On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:19:13 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Cc: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: [clipped]
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes
I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.
Again, not surprising. Take a picture of a (non-sun) star, with a small-lens camera (under 50 inch objective) and that star should appear as a point source of light, if the camera is well-focussed. Even then, the amount of light hitting that analog "pixel" is probably vastly lower than a camera aiming at a nearby surface illuminated by earth's Sun, as would be seen on the Moon by an astronaut taking a picture.
Oh, ok. So in principle the stars were underexposed to the point of not showing up on film. On the other hand, if you point a camera at the sky, on the moon, during the lunar night, shouldn't you be able to get...something? What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell