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

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Please tell it to Buzz Aldrin, in person. Get someone to video it for
us.
That's not a problem from my end.

Others and I've already posted dozens of shots as having included our
moon along with multiple other planets and even a few of those as
having included the brighter of available stars (a little tough to
accomplish from Earth since our atmosphere accomplishes such terrific
job of spectrum filtering of the starshine from Spica and especially
that of Sirius). Photographic DR is DR, it's that freaking simple.
The NASA/Apollo images of our sunlit moon along with Earth in the same
shot is proof-positive that I'm right, and boat-loads of proof-positive
that you're not.

Good Christ almighty on another stick. Their very own photographs from
orbit is what absolutely proves as to what the DR capability of that
film represents. Even those hocus-pocus photographics that were
supposedly taken while physically on the moon is what proves that there
was more than sufficient DR as to include whatever represented less
than of the 0.025 albedo portions of mother Earth along with a 0.85
albedo white moonsuit and even a few of those shots with our red, white
and blue American flag in the very same frame that included the 0.07
albedo worth of lunar terrain, which oddly recorded as though being a
composite of portland cement, cornmeal and guano instead of the 0.07
worth of basalt and nearly coal like surface that our moon represents
(especially as being illuminated at such low angles and with a
polarised lens element which should only have made that surface appear
as darker).

That's only a range of slightly better tan 5 f-stops, and it's only 6
f-stops of 0.0125 to 0.8 albedo by which far more than includes Mars.
Since Venus would have unavoidably represented that of a brighter orb
than Earth, so where the heck was Venus, and where exactly were a
couple of those near-UV spectrums worth of those extremely bright stars
throughout each of those missions. The unfiltered Kodak moments should
have unavoidably recorded the very least of Spica and Sirius as plain
as day, and where exactly were each of those stars in relationship to
the physically dark lunar horizon?

Which means that you are a liar, as well as "Scott Dorsey"
Scott Dorsey; Ektachrome doesn't even have the range to
capture sun-lit landscapes all by themselves...

Without question, you folks are each and even one of nothing but liars
and pagan intellectual bigots of the worse possible kind! Besides, the
very same arguments can be said of their B&W film as having even better
DR, that which only further proves I'm right, and proves that you're
the liars as I've said, as well as the xenon lamp illuminated exposures
is simply further if not the best available proof positive that I'm
right.

For the likes of borg "George Evans", I'll make this easy for even a
LLPOF bigot like yourself; Just tell us where Venus was, as having
been from time to time unavoidably situated above the lunar horizon
throughout each of those Apollo missions.

Then try to explain as to how any damn fool in a moonsuit could have
possibly avoided having included Venus within any number of those
unfiltered (full spectrum) Kodak moments.
-
Brad Guth

.

Quantcast