BradGuth wrote:

No it absolutely DOES NOT. Consumer film is made to approximate the
human eye's color response. There are a couple colors that the eye does
not 'see' properly, depending upon adjacencies and background, but it
doesn't matter whether it's IRL or on a print.

That's very Jewspeak LLPOF, especially about the film utilized by our
not so rad-hard NASA/Apollo rusemasters

You are one sick **** who cannot answer a question without revealing the
fog that replaces his space for knowledge or reason. Answer the
question, idiot.

In sci.math, jj
stop.right.there.net
wrote
on Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:30:34 -0500
:
BradGuth wrote:

No it absolutely DOES NOT. Consumer film is made to approximate the
human eye's color response. There are a couple colors that the eye does
not 'see' properly, depending upon adjacencies and background, but it
doesn't matter whether it's IRL or on a print.

That's very Jewspeak LLPOF, especially about the film utilized by our
not so rad-hard NASA/Apollo rusemasters

You are one sick **** who cannot answer a question without revealing the
fog that replaces his space for knowledge or reason. Answer the
question, idiot.

I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether any NASA pic
pointed to a bright enough star (or to Venus, Brad's main
point of contention) -- and NASA took a *lot* of pictures.

There are a number of factors in proper picture taking,
especially of stars, but the brief answer is that various
photographs require hours to expose in order to show the
stars and the trees framing them properly, here on Earth,
during a dark, moonless night well away from city lighting.
However, a snapshot of a sunny beach day could be done
within a few thousandths of a second (any longer and the
film gets overexposed).

Since on the Moon the stars are visible even when the Sun
is shining (if one isn't overcome by glare; presumably
one could step into the shadow of something, say the LEM,
if need be), one might take a photograph of the stars
while the Sun is shining -- but if one gets sunlight,
either directly (as poor Bean discovered) or indirectly,
if the camera doesn't want to risk overexposure of the
film and/or video sensor from the sunlight, the stars
are too faint to see, and if one wants to see stars,
any reflected sunlight will either burn out the camera or
overexpose the picture in those areas.

I doubt Venus is much better off, though it at least
shows a perceptible disk through binoculars. Pointed at
the Sun, those same binocs would probably burn out one's
retina, were one to look at the Sun through said binocs.
(This is especially important during a partial eclipse;
fortunately most binocs and telescopes can also project
the Sun's image onto a white surface.)

SOHO shows a mildly interesting phenomenon when staring
at a comet; the comet "blooms" in the sensors, leading to
odd-looking streaks.

--
#191,
Linux sucks efficiently, but Windows just blows around
a lot of hot air and vapor.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 11, 12:02 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether any NASA pic
pointed to a bright enough star (or to Venus, Brad's main
point of contention) -- and NASA took a *lot* of pictures.

Not only from those EVAs but otherwise from nearby orbit, and of
somehow excluding Venus that was in fact nearby and looking good, yet
oddly there's never any sign of good old and extremely bright Venus
(brighter than pixels or film grains worth of mother Earth), or of
anything else that could easily have been within the given DR of all
that apparently rad-hard Kodak film that oddly can't be directly
viewed by any good digital scanner because, such film as having
survived our moon obviously doesn't exist.

Got any good SWAG of an idea as to why their moon's surface was so
unusually guano island albedo like (seemingly dusted with portland
cement and perhaps cornmeal), and otherwise so gosh darn xenon arc
lamp spectrum illuminated?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 8, 11:04 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
This is assuming we don't boost a telescope to low earth orbit
with sufficient resolving power to see the flag dropped by
Apollo 11. (That would take some doing. A resolution of 2.6
picoradians or 107 nanoarcseconds would be necessary, in order
to resolve features 1mm on the lunar surface. The best the
Hubble can do is 100 milliarcseconds, which means Hubble
could see features about 1 km in size. It might be able
to photograph the plume left by each lander by its rockets,
but it might be hard to see.)

KECK can manage to push 1 meter/pixel if doing it my way. A few other
terrestrial instruments could do as well or better. A small orbital
satellite at the moon should have accomplished as good as 0.1 meter,
as of decades ago. Interactive science instruments from the lunar
surface should have been the norm as of nearly 5 decades ago, and of
multiple instruments deployed ever since, instead of our having the
sorts of hocus pocus crapolla that you folks worship.

