In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:43 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

Are you saying without a lens you cannot see stars in vacuum?

Do you suppose the camera that took the starless pictures on the moon
was lensless?

Do you even know how optics work?

Aparantly better than you. The lenses expand the size of the star like the
atmosphere without the distortion.

Try doing some research.

The stars would not show up only if the focus is set for very close
shots. However, these photographs cover entire horizon. The focus
must have been set for very far view. A few stars should have been
picked up.

Sigh, how many times does this have to be answered?

Film has a finite exposure range.

The exposure was such that the much brighter objects on the moon were
not over exposed, which means the exposure was too short to catch the
stars which are very dim by comparison.

Had anyone any reason to do so, they could have pointed the camera(s)
at the empty sky, increased the exposure, and gotten pictures of
the stars.

Can you see stars in the sky in the middle of a lighted city?

No, and for the very same reason. Your eyes automatically adjust the
exposure for for the bright lights making the stars too dim to sense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:10 am, JJ wrote:
GeekBoy wrote:

Stars did not show on the moon photographs because the latitude of
the film was not great enough to image the stars which were not as
bright as the objects on the moon, and they were far away (small)
besides. Their apparent distance is even greater compared to
foreground because the camera used a wide angle lens (50mm over
6x6cm film.) Great apparent distance means mere pinprick images on
the film and being dim, they did not show up.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the
stars are too dim to be picked up?

With an exposure suited to the very bright objects in the foreground (think
bright day in the desert), the stars are too dim to be seen. The blackness
of the sky confuses issues and makes people think in terms of "night" but
it's not night. The sun is up in the sky and very bright. Everything
illuminted by it is also very brightly lit.

For a comparison, sit in your house back a ways from the window. Turn
on the lights in your house and, looking through the window while the walls
(preferably in light colors) and curtains (ditto) are still in view. In
that situation, your eyes are adjusted for the bright foreground and the
dark background--including the stars--just fades to black.

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
"While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com -- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays

On Feb 25, 4:13 pm, "The_Man" wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:20 pm, wrote:

And you are supposed a photographer, with experince with Hasselblad
cameras? A "photographer" who doesn't know anything about exposures?


Well I am not an expert with a Hassleblad camera thats true,
and I was merely playing devil's advocate. Moron yes, but that is
entirely beside the point.
I am a moron, because I believed Carl Sagan, and I believed Arthur C.
Clarke
and I believed Neil Armstrong, and I believed Buzz Aldrin.

And I like most people, believed that they went to the moon.

But now I see, that it was all just a big fraud.

Calling it a hoax doesn't quite cut it. It was and is the largest
fraud
perpetrated on a trusting public in history.

I would say it is time for NASA to conclusively prove they went to the
moon,
or to admit they defrauded the public, and then they should be
disbanded,
replaced, by some new more trustworthy organization.

It is the only way, to regain the public trust.

Beyond question, it was a hoax, and there is whistleblower footage
which proves it.

Aside from the obvious ones, such as man in one of those suits,
could in no way fit, through the door of the LEM.
It has been measured, and it was just too small.

Do you need more proof than that?

"That's one small step for a man, on Giant Bunny hop for......

OH MY GOD MY ****ING BALLS ITCH. ****. GODDAMN IT TO HELL, AND IT
HAS TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW WHILE MY VOICE IS BEING BROADCAST TO 99% OF
THE WORLD'S POPULATION, ****, HAVE ANY OF EWE OUT THERE EVER TRIED
(INCLUDING YOU WOMEN) TO SCRATCH YOUR ****ING NUTS THROUGH A GODDAMNED
****ING SPACE SUIT? ****, EW E JUST GO TRY IT RIGHT NOW. ****,
WHAT'S A HERO TO DO??? BUZZ, LETZ FIRE THIS MOTHER ****ER BACK UP AND
HEAD BACK TO THE EARTH WHERE I CAN GO TO MY FARM RANDY TUNSTALL AND
JUST SCRATCH THE EVER LOVING **** OUTTA THE FAMILY JEWELS BEHIND THE
BARN OUT OF SIGHT OF 99% OF THE GLOBAL BRAIN'S VIEW:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html

AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK HERE AND I CAN GIVE A DIGNIFIED SPEECH
WHICH PROLLY WONT GET MY ASS THROW OUT OF NASA LIKE SOME HOMICIDAL
WOMAN ASTRO-NUT OR, AS NASA (IN PARTICULAR, SAIC) HAS DONE WITH
CERTAIN VALUABLE EMPLOYEES IN ITS PAST (BACK AROUND 1995 OR SO) WHO
WERE THEN FORCED TO GO MANAGE THE FAMILY FARM JUST LIKE IN THE
"ASTRONAUT FARMER" MOVIE, WHICH IS PRETTY GOOD, BTW.

BLARP.

On Feb 25, 5:27 pm, wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:13 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

On Feb 24, 5:20 pm, wrote:
And you are supposed a photographer, with experince with Hasselblad
cameras? A "photographer" who doesn't know anything about exposures?

Well I am not an expert with a Hassleblad camera thats true,

nor even minimally competent with ANY camera, yet it was the
PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that you specifically cited. If you are far too
ignorant to judge what is or isn't possible with something as simple
as a CAMERA, what makes you think you are capable of judging what is
possible with a rocket?

and I was merely playing devil's advocate. Moron yes, but that is
entirely beside the point.
I am a moron, because I believed Carl Sagan, and I believed Arthur C.
Clarke
and I believed Neil Armstrong, and I believed Buzz Aldrin.

And I like most people, believed that they went to the moon.

But now I see, that it was all just a big fraud.

Yes, it is all just a fraud, but we are talking about the hoax
allegations, not the moon landing.


Calling it a hoax doesn't quite cut it. It was and is the largest
fraud
perpetrated on a trusting public in history.

"Trusitng public"? BTW, what difference does it make to you whether
Neil Armostrong walked on the moon or not, except to minimize the
fantastic achievements of others, to bring them down to your level,
you, who can't even take a decent photograph with any camera designed
for anyone who isn't an idiot?


I would say it is time for NASA to conclusively prove they went to the
moon,

Moon rocks, telemetry data, thousand of photographs, eyewitness
testimony, calculations, DAILY laser reflection data from instruments
left on the moon. Oh, I guess that is NOTHING.

or to admit they defrauded the public, and then they should be
disbanded,
replaced, by some new more trustworthy organization.

Like you and your band of nincompoops who think that starts would be
visible with a slow lense?


It is the only way, to regain the public trust.

Beyond question, it was a hoax, and there is whistleblower footage
which proves it.

"Whistelblower footage" of WHAT?


Aside from the obvious ones, such as man in one of those suits,
could in no way fit, through the door of the LEM.
It has been measured, and it was just too small.

Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever? being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?
And yet these people were "exposed" in this "hoax" by the size of the
LEM door? And by making space suits that were too small?

Were the space suits TOO SMALL for Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo
missions that didn't go to the moon, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle?

Since the LEM did not have to actualy fly on the moon (as you allege),
why didn;t they just make the LEMm door as big as a barn , to avoid
being "discovered" by you clever and intrepid investigators?


Do you need more proof than that?

Obviously yes, since that hardly qualifies as "proof" of anything.

On Feb 24, 6:02 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:49 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:





"The_Man" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Feb 24, 2:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Feb 23, 8:03 pm, wrote:
Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Neil Armstrong shows extreme signs of guilt - the same kind criminals
display during interrogations.

The amazing thing about the Moon Landing "hoax", is that it began with
the (very bad) motion picture "Capricorn One", "starring" among
others, O.J.

If all the "edidence" of a "hoax" were so "overwhelming", how come
nobody though of it until after a bad Hollywood flick?

Actually that is not true.
Here is a book that was published in 1976, two years before the movie was
released.

We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle

http://www.amazon.com/We-Never-Went-...87304875/sr=1-...

I stnad corrected. Bu this is even worse - Kaysing (the author) came
up with this drivel all by himself.

I think I had read the book, but it must have been over 10 years ago.
It included pictures and calculations using Newtonian physics to explain why
it was faked.
In some of the pictures he is saying "look this is where the lunar rover is
suppose to have first been, but we see its wheel tracks already there"

I think I saw a short done on the news or something many years ago about
this.

BTW, if you are really convinced that the Moon Landings were a hoax,
go ask Buzz Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he walked on the moon. The
last nit-wit to do that got a nice (and well-deserved) knuckle
sandwich from Aldrin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I suppose its the whole double the tape speed and it looks like
earth.

I suppose you don't know what the **** you are talking about?


How easy was it to fool people?

You mean when they fooled YOU???


Just bounce around, use the guy wires, have a small gas jet on your
pack,
at the top, in case the wires flash, have an antennae, you know make
it look
good, do retakes, go over everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbxkcEW3UYM

You can clearly see the wire just above his pack. If you know where to
look.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"schoenfeld.one" wrote in message
ups.com

Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Neil Armstrong shows extreme signs of guilt - the same kind criminals
display during interrogations.

Others have been saying that very same message ever since the very get
go, and then I finally emerged from the clutches of our status quo,
though only as of seven years ago, as having since contributed lots more
truths about our moon and of its L1 to share with all those interested
in making an honest difference.

Our government of mostly born-again lying puppets and of their religious
puppeteering liars are simply the well established status quo, just like
in them good old Third Reich days when the taking from others was just
good all around sportsmanship, even if it meant exterminating a few
million of their own kind.

So what's the difference, if we're still being continually lied to about
why the fuel efficient Lupo 3L w/turbodiesel and the Audi A2 are not
getting imported?

It seems that now these pesky Usenet MIB are into diverting if not
shutting down as much of my access to Mailgate/Usenet as possible, as
though somehow that's a viable tactic that's going to alter the truth
and nothing but the truth, and thus somehow save thy infomercial spewing
butts. Keeping such hot topics as this one off their publicly accessed
index page is also another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.

