BradGuth writes:

On May 9, 8:09 am, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Not only is the moon physically dark as coal, but also highly
saturated in solar UV.
Go figure how such unfiltered Kodak moments entirely failed to respond
to the unavoidable secondary/recoil flood of the bluish hue or black
light generated tint of weird color saturation.

I don't know much about photography (probably obvious from my original
note to someone who does), but even I know the answer to this one. It's
called an UV filter for the camera lens.

They had no such UV filters other than incorporated within the basic
lens,

I never claimed they went to the nearest camera shop for a UV filter.
Certainly they were custom or semicustom cameras of some sort designed
for use on the moon, including being in an environment with solar UV.

of which has nothing to do with filtering out those secondary/
recoil photons created by such UV energy.

Kodak film is not like a CCD and of ts photoshop like image recording
process, whereas instead it takes a sharp spectrum cutoff filter and/
or narrow bandpass optical element in order to moderate or exclude the
unavoidable bluish/purple tint of the locally skewed hue saturation.

Some sort of fluorescence? If so, we'd see it from Earth, and the Moon
would appear bluish/purple in the night sky. Heck, the Earth's
atmosphere might do the same. (AHA! That's the real reason the sky is
blue!!!)

It's exactly as though xenon arc lamp spectrum illuminated, isn't it.

Or the sun. I don't know of any way to tell that apart from the photos.

The raw sun is nothing remotely like a xenon arc lamp spectrum.

How can one tell from still photos or television video from the Apollo
program?

Obviously you know next to nothing about such matters, and yet you
also refuse to educate yourself. So what's the difference?

Wrong. Why do you think I asked about the photos in the first place?
I saw an inconsistancy and asked about it.

You can do your own hourly math on those to/from Van Allen belt dosage
amounts. There's roughly a 75,000 km trek each way, so that's 150,000
km worth of Van Allen badlands (not including whatever is outside or
being anywhere near that naked and thus reactive moon of ours).
What was their average speed? (1.5 km/s?)
Say twice that velocity while going to/from through the Van Allen
zones = 13+ hours.

Wikipedia states an object shielded with 3 mm of aluminum is exposed to
2,500 rem per year. That results in 0.285 rem per hour or 3.7 rem for
the trip. Thanks. Off to see what 3.7 rem does to you.

LEO rems are not quite the same thing as GSO/(Van Allen) rems.

That 2,500 rem per year figure was for the Van Allen belt. I was trusting
that your figures for the distance and speed and thus time were reasonably
accurate.

You do realize that Dr. Van Allen was on record as 100% opposed to
human space travels as trekking through or even outside of the
protective magnetosphere, don't you?

A very cautious man.

Even extremely short term exposures have consequences to our frail
DNA, far greater than anything NASA/Apollo ever reported.

REM is REM, right? (Roentgen Equivalent for Man)
Are you claiming the 3.7 rem figure is wrong or 3.7 rem is much more
dangerous than claimed?

So, why
don't you tell us why our DARPA (aka Semitic Third Reich) and of their
NASA puppets lied to us.

If you're going to post kook crap, don't bother replying to me. I
just quit debating a couple other kooks as a waste of time, I have no
need to start with another.