BradGuth wrote:

I'm terribly sorry to say those nifty Zeiss optics were not otherwise
custom spectrum band-pass filtered with other than standard though
quality coatings,

They really don't need extraordinary filtering because the film was not
particularly UV (nor IR) sensitive. It was routine in color printing to
warm up images that go rather blue from a lack of atmospheric red, for
example pictures made at altitude.

but they were outfitted with an extra polarised
element which should have made their local terrain record as somewhat
50% darker,

Ever heard of a filter-factor? One adjusts the exposure to obviate
underexposure.

[...] many of them stars being 3 to 4 times as bright to the unfiltered
Kodak eye

What is a "Kodak eye"?

since you refuzed to answer my allegation --
just as you continauously proffer the bizarre thing
about stars, taht anyone who has ever worked
in a darkroom knows!

thus:
I was nine years old during the alleged landing, and
I still believe; see Bucky's _Critical Path_ exegesis on the
technological arch,
which certainly includes film & television.

another ponderable hoax would be,
what if men are *still* on Moon, only
"they" are not televizing it too regularly?

I believe that this may be the substratum
to a lot of Dick Hoagland's schtick with the Face on Mars,
Domes on Moon, Howitzers (tm) in the Rover pix etc.;
a kind of pleading to get your telescope out, and look,
a la the Harry Potter weekly astronomy class.

even better, to construt your own scope (but
the algorithm to do that, that used to be on The New Federalist
website ain't there,
no mo .-)

if the Wright Bros. hadn't understood _The Bicycle Wheel_
(by Jobst Brand), they would never have flown ****.

One has to wonder, if almost all of the worlds population including
the supposed "intelligent" few in the scientific community believe the
complete myth that man landed on the moon 7 times just 40 years ago,
what other commonly held beliefs are also complete lies? Is the whole
historical record nothing but mere mythology?

thus:
as shown in _The Bicycle Wheel_,
the spokes act as columns, however that actually works
on a turning wheel under a rider if not maximally
when the spoke is closest to the ground,
due to great prestressing (or some thing .-)

thus:
mine is a lot simpler & analogous
to the trilateral ineq.
(we uncovered this in a Buckafka Fullofit maillist,
which has since been made more private;
one of the correspondents spent some hours
to derive it by programming,
which was kinda strange .-)...
I am still not sure,
how many sets of the the basic tetrahedral inequality,
it has to satisfy, but probably six.

thus:
ah, this looks like a good exercise
for comprehending "absolute value" function,
as well as of the trilateral inequality....

| x - y | = | |x| - |y| |
means these two things:
| x - y | = |x| - |y|
| x - y | = |y| - |x|

thus:
in Sudan, Iran and possibly all other once and
future British quagmires.... Belize, Canada, Trinidad
AND Tobago; when we get there,
be sure to ask if it's more than one country, and
did we miss Trinidad andOR Tobago?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...tary? mode=PF

thus:
look, up in the sky -- it's Googoltude (TM) ?!?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf


--n~nerfman~n!

Dear quasi:

"quasi" wrote in message
...
....
But I have a few simple, naive questions ...

(1) A rocket ship supposedly brought the astronauts
to the moon and back. This much history I know. I
don't think anyone disputes that a rocket ship left the
earth.

Yes, many actually claim we cannot get outisde the "protective
shield" of the Van Allen belts.

The controversy relates to where it went and whether
or not there were astronauts inside. Right so far?

The controversy is about mining email addresses to send spam to.

(2) Wasn't the rocket ship continually emitting
radio signals? If so, couldn't the trajectory of the ship
have been tracked by independent labs, all over the
world?

Yes, and it was. In fact, not much happened "in clear view" of
Houston. It *required* a global effort to get the data "back
home".

(3) Presumably, the main ship

.... the command module ...

stayed in orbit around the moon, while the
astronauts descended to the moon in a smaller
ship.

.... the LEM of Lunar Excursion Module ...

The large ship would have had to be far enough
away from the moon so that the orbit would be
self-sustaining with minimal or no power. How
far away from the moon would the orbit have to
have been, as a minimum?

Usually around 50 miles. With some insertions to about 12 miles.
Or was that kilometers? ;)

At the end of the moon exploration, the small
ship then took off from the moon,

... half of it. The massive landing engine stayed behind.

joining up with the big ship, right? The small ship
would have required sufficient liftoff power to
escape the moon's gravity, at least sufficient to
return to the large ship. How much power would
have been needed? There's no Cape Canaveral on
the moon, so it better be fairly low.

