India... life on Moon?

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that the LRO images of the lunar landing sites are
faked?


Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of the LRO mission science?

~ BG

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that the LRO images of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.


We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of the LRO mission science?


It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons..

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.



We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?


Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

~ BG

On Dec 14, 12:46*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote thdakotatelephone:

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...detect-signs-o
f-life-on-moon_1322785

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Yeah, I'd call it jumping to a conclusion faster than a Sprint launch.

--Damon

Internally wet and complex meteorites should cover the surface of our
naked moon(Selene), along with loads of dark carbonado plus loads of
other nifty minerals.

For some reason our LRO UV florescence imaging is either broken or
classified as nondisclosure data, right along with all the gamma
spectrometry that's excluded.

~ BG

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon..

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.


If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.




Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.


Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

:: Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
:: exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
:: extremely bright).

: Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
: planet.

I don't have too much problem with that, in principle. In taking pictures
of the moon from earth, you mainly have to remember that it's exposed to
full sunlight; fractional second exposures for earthtime daylight scenes
work. Venus should be similar-but-brighter; the main difference would
be how much film area the image covers, and venus would very likely be
wide enough to expose multiple grains (though not clear about the others).

But more important imo, afaik, Guth has never demonstrated that any
of those objects would have been in-frame for any of the images from
the moon. Venus, for example, would be a bit surprising, since it ought
to have been be quite high in the sky, and the interesting images are
towards the horizon. And there's no particular reason to suppose they
would be, unless they were attempting specifically to *put* them in-frame;
which they may well not have bothered.

And of course the bizarre thing is, what is the motive for this
alleged conspiracy, and even if the thousands upon thousands of
people who worked on the project were in on it, what motive did
folks in other countries have to go along with it?

And *most* important, if the whole world really is ruled by a conspiracy
that could cover this up, let me take this opportunity to request
(hey, they monitor usenet, right) they censor Guth more thoroughly
than he thinks they already are? Thankyouverymuch.

Well, unless Guth is actually their stooge and/or sockpuppet, intended
to perpetuate the conspiracy by "exposing" it in such a way as to
discredit anybody who actually finds out about it and leaks.
In which case, "nevermind".


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy....

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

btw, countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.


Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.


If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.


Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

~ BG

On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?


btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.


LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.


If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.


Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.


You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?



btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.



If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.

Your pathetic excuse, obfuscation and denials are noted.

Your inablility to grasp basic concepts is noted.



Why the multi-week delay on these monochrome images?
(our USAF could have done as good or better as of 40 years ago)

Where's the other 99.9% of theLROmission science?

It is still coming and we have much more than .1%.

Your perpetual mainstream fornication is noted. *Now, deliver the
objective proof-positive.

Have you been to the NASA LRO website? New stuff is arriving all the
time and for public consumption.

Eric

Yes I've been there, and still 99.9% of the LRO science is oddly
missing in action.

You imply you know what 100% of what the mission should be. Where do
you get that data?

You are a charlatan and everyone knows it. You wouldn't even make
Snake Oil Salesman from the Old West, as your line of bull**** is very
easily seem. *Still trying to figure out how to detect 105,000 year
"annual rings" from the Earth's geology basic upon your bizarre Sirius/
Sol cycle?

hahahahahahaha

At some point you MUST adopt a static frame of reference because you
weren't here from the beginning. Your dymanic frame of reference has
made you a tad mad...

Have a Merry Christmas, Grinch, err Guth...

Your belief that our government agencies are never the least bit faith-
based, never make mistakes, cover their public funded butts or
otherwise pull off any mutually perpetrated cold-war stings, nor ever
use spendy wool to cover our eyes, is noted.

~ BG

On Dec 25, 4:09*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 24, 12:06*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Dec 23, 5:25*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 23, 11:52*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 20, 5:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:58*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 18, 10:26*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 15, 8:42*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Dec 15, 12:48*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Dec 14, 11:50*am, jacob navia wrote:

Pat Flannery a écrit :

Good gracious, it is enough to make one dance in a most excited way,
news like this is:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/repo...s-detect-signs...

Uh, guys...there are these things called carbonaceous chondrites that
fly around in space and occasionally run into planets and moons.

Pat

quote
Interestingly, similar observations were made by the US's first manned Moon landing mission, the
Apollo-11, in July 1969, which brought lunar soil samples back to Earth. But due to a lack of
sophisticated equipment then, the scientists could not confirm the finding.
end quote

And why not?

What the hell do we know?

small amounts of water+organic compounds + good solar energy...

Who could say that it is impossible?

Especially since they can't prove we've actually been to the moon.

So you think that theLROimages of the lunar landing sites are
faked?

Your devout love of our corrupt nation of liars, cheats and bigots is
noted.

Has is your hatred of all things good and just.

We've managed to put technology on the moon, or rather those Zionist
Nazis did. *

American engineers, Guth.

Obviously you know more about the Apollo era use of film
than Kodak or anyone else does.

Still can't believe what you've been told from the Bad Astronomy
website can you? Go out on a starry night and snap a photo at the same
shutter speed as did the Apollo astronauts and see if you can see
anything less bright than 5 magnitude. You do undersand that all those
photos of planets, stars, and galaxies were taken with the camera
shutters open for seconds, right?

Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and even Sirius needed co such extra
exposure (Mercury may have been too near the sun, but otherwise
extremely bright).

Proof please. Post an image with a fraction of a second exposure of a
planet.

Apollo took many from orbit and from the physically dark lunar
surface, of the lunar terrain and that of the darkest parts of Earth
(such as oceans) looking real good from the exact same illumination
source.

Other missions before and after have mistakenly included Saturn,
Jupiter and even Mars at the exact same exposure as having included
the physically dark moon within the same FOV. *

There is no mistaking when including other plenets from other
missions. For you to think NASA is haphazard about such things makes
you even dumber than you already appear to be.

There's even some old
Navy mission that recorded our moon, sun and Venus within the exact
same FOV and exposure (though of digital imaging with superior DR than
any film can ever hope to deal with, and the LRO mission has the
capability of at least another 4 db or 16 fold better DR to work
with).

Do you have the results of the Navy mission?

btw, *countless amateurs have long since accomplished the same kinds
of images, though not nearly as good of resolution.

With long exposures you doofus!

Thus far, those LRO monochrome images can't tell us whatever's ****
from shinola. *Of course all those Apollo mission images were that of
an inert gray/monochrome moon that reflected at an average 65+% for as
far as their unfiltered Kodak eye could see, with absolutely nothing
(including all of their Apollo stuff) the least bit UV reactive.

LRO has proven Apollo to even the most feeble minded. Sorry you missed
it.

If their images can include the darkest portions of Earth along with
that physically dark moon, then where's the problem?

The problem is that the astronauts could only take a picture of earth
from the moon due to low magnitude of everything else except the sun.