Thrifty @ Oct 31 2009, 06:02 AM wrote:
terbates 4 Oct 31 2009, 04:59 AM wrote:
How is it that other countries were watching the Apollo missions, when ALL the alleged missions occurred on the far side of the moon?
Or the constant pix of astro-NOTS with the sun shooting from the back and yet we see full frontal detail of them when it should be in the shade.
Perhaps you could clue us in on how emulsion film survived not only the temperature shifts on the moon but survived the Van Allen Belts twice?
Why do you think
the missions occurred on
the far side? I have never seen this claim before from anyone.
One of
the basic things that photographers learn when setting up a shot is fill light. Fill light can be reflected from most any surface. It does not have to be a highly reflective surface.
The moon's surface reflects enough light to provide some fill. It certainly lights up
the night sky a lot when it is full.
The nuclear power industry used to use film badges to record radiation exposure. This meant they used film that had varying sensitivities to radiation. If all photographic film was ruined by exposure to some unspecified dose of radiation, then
the use of film badges would have been a waste of time.
The key to asking your radiation/film question (not answering it) is to determine how much radiation
the film is exposed to, then determine how much it takes to fog or otherwise damage it. Got that data for us? It is available. It has to be to determine that
the film was not up to
the task. I need this in your question. Thanks.
You shouldn't really post without knowing what you're talking about, unless you would like to claim you've been mislead all these years.
1. It's a known fact never been up for questioning where
the alleged landing sites were; you need to look at a map of those alleged sites, they were ALL claimed to be on
the far side of
the moon. Look it up.
2. You said "watching"
the Apollo missions, not tracking. And if you now want to change your story into things regarding Australians watching "telementery" data not actually watching us, you probably don't want to dig that can of worms up; there's too many holes in that ship to sail after all these years!
3. You may be too young to understand
the silver film world back then; if so, you would have have
the experiences some of us have had with film fogging. And remember, we are talking about gamma rays here also in a constant bombardment state from 1K to 20K miles out from launch both ways. You would know how little fogging can affect exposed film.
4. There has never been any logging of astro-nots setting up reflectors to take pictures; you are grasping at straws, a lot of
the face mask pictures of
the alleged shots would show
the lite source pin points.
When you are ready for more of my hundred questions I have let me know; you should probably shit can your answers so far to
the first ones you responded to.