It is and was. And since no amount of "hovering" or "hanging
around" was required to find a landing spot, this engine needed
only lift them "straight up".

(4) Navigating from the main ship to the moon
seems fairly straightforward -- it's a big target and
there's gravity to help out. Navigating back
seems problematic. The main ship orbiting the
moon is traveling how fast, approximately?

Fast enough. It had enough energy to make it to the Moon from
the Earth, and had to dump some to stay in orbit.

Seems like attempting to join up with the fast
moving main ship is not so easy, not to mention
dangerous. If the small ship can get into a similar
orbit, with similar speed, then maybe it could
work. But the extra speed would have required
even more liftoff power, no?

No. Much less "iron" being lifted.

Alternatively, the main ship could have been remotely
commanded to slow down so as to make it possible
for the slower small ship to join easily. But at the
slower speed, the final liftoff of the big ship back to
earth would then require a lot of power. Could there
have been enough?

Room to spare.

How does one explain away these apparent problems?

That there is no atmosphere, that the ships had been getting
progressively lighter as mission consumables were consumed, they
only had to worry about the mass of the Moon, and the rocket
science is what these folks studied.

But it doesn't matter, because the conspiracists suckered in yet
another...

David A. Smith

On Jul 14, 10:37 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
I'm terribly sorry to say those nifty Zeiss optics were not otherwise
custom spectrum band-pass filtered with other than standard though
quality coatings,

They really don't need extraordinary filtering because the film was not
particularly UV (nor IR) sensitive. It was routine in color printing to
warm up images that go rather blue from a lack of atmospheric red, for
example pictures made at altitude.

but they were outfitted with an extra polarised
element which should have made their local terrain record as somewhat
50% darker,

Ever heard of a filter-factor? One adjusts the exposure to obviate
underexposure.

[...] many of them stars being 3 to 4 times as bright to the unfiltered
Kodak eye

What is a "Kodak eye"?

A Kodak eye is an all-knowing eye, that's as true to recording a wide
range of raw photons as could be accomplished at the time. Actually
such film under deep digital scan is still offering one of the best
and most sensitive methods of obtaining good photon science. Too bad
that NASA/Apollo film doesn't exist.

Ever heard of what's anticathode and what's not?

Ever heard of the raw peak solar spectrum? (our naked moon gets well
over 2 kw/m2)

OOPS! I forgot that Yiddish rusemasters and naysayers like yourself
are such incest born-again liars.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 14, 8:46 pm, quasi wrote:
Common sense tells me not to even touch this thread, but curiosity has
got the better of me.

I'm going to ask a few simple questions, but first, some disclaimers.

(1) I know almost no physics.

(2) I know nothing about photography.

(3) I know almost nothing of the history of space exploration.

(4) I know very little general history or politics -- it took 9-11 to
wake me up. However, the job of separating false from true in history
and politics is not an easy one, and while I've made some progress in
the last few years, I've probably fallen further behind.

With the above qualifications out of the way, I'll state my initial
bias, and then I'll ask a few questions.

My initial bias, with regard to the "moon hoax controversy", is
against a hoax, based on a few simple principles. I'm almost certain
these principles have all already been discussed. For sure, I know the
first has.

(1) How could such a conspiracy have been kept a secret? How many
people within and outside of NASA would have had to be part of it, or
at least directly aware of it? How could so many people be silenced
for so long? Even with fear of retribution, if the number of people
who can reliably testify is too large, then at some point, isn't it
likely that someone would have blown the whistle?

(2) Assuming a hoax, wouldn't the Soviet Union have had to know about
it? For that matter, what about other scientists and observers in
other countries? Wouldn't they have been able to see through a hoax?
Why wasn't there an immediate public objection from some of these
outside sources?

Ok, so the above explains my predisposition against a hoax.

But I have a few simple, naive questions ...

(1) A rocket ship supposedly brought the astronauts to the moon and
back. This much history I know. I don't think anyone disputes that a
rocket ship left the earth. The controversy relates to where it went
and whether or not there were astronauts inside. Right so far?

(2) Wasn't the rocket ship continually emitting radio signals? If so,
couldn't the trajectory of the ship have been tracked by independent
labs, all over the world?

(3) Presumably, the main ship stayed in orbit around the moon, while
the astronauts descended to the moon in a smaller ship. The large ship
would have had to be far enough away from the moon so that the orbit
would be self-sustaining with minimal or no power. How far away from
the moon would the orbit have to have been, as a minimum? At the end
of the moon exploration, the small ship then took off from the moon,
joining up with the big ship, right? The small ship would have
required sufficient liftoff power to escape the moon's gravity, at
least sufficient to return to the large ship. How much power would
have been needed? There's no Cape Canaveral on the moon, so it better
be fairly low.

(4) Navigating from the main ship to the moon seems fairly
straightforward -- it's a big target and there's gravity to help out.
Navigating back seems problematic. The main ship orbiting the moon is
traveling how fast, approximately? Seems like attempting to join up
with the fast moving main ship is not so easy, not to mention
dangerous. If the small ship can get into a similar orbit, with
similar speed, then maybe it could work. But the extra speed would
have required even more liftoff power, no? Alternatively, the main
ship could have been remotely commanded to slow down so as to make it
possible for the slower small ship to join easily. But at the slower
speed, the final liftoff of the big ship back to earth would then
require a lot of power. Could there have been enough?

How does one explain away these apparent problems?

quasi

You're being way too soft and kind, as well as seriously dumbfounded
past the point of no return.

Trust me on this, these NASA/Apollo Yids still don't have "the right
stuff" for accomplishing our moon.

Besides, where's Venus?
-
Brad Guth

Common sense tells me not to even touch this thread, but curiosity has
got the better of me.

I'm going to ask a few simple questions, but first, some disclaimers.

(1) I know almost no physics.

(2) I know nothing about photography.

(3) I know almost nothing of the history of space exploration.

(4) I know very little general history or politics -- it took 9-11 to
wake me up. However, the job of separating false from true in history
and politics is not an easy one, and while I've made some progress in
the last few years, I've probably fallen further behind.

With the above qualifications out of the way, I'll state my initial
bias, and then I'll ask a few questions.

My initial bias, with regard to the "moon hoax controversy", is
against a hoax, based on a few simple principles. I'm almost certain
these principles have all already been discussed. For sure, I know the
first has.

(1) How could such a conspiracy have been kept a secret? How many
people within and outside of NASA would have had to be part of it, or
at least directly aware of it? How could so many people be silenced
for so long? Even with fear of retribution, if the number of people
who can reliably testify is too large, then at some point, isn't it
likely that someone would have blown the whistle?

(2) Assuming a hoax, wouldn't the Soviet Union have had to know about
it? For that matter, what about other scientists and observers in
other countries? Wouldn't they have been able to see through a hoax?
Why wasn't there an immediate public objection from some of these
outside sources?

Ok, so the above explains my predisposition against a hoax.

But I have a few simple, naive questions ...

(1) A rocket ship supposedly brought the astronauts to the moon and
back. This much history I know. I don't think anyone disputes that a
rocket ship left the earth. The controversy relates to where it went
and whether or not there were astronauts inside. Right so far?

(2) Wasn't the rocket ship continually emitting radio signals? If so,
couldn't the trajectory of the ship have been tracked by independent
labs, all over the world?

(3) Presumably, the main ship stayed in orbit around the moon, while
the astronauts descended to the moon in a smaller ship. The large ship
would have had to be far enough away from the moon so that the orbit
would be self-sustaining with minimal or no power. How far away from
the moon would the orbit have to have been, as a minimum? At the end
of the moon exploration, the small ship then took off from the moon,
joining up with the big ship, right? The small ship would have
required sufficient liftoff power to escape the moon's gravity, at
least sufficient to return to the large ship. How much power would
have been needed? There's no Cape Canaveral on the moon, so it better
be fairly low.

(4) Navigating from the main ship to the moon seems fairly
straightforward -- it's a big target and there's gravity to help out.
Navigating back seems problematic. The main ship orbiting the moon is
traveling how fast, approximately? Seems like attempting to join up
with the fast moving main ship is not so easy, not to mention
dangerous. If the small ship can get into a similar orbit, with
similar speed, then maybe it could work. But the extra speed would
have required even more liftoff power, no? Alternatively, the main
ship could have been remotely commanded to slow down so as to make it
possible for the slower small ship to join easily. But at the slower
speed, the final liftoff of the big ship back to earth would then
require a lot of power. Could there have been enough?

How does one explain away these apparent problems?

quasi

In sci.math, quasi

wrote
on Sat, 14 Jul 2007 22:46:51 -0500
:
Common sense tells me not to even touch this thread, but curiosity has
got the better of me.

I'm going to ask a few simple questions, but first, some disclaimers.

(1) I know almost no physics.

(2) I know nothing about photography.

(3) I know almost nothing of the history of space exploration.

(4) I know very little general history or politics -- it took 9-11 to
wake me up. However, the job of separating false from true in history
and politics is not an easy one, and while I've made some progress in
the last few years, I've probably fallen further behind.

With the above qualifications out of the way, I'll state my initial
bias, and then I'll ask a few questions.

My initial bias, with regard to the "moon hoax controversy", is
against a hoax, based on a few simple principles. I'm almost certain
these principles have all already been discussed. For sure, I know the
first has.

(1) How could such a conspiracy have been kept a secret? How many
people within and outside of NASA would have had to be part of it, or
at least directly aware of it? How could so many people be silenced
for so long? Even with fear of retribution, if the number of people
who can reliably testify is too large, then at some point, isn't it
likely that someone would have blown the whistle?

Yes, that's what Brad Guth is doing -- blowing the whistle. Clearly,
he's the only one that knows exactly what NASA is doing, and presumably
why they are doing it. (More likely, it's an issue with the
military-industrial-aeronautical complex, but I've not nailed him down
sufficiently on that issue. Not that it matters all that much.)


(2) Assuming a hoax, wouldn't the Soviet Union have had to know about
it? For that matter, what about other scientists and observers in
other countries? Wouldn't they have been able to see through a hoax?
Why wasn't there an immediate public objection from some of these
outside sources?

That's what the Red Phone was for -- to ensure that the USSR was
consistently informed about conspiracies. (The stated reason, of
course, was for missile launches -- a laudable goal, once the
USSR sufficiently developed nuclear-tipped ICBMs.)


Ok, so the above explains my predisposition against a hoax.

But I have a few simple, naive questions ...

(1) A rocket ship supposedly brought the astronauts to the moon and
back. This much history I know. I don't think anyone disputes that a
rocket ship left the earth. The controversy relates to where it went
and whether or not there were astronauts inside. Right so far?

The dispute is in fact that there was a real rocket ship at
all, and of course if there was no rocket ship, no trip
ever took place -- after all, Brad is of the opinion
that NASA knew the Moon was both salty, and deadly.
The Saturn V, admittedly, did exist -- and still does,
in places such as the Smithsonian. Presumably, Brad is
of the opinion that it's all for show.

Oh yes, the Moon is also the primary source for
Global Warming. Anyone disputing any of this, of course,
is in league with evil forces stemming apparently from
Jews or something. (Why Jews get picked on so often is
far from clear to me. To be sure, they are indeed the
chosen people -- they are chosen to be picked on by a lot
of other non-Jews, sometimes to disastrous effect.)

And yes, Brad seems to think I'm in league with ... them.

One of his more interesting proposals: a billion-ton
mass on the Moon's far side, pulling it -- somehow --
using gravitational forces. The problems with this
proposal should be fairly obvious.


(2) Wasn't the rocket ship continually emitting radio signals? If so,
couldn't the trajectory of the ship have been tracked by independent
labs, all over the world?

They were in on the conspiracy, as were the thousands of
hams and amateur astronomers who captured pictures and/or
saw the rocket. This includes Apollo 13.


(3) Presumably, the main ship stayed in orbit around the moon, while
the astronauts descended to the moon in a smaller ship.

Depends on the mission. Apollo 7 in particular never left
Earth orbit (or so goes the standard explanation, anyway).

The large ship
would have had to be far enough away from the moon so that the orbit
would be self-sustaining with minimal or no power. How far away from
the moon would the orbit have to have been, as a minimum? At the end
of the moon exploration, the small ship then took off from the moon,
joining up with the big ship, right? The small ship would have
required sufficient liftoff power to escape the moon's gravity, at
least sufficient to return to the large ship. How much power would
have been needed? There's no Cape Canaveral on the moon, so it better
be fairly low.

Bear in mind that the Moon's "g" is 1/6th that of Earth. Therefore,
performance requirements for escape velocity from the Moon are far less
stringent.

Not that it matters; Brad Guth is of the opinion that the
Moon is anticathode, and therefore deadly to life, even
life encapsulated within a space suit. You are welcome, of
course, to ask him what "anticathode" means in this context
-- a cathode, after all, merely means a negatively-charged
electrode in some sort of a circuit, usually involving a
thermionic valve (tube) or a semiconductor component such
as a pn-junction diode.

(There are some issues regarding Luna's gamma radiation, though
not sufficient to be lethal.)