Where's our moon's L1 science platform or "Clarke Station"?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 10, 8:30 pm, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
No it absolutely DOES NOT. Consumer film is made to approximate the
human eye's color response. There are a couple colors that the eye does
not 'see' properly, depending upon adjacencies and background, but it
doesn't matter whether it's IRL or on a print.

That's very Jewspeak LLPOF, especially about the film utilized by our
not so rad-hard NASA/Apollo rusemasters

You are one sick **** who cannot answer a question without revealing the
fog that replaces his space for knowledge or reason. Answer the
question, idiot.

Why are Jews of the Zion swarm so upset about sharing the truth?

A moon camera needs one heck of a UVa cut-off filter. Sorry about
that. It also needs shielding from local gamma and hard-Xrays. The
double IR/FIR situation is just a little extra icying on the roasted
to death cake. The highly electrostatic environment of that
physically dark and dusty anticathode moon is simply asking too much
of most any camera, or much less that of human DNA.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 8, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

[...]

So how do we prove that we were up there on Luna to
Brad Guth? Possibly the only method that might work
is dumping him up there and letting him see for himself
the rovers, landers, and other such stuff. (Of course
I'd send him up there with a space suit, and a way back.
I'm nasty but not vicious. :-) )

Then he gets to prove it to the other skeptics. :-)

[...]

In the late 50's, the radiation level of the low earth orbit (LEO) has
already been identified as 10 RADs/year or so. During the 60's, Van
Allen Belts radiation has been identified as high as 100M RADs/year.
What was unknown was the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts.
So, NASA assumed it to be relatively as benign as LEO. The Apollo
missions on paper were designed to meet just this low level of
radiation. The capsules have shielding of 0.3g/cm^2 which means the
astronauts are naked to any radiation.

Yes, we were told and shown on stage that these guys actually went
there. In the meantime, the Mariners and the Viking deep space probes
were flown with very short mission life span. NASA quickly found out
the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts to be a very serious
issue. Communication satellites in the geosynchronous orbits since
the early 70's have to survive at least 200K RADs of radiation. So do
the next generation of deep space probes such as the Voyager I and
II. Voyager probes last for decades with consideration in radiation

With cats out of the bag, NASA continued to play dumb. In one hand,
they are requiring electronics to survive in such intense radiation
beyond the Van Allen Belts. On the other hand, they are still
standing by the dose rate of each astronaut received during a whole
lunar mission in accordance to 10 RADs per year.

So, the existence of the Voyagers and the Apollo missions contradict
each other. To accept one, you must reject the validity of the other
one. Since there are no controversial claims to the achievements of
the Voyagers, I must conclude the Apollo mission being a hoax.
Indeed, there are a lot of suggestions to indicate it being a hoax.

For a good chuckle, go he http://moon.google.com/
Then push the slide all the way to maximum "+"

I laughed out loud!

BradGuth wrote:
[...] Interactive science instruments from the lunar
surface should have been the norm as of nearly 5 decades ago

Like in October, 1957? Sputnik? That was the level of technology - very
low, short-lived earth orbit.

Now, how would Guth the Engineer Superbeing of all time have done it then?

BradGuth wrote:

A moon camera needs one heck of a UVa cut-off filter.

They used regular Zeiss lenses which, like almost all lenses, do not
transmit UV efficiently. To accomodate UV photography with film, one
needs a special lens, usually with Quartz in the formula... and a UV
sensitive film! They had neither.

However, filters would be no problem. Look at the material of the face
shields.

It also needs shielding from local gamma and hard-Xrays.

Not much at all was needed. First, the level of X-Rays is quite low.
Gamma rays are not frequent enough for the time they were there to
accumulate to a significant level.

The highly electrostatic environment of that
physically dark and dusty anticathode moon is simply asking too much
of most any camera, or much less that of human DNA.

Once on the moon, they are the charge. No problem.

So much for your uninformed imagination.

On Jul 4, 8:38 pm, wrote:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm