The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

juan juan.g71 at
Mon Dec 14 14:54:50 PST 2015

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at> wrote:

> But if you open up the aperture (a variable-diameter shutter designed
> to allow more, or less, area for light to come in and expose the
> film), and perhaps if you increased the shutter-speed from, say,
> 1/1000 second to maybe 10 seconds (and putting the camera on a tripod
> to ensure it doesn't move), THEN you will be able to photograph
> stars.

	Truth is I used to take pictures and print/develop them...a
	long time ago (I still have some b/w paper lying around). I
	partially overlooked the exposure time issue because I was
	assuming that the fact that the moon has no atmosphere somehow
	made a substantial difference. 

	Anyway, the moon pictures that had people or landscapes in them
	can't show the stars, but it is still possible to take
	pictures of the stars from the moon, with a little care. Are
	there any such pictures from the 60s? (then again, pictures of
	a starry sky wouldn't prove that there were any people
	on the moon...)

> >    What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x
> >    5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
> That should be easy.  And it would be far easier if built onto that
> object are some microwave-sized  "corner cubes reflectors"
> ,

	Yes, interesting objects. I knew that cat's eyes have that

	So putting corner reflectors on an object makes it easier to
	track it, but it doesn't say anything about how easy it is in
	absolute terms?

	A search for "apollo corner reflectors radar" doesn't bring
	anything as far as I can see. Only references to optical
	reflectors on the moon.

> which have the
> peculiar property of sending radar (or light, etc) directly back in
> the direction from which it came.  Optical corner-cubes are easy to
> find:  They are on the backs of cars, and are used as visual
> retroreflectors on roads.  They are much better than Scotchlite
> , which is
> made from tiny glass spheres. Jim Bell 
> >
> > "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 mailing list