Re: If the moon landing was faked...

Once again, you are totally absurd and here is why:
Here is what you write:

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.

The only one talking about "Film" is you, not me. Keeping that in mind
(if your mind has that Dynamic range ) then you must be calling
yourself a liar.

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.

I was talking about the ISS and Shuttle, not Apollo EVA's.

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.

What !!??!! I cannot begin to approach the pictures of Keck, and I
have a better than average scope.
I am not even going to look at your "honest shot" (maybe later)
You can't fix crap.

As usual, this contribution is most likely offering too much
information, and obviously way too much truth at that. Sorry about
that.

It is too much and it's all crap, not at all what I was talking about.

.

Quantcast