This is not to say there weren't risks. The Apollo
missions were lucky; the astronauts could have been fried
by a solar flare. That they weren't is sheer luck.
The Van Allen belts weren't all that pleasant, but they
aren't all that thick, either, and the astronauts were
flying though it pretty fast.


(4) Navigating from the main ship to the moon seems fairly
straightforward -- it's a big target and there's gravity to help out.

Not as straightforward as one might think -- though it's
probably not that bad, it's merely tricky. However,
the "1201/1202" problem is fairly well documented -- the
computers back then being extremely primitive compared to
today's units.

Navigating back seems problematic. The main ship orbiting the moon is
traveling how fast, approximately? Seems like attempting to join up
with the fast moving main ship is not so easy, not to mention
dangerous. If the small ship can get into a similar orbit, with
similar speed, then maybe it could work. But the extra speed would
have required even more liftoff power, no? Alternatively, the main
ship could have been remotely commanded to slow down so as to make it
possible for the slower small ship to join easily. But at the slower
speed, the final liftoff of the big ship back to earth would then
require a lot of power. Could there have been enough?

I'd have to work it out. The good news: v_o = sqrt(g * r), with g
approximately G * m / r^2 with G = 6.67 * 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2,
m = 7.35 * 10^22 kg, and r = 1.738 * 10^6 m;
one gets v_o = 1.68 km/s. Since exhaust velocity is 2.5 km/s
for chemical rockets, that's easily met, since
v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f) -- the Rocket Equation.
Propellant-to-payload mass ratio can therefore be as low
as exp(1.68/2.5) = 1.96, as opposed to that required
for Earthly takeoff, which would be on the order of
exp(7.91/2.5) = 23.6 : 1 for orbit, and
exp(11.18/2.5) = 87.5 : 1 to escape Earth's gravitational pull
(v_escape = sqrt(2 * g * r)).

In practice, of course, there was probably a bit of a safety margin.

That 87.5 is the reason the Saturn V is multistage.
A fuel tank needs structural rigidity, which means that
propellant-to-payload ratio can only go so far.


How does one explain away these apparent problems?

quasi


--
#191,
Insert random misquote here.

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

"quasi" wrote in message
...
: Common sense tells me not to even touch this thread, but curiosity has
: got the better of me.
:
: I'm going to ask a few simple questions, but first, some disclaimers.
:
: (1) I know almost no physics.
:
: (2) I know nothing about photography.
:
: (3) I know almost nothing of the history of space exploration.
:
: (4) I know very little general history or politics -- it took 9-11 to
: wake me up. However, the job of separating false from true in history
: and politics is not an easy one, and while I've made some progress in
: the last few years, I've probably fallen further behind.
:
: With the above qualifications out of the way, I'll state my initial
: bias, and then I'll ask a few questions.
:
: My initial bias, with regard to the "moon hoax controversy", is
: against a hoax, based on a few simple principles. I'm almost certain
: these principles have all already been discussed. For sure, I know the
: first has.
:
: (1) How could such a conspiracy have been kept a secret? How many
: people within and outside of NASA would have had to be part of it, or
: at least directly aware of it? How could so many people be silenced
: for so long? Even with fear of retribution, if the number of people
: who can reliably testify is too large, then at some point, isn't it
: likely that someone would have blown the whistle?
:
: (2) Assuming a hoax, wouldn't the Soviet Union have had to know about
: it? For that matter, what about other scientists and observers in
: other countries? Wouldn't they have been able to see through a hoax?
: Why wasn't there an immediate public objection from some of these
: outside sources?
:
: Ok, so the above explains my predisposition against a hoax.


Very sensible. The huxters are those that squeal hoax the most.

:
: But I have a few simple, naive questions ...
:
: (1) A rocket ship supposedly brought the astronauts to the moon and
: back. This much history I know. I don't think anyone disputes that a
: rocket ship left the earth. The controversy relates to where it went
: and whether or not there were astronauts inside. Right so far?

What controversy?

:
: (2) Wasn't the rocket ship continually emitting radio signals? If so,
: couldn't the trajectory of the ship have been tracked by independent
: labs, all over the world?

Yes, although "lab" is hardly a description for Kettering Grammar School,
which tracked Sputnik 1 in 1957.


:
: (3) Presumably, the main ship stayed in orbit around the moon,


The command module, yes.

: while the astronauts descended to the moon in a smaller ship.

Two, Armstrong and Aldrin, did that in the LEM, or Lunar
Excursion Module. The third, Collins, stayed in orbit around
the Moon. These guys were all fighter jockeys, people willing
to go into combat riding fast machines to get their thrills. There
was no shortage of willing volunteers to go to the Moon,
whatever the risk.


: The large ship
: would have had to be far enough away from the moon so that the orbit
: would be self-sustaining with minimal or no power. How far away from
: the moon would the orbit have to have been, as a minimum?

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Rendezvous.html

The minimum would be to graze the surface, but that would
be unnecessarily dangerous since the surface has craters.

: At the end
: of the moon exploration, the small ship then took off from the moon,
: joining up with the big ship, right?

LEM joined CM, yes.

: The small ship would have
: required sufficient liftoff power to escape the moon's gravity, at
: least sufficient to return to the large ship. How much power would
: have been needed? There's no Cape Canaveral on the moon, so it better
: be fairly low.

http://lemonodor.com/images/llrv-photo-s.jpg

The Harrier's Rolls Royce "Pegasus" engine produces 23,000 lb
of thrust.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...av8/av8_02.jpg

Once the thust matches the weight of the plane, any more
causes vertical acceleration. The LEM weighs 1/6th of its weight
on Earth due to lower Lunar gravity, so plenty of thrust was
available.
For comparison, consider that the Saturn V weighed over 6,000,000 lbs
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm

1958 August 6 - Launch Vehicle: Saturn V.
a.. Rocketdyne gets F-1 engine contract. Nation: USA. Program: Apollo.
Rocketdyne Division of North American announced an Air Force contract for a
1-million-pound thrust engine.
: (4) Navigating from the main ship to the moon seems fairly
: straightforward -- it's a big target and there's gravity to help out.
: Navigating back seems problematic. The main ship orbiting the moon is
: traveling how fast, approximately?


: Seems like attempting to join up
: with the fast moving main ship is not so easy, not to mention
: dangerous.

Yes, and no. ALL motion is relative, so its as dangerous as
two cars travelling side-by-side at the same speed and jumping
from one to the other. It doesn't matter if both cars are standing
still or both are doing 100 mph, their relative speed is zero.


If the small ship can get into a similar orbit, with
: similar speed, then maybe it could work.

It DID work, not "maybe". The docking manouvre was
practiced in Earth orbit before Apollo X1.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/.../apollo-9.html

Armstrong was the first man to step on the Moon,
he was not the first to go there.

Apollo VIII went to the moon and returned without landing.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo8/Apollo8.html


: But the extra speed would
: have required even more liftoff power, no?

Plenty available, those engines are powerful.

: Alternatively, the main
: ship could have been remotely commanded to slow down so as to make it
: possible for the slower small ship to join easily.

Remotely?
Collins was aboard, and no, he did not "slow down". That would
cause the command module to fall toward the Moon.

: But at the slower
: speed, the final liftoff of the big ship back to earth would then
: require a lot of power. Could there have been enough?
:
: How does one explain away these apparent problems?
:
Easily. They are only apparent because you made assumptions.

BradGuth wrote:

What is a "Kodak eye"?

A Kodak eye is an all-knowing eye, that's as true to recording a wide
range of raw photons as could be accomplished at the time.

Which simply means they had rather ordinary film which is not UV or IR
sensitive. The more exotic film was the super-fast B&W film of the time,
what we called a "Recording Film". It has extended red sensitivity, a
thick emulsion on a very thin estar base. I used it in the sixties.

Ever heard of what's anticathode and what's not?

One of the serious problems with film in a humidity-free environment is
static that will 'spark' across the film, ruining much of the exposure.
NASA minimized this by adding a semitransparent conductive coating to
the film side of the fiduciary-marking plate. The edges of the plate
were copper-clad to drain electrical discharges.

Oh, and there's your other filter.

Ever heard of the raw peak solar spectrum? (our naked moon gets well
over 2 kw/m2)

So what? The film is not sensitive but to a narrow spectrum.

OOPS! I forgot that Yiddish rusemasters and naysayers like yourself
are such incest born-again liars.

We can pretty much depend upon you kooks to self-identify like that.

On Jul 5, 10:38 am, 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.


NOTE: Beware of iamthewitness.com site. It may be another deception
site. That Apollo article may be the type of deception used to make
those who believe the landings were a hoax to keep believing it, and
those who believe it was authentic to keep believing it was authentic.
In a way making both sides happy, but increasing the sites credibility
to those who understand it is a hoax.

There is much better evidence for the hoax case, including non-
parallel shadows and anomalies in the motion of the astronauts, among
other things.