Re: If the moon landing was faked...

Secret237@xxxxxxxxxxx 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/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5875.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5875HR.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.htm?coolsites/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/products/telescopes/curves/155f7edfcolor.jpg
http://www.astro-physics.com/products/telescopes/160edf/160colorcurve3.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

.

Quantcast