On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, spudnik wrote:
holey space-rodent droppings,
I should refer to the Kodak format of your choice, as opposed
to Hasselblad's, since that is the only practical way
for you to prove your alleged point about the relative exposures
of Venus-in the-background with Moon-in-the-foreground. so,
you'd have to compare that with the astronomical "magnitudes,"
which I think is in powers of ten, of Venus and Moon,
without bothering with the problem of being a lot closer
to Moon, by standing on it ... or teh Mojave Skunkworks Studio
backlot.

so, when you don't bother, again, to do this elementary research,
we will just have to give up on your case; you'll never learn,
dood.... anyway,
it is an elementary encyclopedic exercise
to ascertain the magnitude of Moon's brightness,
compared to other planets & stars; if you don't do that,
you are avoiding the question of relative exposure, and
you are clearly relying solely on simulations ... as if it was you,
that was at the Mojave Video Skunkworks in '69. so, go out
with the specific intent to capture Venus,
with some mildly lighted inflatable dummy in the foreground,
and see how easy it is, or how many tries it takes.
all extant fora on "fake landings" dyspose
of this "problem" at the outset;
that astronauts could see the stars, when
they looked upward to avoid the moonscape, but
there cameras mostly were not calibrated for that.

the mere fact that you've never engaged
in astrophotography is just for you to admit;
human visual accuity is so much greater in range, that
you have to account for that, in comparison
with the Kodak/Hasselblad format e.g.:
if the goal is not to specifically image Venus,
compared with the far-brighter "coal" foreground
of Moon, it will not be in the where, there (although
it might be possible to process the image,
to get the latent venusians traced-out
of the negative .-)

--Seargent Barracks McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft, boys'n'girls."

Once again and again, you are clearly excluding any number of
published peer replicated science that 100% agrees with the regular
laws of physics. Way to go, you private part sucking DARPA clown, you
couldn't be any more brown-nosed or Zionist/Nazi mindset if you'd
tried.

A crescent Venus would have been too damn large and terribly bright to
have been so easily ignored. Even Mars and especially Jupiter and
Saturn shouldn't have been entirely excluded, at least not to any good
digital scan of those original rad-hard Kodak moments.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth