On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> > To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:03 PM > Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote: > > http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- > stanley-kubrick-1747558774 > > > >Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an > >astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon > >landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The > >propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and > >published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all > >the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken > >in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to > >extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality > > 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. > in that era were > not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) > couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too. Jim Bell
