On Feb 25, 1:48 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

You have apparently never taken a photograph using anything other than
a "point and shoot" camera.

I admit. It has been a long time.

It has NOTHING to do with focus, but
everything to do with APERATURE and exposure.

I am still trapped in the mind of physics-thinking.

The foreground on the
moon is extremely bright, the stars are extremely faint. To avoid
overexposing the astronaut in the foreground, you have to "stop down".

Now, it is coming back.

If you don't know what "stopping down" is, you should shut the **** up
and learn something before slandering others.

I do know what "stopping down" mean. So, wise-ass photographer who
wants to be a physicist, do you know the exposure of that photograph?
If you don't know what that exposure is, you should shut the f*ck up
and research more before smearing your foul droppings at anyone.

If the aperature (the
opening) tom the camera is too wide open, too much light comes in and
overexpsoes the film (you get all white). When you stop down, you get
less light, so you can't pick up the light from faintly bright stars.

Now, it has all come back.

You get EXACTLY the ame results when taking photographs near water,
sand, or snow, all of which reflect lots of light. To avoid
overexposure, you stop down, and then your subject (usually a person),
is in silhouette. And this is a PERSON in sunlight, not a distant
star, and you STILL can't see their face.

Yes, I do agree.

Still the dolts come up with these "Why can't you see the stars?"
arguments that a 3 year old could counter. Jeez.

However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done? My not-yet-3-year-old baby girl
is smarter than you are. She just asked me why the moon changes its
shaper over time.

On Feb 25, 10:00 pm, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:48 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

You have apparently never taken a photograph using anything other than
a "point and shoot" camera.

I admit. It has been a long time.

It has NOTHING to do with focus, but
everything to do with APERATURE and exposure.

I am still trapped in the mind of physics-thinking.

The foreground on the
moon is extremely bright, the stars are extremely faint. To avoid
overexposing the astronaut in the foreground, you have to "stop down".

Now, it is coming back.

If you don't know what "stopping down" is, you should shut the **** up
and learn something before slandering others.

I do know what "stopping down" mean. So, wise-ass photographer who
wants to be a physicist, do you know the exposure of that photograph?

Pretty much the same as daytime on Earth: sunlit landscape. Using a
100 ASA film it would be something like 1/250 sec. at f/8 or so. No
stars would register at this EV (exposure value).
[...]
However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done?

Because the normal practice for precious negatives like Moon shots,
classic Hollywood films, the negatives of Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc.
etc., is to handle them as little as possible.

--
Jan Bielawski

On Feb 25, 4:39 pm, "The_Man" wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:27 pm, wrote:

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?

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.

Not quite. There are more in the recent history of mankind. Mostly
political including the relativity theories.

"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?

Yes, I do care if it is a fraud or not. This is part of scientific
exploration we are talking about. It should leave no room for fraud.
When I was a kid, Armstrong was my greatest hero. I loved that phrase
"one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind". Now, that
phrase is more like "one fraudulent step for me, one phantom leap for
mankind". Finding out the evidences just do not agree with what
reality is would just make me angry. I do not want to fancy
fraudulent heroes. If you have a problem with that, you don't have to
call anyone else who do idiots. Go worship a cockroach as a hero if
you like. What is the difference?

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.

All these claims are very cheap. Use your f*cked brain for a change.

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?

There are more. How much do you know about radiation beyond the Van
Allen Belts?

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?

With your attitude, the Chinese might be the first to land a man on
the moon in 4 decades.

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?

This point is irrefutable so far.

being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?

It must be a very difficult thing to do, yes.

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?

Have you personally tried on these suits?

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

These programs do not deal with the LEM. shrug

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?

Why don't you go ask the aerospace engineers responsible for that?

Do you need more proof than that?

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

The whole thing just don't make any sense.

On Feb 25, 2:52 pm, "Don Stockbauer"
wrote:

"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:

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A LUNATIC POSTING AT SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY.

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.

HOUSTON, THIS LUNATIC IS ROYALLY F*CKED UP.

On Feb 25, 10:21 pm, "JanPB" wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:00 pm, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

I do know what "stopping down" mean. So, wise-ass photographer who
wants to be a physicist, do you know the exposure of that photograph?

Pretty much the same as daytime on Earth: sunlit landscape. Using a
100 ASA film it would be something like 1/250 sec. at f/8 or so. No
stars would register at this EV (exposure value).
[...]

I have no doubt that you are an expert on this. However, there are so
many variables in this scenario. It is a very weak one for the ones
who side with the moon-hoax anyway.

However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done?

Because the normal practice for precious negatives like Moon shots,
classic Hollywood films, the negatives of Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc.
etc., is to handle them as little as possible.

You got a good point there. Thanks.

On Feb 26, 1:38 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Pretty much the same as daytime on Earth: sunlit landscape. Using a
100 ASA film it would be something like 1/250 sec. at f/8 or so. No
stars would register at this EV (exposure value).
[...]

I have no doubt that you are an expert on this. However, there are so
many variables in this scenario. It is a very weak one for the ones
who side with the moon-hoax anyway.


Does the lack of stars in these photographs prove they are fake?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

On Feb 26, 8:27 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
................................
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.

All these claims are very cheap. Use your f*cked brain for a change.

************************************************** **********************************
Ok Koobee, so allow me to ask you this: what will YOU call "a
conclusive proof" that NASA indeed reached the moon in 1969 , and that
a man walked on the moon? If moon rocks, testimonies, pics and etc.
are "very cheap claims" to you, what will convince you that it REALLY
took place?
I mean, let us know so that people won't waste his time referring you
to evidence that you find "cheap"....
************************************************** **********************************
.................................................. .................
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?

This point is irrefutable so far.

************************************************** ************************************
And again here, Koobee: why is it "irrefutable" that NASA put people
on orbit, but NOT that it actually put men on the moon?? What makes
you accept the fact that people's orbited the Earth? And what's the
difference with the rather galore evidence that men walked on the
moon? Why one is "irrefutable" and the other is doubtable, for you?
Regards
Tonio
************************************************** ***********************************


being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?

It must be a very difficult thing to do, yes.

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?

Have you personally tried on these suits?

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

These programs do not deal with the LEM. shrug

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?

Why don't you go ask the aerospace engineers responsible for that?

Do you need more proof than that?

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

The whole thing just don't make any sense.

In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:48 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

snip

However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done? My not-yet-3-year-old baby girl
is smarter than you are. She just asked me why the moon changes its
shaper over time.

You can over develop film to a certain degree which has the same effect
(almost) as increasing the exposure.

However, you can only develop film once. You are thirty years too late.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"rick_sobie" wrote in message
ups.com

Religions have essentially told our government(s) and of those in
support of such (usually for whatever profit) what they can get away
with. It's that simple.

Whenever things are not going just right, again it's the cult like
and/or born-again religious factor that's behind most all of the cloak
and dagger crapolla. It's like a finishing school where you get your
cloak and dagger masters degrees in ****ology-101 through ****ology-666.

Science reports whatever their mainstream religious cult allows, and the
Old Testament following is still one of the toughest nuts to crack (I
believe it's much worse than anything Islamic/Muslim).

JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's portions of that hard to find JFK Speech on Secret
Societies and Freedom of the Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU.

As we continually take advantage of others and that of further trashing
our badly failing environment, as seemingly without a speck of remorse,
is why we get ourselves into those nifty wars for profit that are
publicly blamed upon just about anything but the truth.
-
Brad Guth


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

On Feb 26, 1:27 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:39 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:27 pm, wrote:
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?
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.

Not quite. There are more in the recent history of mankind. Mostly
political including the relativity theories.

"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?

Yes, I do care if it is a fraud or not.

Yes; if it is a fraud, then you can feel better about you being a
complete nothing, who has accomplished nothing in his life, and can't
even understand the minimal basics of photography.

This is part of scientific
exploration we are talking about. It should leave no room for fraud.
When I was a kid, Armstrong was my greatest hero. I loved that phrase
"one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind". Now, that
phrase is more like "one fraudulent step for me, one phantom leap for
mankind". Finding out the evidences just do not agree with what
reality is would just make me angry. I do not want to fancy
fraudulent heroes. If you have a problem with that, you don't have to
call anyone else who do idiots. Go worship a cockroach as a hero if
you like. What is the difference?

Worship a cockroach - like YOU?


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.

All these claims are very cheap. Use your f*cked brain for a change.

These claims are "cheap"? And nonsense about not seeing stars, and the
LEM door being too small, or the space suits being too small, are well
thought out?


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?

There are more. How much do you know about radiation beyond the Van
Allen Belts?

Yes. more than you. It is easy to find interviews with Van Allen
HIMSELF. He died just last year. They specifically asked about that
point. He said that it would NOT be fatal for astronauts, so long as
they didn;t STAY in the belts. On the way to the moon, they go THROUGH
them in a bout 1 hour. **** you, dolt.

But what is the point? That no one would go to the moon because
radiation would make it dangerous? You gotta ****ing be kidding me.
Space travel, with or without the moon, is the single most dangerous
evndeavour of human beings. Just going into earth orbit has killed
many astronauts in very nasty ways. Most of the early astronauts were
test pilots, the NEXT most dangerous occupation other than space
travel.

I can see it now...

"Mr. Smith - you can be the first man to walk on the moon. How a bout
it?"
"No sir, it would be DANGEROUS!!!!!!!"

That is why there no Islamic suicide bombers... suicide bombing is
impossible, because it is TOO DANGEROUS.

That is why no countries on earth have armies - fighting in a war
could get you KILLED! God damn, that is DANGEROUS!!!!

I know it is too dangerous for you to take a **** every day, but REAL
MEN are willing to accept danger, unlike pussies like you. Rather than
accept that you are a cowardly and stupid pussy, you denigrate men who
you are unworthy to be in the same country with.


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?

With your attitude, the Chinese might be the first to land a man on
the moon in 4 decades.

So you mention whistelbnlower footage, but all you mean are pictures
of a very old and very shy Neil Armstrong allegely looking "guilty".
Do you think O.J. looks guilty?


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.

When people are talking about "It was just too small", that wasn't
engineers that was women describing your Johnson.


Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?

This point is irrefutable so far.

Why? Isn't there radiation in low earth orbit? How come the space
suits for the earth missions fit right, but they accidentally made the
space suits for the lubar missions too small? How about space walks?
Were the doors wide enough for EVA? Bet you didn;t know that the first
space walks were so hastily planned, that the astronauts (and
cosmonauts) involved nearly died, because they couldn't get BACK into
the capsule, having nothing to hold onto. The American was in such bad
shape, that Mission Control told his partnet that if he could not get
back into the capsule, to just close the door on him.


being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?

It must be a very difficult thing to do, yes.

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?

Have you personally tried on these suits?

I saw the suits at the Smithsonian. They looked quite reasonable in
size.

Oh, I get it now....

"The suits don't fit - you must ACQUIT!!!!!!"


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

These programs do not deal with the LEM. shrug

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?

Why don't you go ask the aerospace engineers responsible for that?

In other words, even your cock and bull story makes no sense at all.
You mean the same aerosapce engineers who were too stupid to make the
space suits the right size, so stupid that their errors were detected
by a dolt like you, who can;t even take a photograph?



Do you need more proof than that?

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

The whole thing just don't make any sense.

The first thing we agree on.