Re: Stars showing in moon photos

Tim Epstein,
Stars would tell too much. Even of one star being Sirius would have
given away the exact location of that camera, but also since there was
a 100% record of time to less than a millisecond being the case, then
also the position of Venus would have been impossible to have excluded.

Tim Epstein; "The link below shows a close up of the stars at full
resolution.
http://img13.echo.cx/my.php?im­age=mooncloseup3qx.jpg

There are actually a few others of even better images within which dim
stars are there to behold. However, I'm fairly certain those were never
officially stipulated as such because, those simply may not have been
the correct stars if you were standing upon the moon and for the given
time of exposing that sensitive Kodak film.

Venus would actually have been extremely bright, especially upon two of
their Apollo missions, nearly burning a whole in any unfiltered Kodak
moment. After all, Venus is not only quite large but it reflects better
than 80% of the solar illumination, as compared to our moon reflecting
11~12% that we can see and photograph our moon as illuminated in the
daytime sky over Earth despite all of the horrific atmospheric glow of
secondary/recoil photons which makes our sky so darn blue. The Sirius
star system offering mostly near-UV and a good amount of UV-a energy is
simply another target that simply could not have been avoided, though
representing a smaller number of pixels than Venus or rather fewer
original phorographic grains, whereas Sirius should have photo/Kodak
recorded as 512~1024 times brighter than if that same camera and lens
were situated upon Earth. Apparently our NASA/Apollo lunar serveyors
felt no need of their including reference stars within any given image,
while they did take considerable time and efforts as to telling folks
how their cameras and Kodak simply couldn't possibly have recorded
stars along with the dark lunar surface at the same time. In fact,
according to other official NASA images obtained from more recent
satellites of their supposed landing/impact sites were offering a 3~5%
albedo zone within which their landing efforts created, which would
have been nearly coal black for several hundred meters in all
directions.

Other stars which include a good amount of near-UV status should have
been absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye, therefore at least
dimly recorded above the typically dark basalt and carbon/titainum
dusted lunar terrain, whereas those same stars as extensively filtered
by our atmosphere simply do not photo record as being nearly as blue or
even near-blue. The 450~750 nm is what a terrestrial Kodak film and by
most any good camera records as the bulk of starlight as it arrives
upon the surface of Earth, whereas Hubble being external to most of the
atmosphere and thus records the near-UV and into the UV-a at a rather
substantially greater intensity, which should have been similar if not
of an even greater intensity from the perspective of the moon.

The Kodak film was in fact extremely sensitive to the near-blue
spectrum and most certainly of whatever was below 450 nm to nearly 375
nm, and that would certainly have to include whatever near-blue
secondary/recoil photons created by all of the raw illumination of
near-UV and UV-a energy/m2 freely impacting the moon and of anything
upon the moon, especially of anything artificial and synthetic (more so
noticed if any of these items included extra whiteners or reflective
substances) such as moonsuits and certainly the white of those American
flags, all of which should have been photo recorded as awash in a
bluish tint or color spectrum shift that would have been somewhat
noticed by the unfiltered human eye while remaining extremely noticed
and thereby recorded by the unfiltered Kodak eye, whereas again I'm
speaking as from all of the intensity of the raw solar influx which had
to have included a great deal of near-UV and UV-a spectrum energy that
may have been at times as good as 256 fold greater than for what's
received here upon the surface of Earth.

How about discussing some true to life color images of our moon, such
as those obtained from orbit?

At least the orbiting images offered by NASA/Apollo and via newer
satellite images having Earth included within frame shows the rather
proper contrast of a dark and deeply gold/ornge color of the moon. In
other words, the moon is not limited B&W as depicted withing most all
of the supposed surface obtained images.

