NASA Exposes Their Apollo Moon Landing Hoax!

[Duane Daman]

NASA exposes their

Apollo moon landing hoax!

20 June 2007

Was it an accident? Did they realize what they were doing? Or are some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?

The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be visible.

Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would be able to see stars while they were on the moon:

www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon? Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?

NASA has been claiming for decades that it is nearly impossible for astronauts to see stars, but now the Astronomy Picture of the Day admits that without an atmosphere, we would see stars even when the sun was shining.

Have you seen the Apollo press conference when Neil Armstrong and Mike Collins said they didn't see stars? The video is on this page:

www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html

What is going on?

The man who drew the picture is Jerry Lodriguss. He is a professional photographer, and his website is full of photographs of the universe:

www.astropix.com/INDEX.HTM

In Hufschmid's more detailed PDF file about the Apollo moon landing hoax, he mentioned this particular man on page 15:

www.EricHufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf

Hufschmid sent him an e-mail a couple years ago to "Get a clue!" Has Jerry Lodriguss finally figured out that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax? Or has he known it was a hoax for many years?

Why would NASA put this on their website and admit that stars would be seen during daytime when there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight?

Is it possible that people are starting to rebel against the corruption? Is it possible that people are tired of maintaining the Apollo moon landing hoax? Are American men finally behaving like men rather than frightened children?

Or didn't NASA realize what they were doing when they put this page on their site? Will this particular page be deleted as soon as they realize what they just did? Will they frantically struggle to devise a flimsy excuse to explain this page?

NASA to crash a probe into moon in 2008

They call it LCROSS. NASA wants to analyze the moon to see if there is water on it. Why don't they just analyze the hundreds of kilograms that they claim the Apollo astronauts brought back from the moon? NASA's excuse is that the astronauts only took samples near the surface! KQED has a video describing the LCROSS program:

http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/26

Moon Hoax- No Bright Stars/Venus above the lunar soundstage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCopNZzy3fw

The Apollo 16 UV Images could have been manufactured like the NASA photo of the day!

Neil Armstrong was telling a pack of lies at the Apollo 11 press conference by claiming he couldn't see 'stars' from the lunar surface, and Mike Collins who couldn't remember seeing any while photographing the solar corona during the journey. Its obvious from the nervous behaviour and ridiculous answer from Collins that they had been well warned to keep there mouths shut about stars!

No stars from the Cosmos

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QB94E-osQQw

Painting by Soviet Spacewalker Alexei Leonov of the daylight side of the Earth while in orbit with a clear view of 'stars'.

From his book- "Two Sides Of The Moon"

p105 "What I saw as the hatch opened took my breath away. Night was turning to day. The small portion of the Earth's surface I could see as I leant back was deep blue. The sky beyond the curving horizon was dark, illuminated with bright stars as I looked due south towards the South Pole. I cranked my neck back until it hurt. I wanted to see more. Moving at 18,000mph, the scene below me rapidly began to change. Very soon the outline of the African continent came into view."

From Phil Plaits BadAstronomy Moon Hoax Section- NO STARS IN **PICTURES**

" Bad: The first bit of actual evidence brought up is the lack of stars in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon. Without air, the sky is black, so where are the stars?

Good: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. ***If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.***

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and **take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!**"

Looking up at stars from a brightly lit sports stadium/under a streetlamp/city is NOT applicable because the air/atmosphere is also being illuminated. Not applicable explainations to compare with the atmosphereless vacuum of the Moon!

SOME stars would have shown up in the tv camera footage with no atmosphere to scatter sunlight reflecting on the equivalent of asphalt.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Jack White]

Duane...NASA equipped the command modules with STAR CHARTS next to

the windows for navigational purposes. I have a photo of one if you want

me to send it to you. Why a STAR CHART if they can't see stars?

Jack

[Evan Burton]

They used a sextant for backup navigation and confirming the accuracy of the onboard inertial guidance unit. The charts were used in case the computer failed to point the sextant to the correct star.

