The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 00:55:11 PST 2015
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:19:13 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> To: cypherpunks at cpunks.org
> Cc: jim bell <jdb10987 at 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 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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
What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x
5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
> "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of
> dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell
More information about the cypherpunks