Perhaps Usenet needs a new robo-moderation policy of not allowing any
truths to being shared.

In addition to all that's clearly ongoing as having been officially
MI/NSA orchestrated, as taboo/nondisclosure (damage-control) about most
anything Venus, it seems there's still more bad news on the event
horizon that we can all use about our silly moon, which for damm good
reasons hasn't quite been walked upon.

NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax / banished from Mailgate

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2a2ea85ea88d70

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...smart&p=1/1963

If these pro-NASA folks accept their own fundamental notions that our
warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo expertise have photographed our moon's
physically dark terrain along with mother Earth as coexisting within the
same FOV, and especially interesting is of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic
range) as having rather easily recorded portions of our dark oceans that
are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1 (entirely similar enough as to the
moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive and somewhat blue/violet
peak spectrum as representing the nearby vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds, which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8
to work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what their naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.

Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or otherwise from those supposed
EVAs upon the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of
any other significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, yet
as though such entirely significant items that should have been easily
recorded were never once to be seen (especially odd as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).

As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained views of at
least those three missions (always within each of their command module's
orbital view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with apparently far better DR and of a wider spectrum
capability than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db
CCD could apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth
which only provided us with a rather naked looking and otherwise
somewhat pastel view of Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating
our physically dark moon, much less having shared upon any other
significant planets or stars that simply had to be there, yet all such
other items were getting artificially made as invisible/stealth as were
all of those Muslim WMD.

Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye,
which can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon all of the continual thermal trauma of
their having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also
coexisted, as coming at their naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding
directions in addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.

That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather ****
poor UV reflector because, such UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal buttloads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum lethal gauntlet of 3.14e6
m2 that's contributing the full secondary spectrum worth of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every physically more than boiling role of all that
sensitive Kodak film.

Wayne Throop:
If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
grain would still be exposed.

Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated (meaning w/o UV), whereas instead of their having
to deal with whatever the raw and nearly point source of the extremely
contrasty solar spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw
influx having unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the
near-UV and UV-a energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such
hocus-pocus artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of
mission associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a
scientific hoot.

Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket and still unproven lunar lander factors that simply do not
add up to what those pesky regular laws of physics and of replicated
science and of otherwise proven lander technology has to say.

Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop", "rick_so" and myself as your
pesky historical revisionist team, and otherwise truth telling
messengers from hell, must continually **** on your silly hocus-pocus
parade.
-
Brad Guth

Of a similar topic that's worthy of open disclosu
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources / banished from Mailgate

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...a52739c889bcc2

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/Pbb1h.956$CT5.551%40trnddc02?order=smart&p=1/469


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"rick_sobie" wrote in message
ups.com

pituee.

I fart in your general direction you lowlife lying cheating pompous
ass.

How dare you.

How dare you do this, to the young people of America.

Damn "rick_sobie", now you've gone and rocked their good ship LOLLIPOP.

BTW; they'll way out fart you on even a bad infomercial spewing
flatulence day, and then make each of us pay for all of that gas. So
for God's sake, don't stand downwind or much less light off a match
unless you can take cover.
-
Brad guth





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"rick_sobie" wrote in message
oups.com

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

w/o momemtum reaction wheels none the less. Otherwise without
sufficient fly-by-rocket computers either, thus all hand flown
down-range past all of those pesky mascon issues. Damn nifty fly by
your bulky moonsuit butt sort of trick, wouldn't you say?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Feb 26, 4:03 am, "Brad Guth" wrote:
"rick_sobie" wrote in message

oups.com

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

w/o momemtum reaction wheels none the less. Otherwise without
sufficient fly-by-rocket computers either, thus all hand flown
down-range past all of those pesky mascon issues. Damn nifty fly by
your bulky moonsuit butt sort of trick, wouldn't you say?
-

Downright impossible, I'd say and wouldn't these tiny pebbles have
been dislodged by the thrust needed to softly land what would be the
equivalent of 2700 pounds on earth?

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoa...11-40-5921.jpg

If you had a jet engine, and wanted to suspend a Volkswagen
Beetle, 3 feet off the ground, would the subsequent jet beneath said
beetle,
dislodge those pebbles?

Thats is what many are saying. That in order to support the weight
of the LM, with rover and junk they say it would make a crater,
in that lunar surface.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2002/02112....il1d2lsj.html

Well, you can just imagine, all the high res cameras going to the
moon next year and just how stupid, a lot of people are going
to look, when there is no sign of a flag, no tracks, from the rover,
no footprints, no pieces left behind from the LMs and
just a bunch of embarrassed looking people, in Washington,
trying to explain to the world about the cold war, and how
telling the people that by sending men to the moon,
somehow they made that better.
When in fact, they filled their pockets with dough,
for such things as hundreds of millions of dollars on a dune buggy,
6 billion, per LM, which is little more than a prop.
And etc.