I understand there's even a touch of clear atmosphere (perhaps 0.03
psi) and a fairly good amount of titanium dust mixed in with all the
carbon dust that covers the majority of meteorites and their impact
related shards, as well as for coating the bulk of lunar basalt strewn
shards. Thus the natural color of the moon is actually offering a dark
golden/orange tint of the titanium. I'm told that in places we talking
of a moon dust that's been collected to 10+meters deep, and God only
knows there's continually more of that nasty carbon and iron stuff on
the way that's arriving at 30+km/s. Actually the solar wind delivers
the likes solar clouds containing submicrons worth of mostly iron along
at speeds of <600+km/s.

Besides all of that, and with even often mentioning stars I'll continue
having my say about any number of other phony baloney Kodak moments
that were supposedly obtained while situated upon the hot and nasty and
basalt dark surface of our moon, here's yet another independent photo
analysis as accomplished by American Moon Hoax Investigator Jack White:
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Of course from 'Apollohoax' and by it's lord and once upon a time
master Jay Windley <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxx> would have disagreed with
absolutely anything and everything that doesn't 100% match his copy of
the NASA/Apollo bible (there's almost nothing which Jay isn't a
certified wizard at doing and an absolute expert as such), and Jay
certainly hasn't been alone. I believe right about now the entire
'apollohoax.com' site is getting another much needed overhaul/reset in
order to eliminate all of those 55+% reflective index images and
therefore to further dog-wag and thus re-spin and damage-control to the
best of their ability, although it's unlikely they'll obtain any formal
and/or believable independent support from the likes of corporate Kodak
or Hasselblad. Don't even mention secondary/recoil photons because,
besides the unusual lack of photographic near-blue, some of those
secondaries were of hard-X-ray photons that may have been survivable
but otherwise a fairly neat trick as to avoid the DNA as well as
photographic impact from such intensity.

Here's yet another oldy but goody proof-positive photographic example
(Doble11.JPG) that more than proves our NASA had insufficient brains,
though a *** load of cold-war motive and opportunity as to otherwise
obtaine all of their necessary photographic capability as to snooker
thy humanity, thus clearly involving the best photographic talents and
resources on top of their perpetrated cold-war motivation that did
coexist back then as it does right now, but always remember that the
raw and unfiltered intensity of what generated the near-blue photons
should simply have been rather considerable, thus easily Kodak photo
recorded as a bluish tint created by the great amount of near-UV and
UV/a via raw solar energy/m2 that was unfiltered and therefore
subsequently creating all of those secondary/recoil photons like there
was no tomorrow.

There simply was at least 128 fold if not greater near-UV and UV/a
spectrum energy/m2 than received here upon the surface of Earth. This
following link is another page that's a wee bit all over the freaking
place as it covers the fact that those images were recorded as almost
exactly as though being artificial Xenon illuminated, instead of having
been raw solar illuminated.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Doble11.JPG We should
have all known this image was another proof-positive matter of fact
that earth should have been recorded as roughly 65 degrees above the
lunar true horizon when viewed and photographed by the Apollo 11
astronauts. Within the reflection that had been clearly superimposed in
those two Apollo 11 astronaut visors, whereas Earth is shown as roughly
five degrees above the horizon. At first, not even their own official
damage-control borgs had realized until recent years that this was
actually another 100% phony promotional disinformation-R-us PR hyped
image, exactly as to why so many others had to keep pointing this out
and arguing as to what was absolutely to technically dead wrong within
this and many other images that simply didn't match those obtained from
orbiting along at 100+ km off the deck. Oddly there wasn't all that
much if any motion blur recorded in those images, although otherwise
their orbit obtained images pretty much matched other terrestrial and
satellite obtained images of the lunar surface, with color images
recording the nearly coal like dark basalt and somewhat dark
gold/orange nature of the titanium deposits, even suggestive of the
thick carbon dust of which instantly overwhelmed the Russian lander.

(a somewhat shorter image download w/info)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hot-spots.htm

BTW; Why the heck is SMART-1 still broken, or is ESA part of the
ongoing disinformation-R-us problem?
~

Basic bridge, township & Tarmac that's upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other spare topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

.