Re: Why the moon landing was a hoax - no jumps!

Jim Wilkins wrote:

> "Kualinar"  wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Seen from space, the stars are barely brighter than seen from the
> surface of the Earth. The main difference is that they don't twinkle as
> their light is not disturbed by the atmospheric turbulence.
> So, NO, the stars seen from space are NOT very bright.

> ------------------------------
> Stars are similar in visible light but brighter in the ultraviolet that
> our 
> atmosphere absorbs. Apollo 16 carried a camera sensitive to UV and took
> 
> plenty of star photos, with the camera shaded from sunlight by the LM.

> Notice that in the photo of Earth surrounded by stars the sunlit side
> of
> 
> Earth had to be heavily overexposed, as the dynamic range of film isn't
> wide 
> enough to capture both properly. The same would have happened to photos
> of 
> sunlit lunar landscapes if exposed long enough to capture stars, but
> they 
> were there to study the Moon, not to satisfy fools.

> https://lightsinthedark.com/2017/04/04/these-photos-taken-from-the-moon-show-lots-and-lots-of-stars/

2017, huh, anything can be done with CGI these days.
Point remains, the video films of 1969 were a joke and the photos of
1969 were far too good quality wise.\
Had they been jumping in the videos, and had the photos been smudged and
honest that way in 1969, there would be no so-called conspiracy
theories.
Jumping astronauts and honest bad photos would have been enough to
silence any crtics.
Alas, for the moral and intellectual cowardice of the 90% fools fooled
by the cunning tricky dicks at the top. Beyond help. 

Bertietaylor
>