BradGuth wrote:

There have long been multiple examples of our moon and Venus side by
side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
DR as was available to those NASA/Apollo missions.

When shooting the moon and Venus from within our atmosphere and
attempting to get some detail from the moon, the exposure is made for
the average luminance of the moon which therefore obviates shadow detail
of the kind necessary when shooting ON the moon. When on the moon,
exposures were made to include shadow detail. That puts the demands upon
dynamic range way beyond the films ability to render the tiny stars,
which are pinpoints in space, even with a lens twice the diagonal of the
film (~150mm) and so beyond the resolution of the other lenses it's not
worth discussing.

Also when shooting the moon with Venus in the frame from earth, each can
be significantly underexposed (lowering DR) and over-developed (lowering
DR further) and we still get an image because each is on the toe of
exposure. The point being that we aren't imaging detail, just small
samples which obviate all other detail.

The same occurs with digital.

On Jul 7, 12:45 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.
I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.

No you have not.

You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.

You've seen way too many comic books and Star Trek shows.

and episodes of "The X-Files", "In Search of..." ("based in part on
theory and conjecture" - in fact, it was based ENTIRELY on [wrong]
theory and conjecture), "The Night Stalker", "Capricorn One", the OJ
trial, ....

Sam Wormley wrote in
news:lcEji.1325$Xa3.1188@attbi_s22:

I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
image field. The fact is they were not.

We are waiting, Brad Guth, for you to cite credible data to the
contrary. I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data,
Guth!




This months Skeptical Enquirer has a good article showing images of some
stars in UV photos taken on a moon mission.

The earth is also in the UV photos.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

On Jul 7, 9:45 am, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.
I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.

No you have not.

You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.

You've seen way too many comic books and Star Trek shows.

You've bet your bottom dollar, haven't you.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 7, 10:02 am, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
There have long been multiple examples of ourmoonand Venus side by
side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
DR as was available to those NASA/Apollomissions.

When shooting themoonand Venus from within our atmosphere and
attempting to get some detail from themoon, the exposure is made for
the average luminance of themoonwhich therefore obviates shadow detail
of the kind necessary when shooting ON themoon. When on themoon,
exposures were made to include shadow detail. That puts the demands upon
dynamic range way beyond the films ability to render the tiny stars,
which are pinpoints in space, even with a lens twice the diagonal of the
film (~150mm) and so beyond the resolution of the other lenses it's not
worth discussing.

Also when shooting themoonwith Venus in the frame from earth, each can
be significantly underexposed (lowering DR) and over-developed (lowering
DR further) and we still get an image because each is on the toe of
exposure. The point being that we aren't imaging detail, just small
samples which obviate all other detail.

The same occurs with digital.

see! LLPOF, and then some.

My VGA cellphone camera has better DR than MESSENGER. Go figure.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 7, 10:51 am, The_Man wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:45 pm, pico wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.
I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.

No you have not.

You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.

You've seen way too many comic books and Star Trek shows.

and episodes of "The X-Files", "In Search of..." ("based in part on
theory and conjecture" - in fact, it was based ENTIRELY on [wrong]
theory and conjecture), "The Night Stalker", "Capricorn One", the OJ
trial, ....

And the Zion rusemasters of our hocus-pocus NASA and of all that's
Skull and Bones speak, with each of their butt-cheeks flapping in
their own intellectual infomercial spewed wind.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 7, 10:43 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 10:14 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
BradGuth
Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.
Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nastymoon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within thoseApolloEVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.
The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic chargedmoon.
As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anythingNASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from thatmoonis where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
BradGuth
Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
range of the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they
were not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
-
Brad Guth
I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Just down-load, install and run with most any good 3D interactive
solar system simulator. It'll put themoonand other planets exactly
where they were, hour by hour if need be, along with displaying such
items in their proper albedo.
Otherwise, contact Kodak Corporate for all the film expertise you'll
ever need, and then some. Then look at published images of ourmoon
along with other planets and even a few stars showing up within the
very same FOV and exposure.
Too bad Sirius was apparently hiding out along with Venus, as
otherwise the vibrant speck of Sirius would also have been rather
impressive on film.
-
Brad Guth
I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
image field. The fact is they were not.

We are waiting, Brad Guth, for you to cite credible data to the contrary.
I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put up or shut up.

What hocus-pocus solar system simulator software has our Venus and
other planets plus even a few stars invisible? (as hidden by what?)
-
Brad Guth

I agree whole heartedly... that you should put up or shut up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've been there and done that. Now it's your turn.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
\\
And the Zion rusemasters of our hocus-pocus NASA and of all that's
Skull and Bones speak, with each of their butt-cheeks flapping [...]

Thank your for seeding our nut-case rejection parser.

On Jul 7, 9:23 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

\\

And the Zion rusemasters of our hocus-pocus NASA and of all that's
Skull and Bones speak, with each of their butt-cheeks flapping [...]

Thank your for seeding our nut-case rejection parser.

Why are only Jews having a problem with this?
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 2:35 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 4, 5:38 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.

Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.

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?