of
guano).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...11-40-5875.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-40-5875HR.jpg
Not that there are not many equal or better examples of such a xenon
lamp spectrum format of illuminating those flag colors, that should
have been rather badly skewed by way of what the raw solar spectrum
should have represented (that goes for all of their B&W images as
well).

Just for a little joke, here's an actual honest shot of sirius-a and
Sirius-b, as obtained from not all that good of an astronomy telescope,
of which this image makes those similar images via Hubble and even KECK
look like total crap (though I can fix KECK).
Sirius Imaged with AP 155 f9 StarFire EDT & Nikon Coolpix 950 consumer
http://www.integram.com/astro/Sirius.html
Imaged with Astro-Physics 155 EDFS
AP 155/f9, Nikon CP950 at 8 second exposure, UO 18mm Ortho, 5X
Powermate (388X), attached with Scopetronix Digi-T. I believe that's a
total of pushing nearly f54.

AP 155/f9 of Jupiter w/5X
http://www.integram.com/astro/Jupiter.html
Moon images using the AP 155/f9 w/3X
http://www.integram.com/astro/Aristoteles.html

A list of other folks using the same instrument
http://www.astro-physics.com/index.h...ites/coolsites
Because these are refractors that are of milticoated elements is also
why their loss of violet and especially the near-UV and UV-a likes of
Spica simply can't ever be nearly as intensive as it would be if using
fewer optical elements w/o UV blocking layers, whereas your basic
camera lens and obviously of reflector instruments are simply best at
efficiently transferring photons well into the UV-a spectrum, and
specialized lenses do exist that'll transfer UV-b. Unfortunately, much
of the brighter starshine is that of the deep blue, violet, and
especially of the near-UV and UV-a spectrum that's getting extensively
filtered by the atmosphere of Earth and then further attenuated by the
amount of optical glass associated within a refractor and that of it's
tele-extender usage, which means being external to our atmosphere is
where such stars should really shine, especially to that of an
unfiltered Kodak moment that's obtained by a conventional camera lens.

Some AP color correction curves w/o involving the use of tele-expander
elements.
http://www.astro-physics.com/product...f7edfcolor.jpg
http://www.astro-physics.com/product...olorcurve3.jpg

AP 155/f7 that seems substantially underexposed at 1/10 second image of
moon
http://www.skyimager.com/

Terrific earthshine images.
http://www.photomeeting.de/astromeeting/_index.htm

As usual, this contribution is most likely offering too much
information, and obviously way too much truth at that. Sorry about
that.
-
Brad Guth

If the moon landing was faked....
then Brad Guth would be posting here about how we really DID go to the
moon.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Once again, you are totally absurd and here is why:
Here is what you write:

Unfiltered film that's properly exposed in order to record the nearly
coal like lunar surface has more than sufficient dynamic range to
spare, thus proving that you're nothing but a born-again liar.
Besides, there's a little pesky factor of gamma and of hard-X-rays plus
having a double dosage of IR to deal with.

The only one talking about "Film" is you, not me. Keeping that in mind
(if your mind has that Dynamic range ) then you must be calling
yourself a liar.

There are no good reason(s) why the likes of Jupiter, Venus, Saturn,
even Mars and at a few times mercury, along with otherwise having more
than a couple of those sufficiently bright stars that simply would have
been unavoidably included in more than a few of those Apollo EVA
photographs. Remember that the nearly coal/basalt black lunar terrain
of 0.07 albedo and of what's also typically photographed shortly after
sunrise, thus having a low angle of the raw solar reflected light to
deal with as creating an even darker terrain, which meant that having a
proper though unfiltered exposure of their film would have demanded
that other such items of planets and a few stars would have been
unavoidably included. For God's sake, Venus certainly is not a dim
item, nor is it all that small nor hardly inconspicuous.

I was talking about the ISS and Shuttle, not Apollo EVA's.

Just for a little joke, here's an actual honest shot of sirius-a and
Sirius-b, as obtained from not all that good of an astronomy telescope,
of which this image makes those similar images via Hubble and even KECK
look like total crap (though I can fix KECK).
Sirius Imaged with AP 155 f9 StarFire EDT & Nikon Coolpix 950 consumer
http://www.integram.com/astro/Sirius.html
Imaged with Astro-Physics 155 EDFS
AP 155/f9, Nikon CP950 at 8 second exposure, UO 18mm Ortho, 5X
Powermate (388X), attached with Scopetronix Digi-T. I believe that's a
total of pushing nearly f54.

What !!??!! I cannot begin to approach the pictures of Keck, and I
have a better than average scope.
I am not even going to look at your "honest shot" (maybe later)
You can't fix crap.

As usual, this contribution is most likely offering too much
information, and obviously way too much truth at that. Sorry about
that.

It is too much and it's all crap, not at all what I was talking about.

Obviously you haven't an honest clue as to what the science of
observationology has to offer.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
omg