Re: A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon - photogrammetric rectification

Here's 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/joemoon/MoonPlanets_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
Aperture: 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

.