Apart from that, yes stars were visible from the CM; it gets mentioned a couple of times and I am pretty sure there is a thread about it here somewhere (I'll see if I can find it).

It should be made clear that no-one says the stars were not visible; it's just that with the camera exposure settings the stars did not appear on the film (except in one rare exception, where Venus - IIRC - can be faintly seen).

We often get fooled by the 'black sky' on the Moon and think of it being "night" whereas it was actually in full daylight (they landed during the lunar morning). There was a considerable amount of light.

[Evan Burton]

Here we go:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=85469

That post has a diagramme of the sextant and pictures of the star charts.

[Duane Daman]

It should be made clear that no-one says the stars were not visible; it's just that with the camera exposure settings the stars did not appear on the film (except in one rare exception, where Venus - IIRC - can be faintly seen).

Not true ... This is what Armstrong and Collins said about not seeing any stars on their mission .

Press question:

'When you looked up at the sky could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare ? "

Armstrong:

" We were NEVER able to SEE STARS on the lunar surface or on the dayside of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics ... Ah, I don't recall during the period of time while we were photographing the sloar corona what stars we could see . "

Collins :

I don't remember seeing any ."

No stars from the Cosmos

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QB94E-osQQw

[Evan Burton]

That was during Apollo 11... but IIRC, other astronauts did mention the stars. They certainly did during flight, and I think some mentioned seeing the stars from the lunar surface. I'll have to check on that and get back to you.

[Evan Burton]

Turns out I was wrong; no-one specifically mentions seeing the stars from the lunar surface. There are examples of mentioning the Earth, though, which I have included in the list below.

The list below are various discussions and quotes where the astronauts mention what stars they could see. Mostly they talk about seeing stars through the AOT (Alignment Optical Telescope)- a sextant like in the CM, but in the LM. It is taken from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

APOLLO 11

[buzz is at the end of the top paragraph on Sur-3. Houston will look over the proposed alignment before it is loaded.]

[Aldrin - "You've got the previous alignment in the AGS and you've just re-aligned the PGNS and, if that (new PGNS alignment) isn't very good, you don't want to screw up the one in the AGS. If it is (good), you store it in the AGS."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "The ideal was to get a gravity direction and then to do a two-star alignment and look at the torquing angles after the two-star check which would then give an indication as to what the drift had been since the last alignment. The initial gravity alignment, combined with the two-star alignment, would produce a new location of the landing site. (See below.) Had we landed straight ahead (instead of being yawed left 13 degrees), my intent was to use Rigel in the left detent number 6 and Capella in the right detent. The 13-degree yaw moved Capella out of the right-rear detent, but Rigel was in good shape there. That's the one I used first. I then selected Navi in number 4 detent, the right rear, and that wasn't particularly satisfactory. It was quite dim and it took a good bit longer than I had hoped to get the marks on that."]

[Contrary to Buzz's statement here, the alignment procedures gave no information about landing site location. Frank O'Brien adds, " The gravity alignment and stellar alignments performed the same function, namely, to align the IMU to a known attitude. In both cases, the attitude was determined with respect to two vectors: either two stars (a stellar alignment) or one star and the local vertical as indicated by gravity (a gravity alignment). Neither procedure was used to determine position, which was the purpose of the state vector."]

(snip)

103:22:04 Duke: Tranquility Base, Houston. If you have not done so, please close both Fuel and Ox vents now. Over.

103:22:17 Armstrong: They're closed.

103:22:18 Duke: Thank you, sir. (Long Pause)

103:22:30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful. Buzz is going to give a try at seeing some stars through the optics.

103:22:54 Duke: Roger, Tranquility. We understand. Must be a beautiful sight. Over.

[Comm Break]

[buzz is about to do a platform alignment using the Alignment Optical Telescope ( AOT) to do star sightings. Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside. I asked the 11 crew if they had made any such experiment.]

[Armstrong - "I don't recall doing it on the surface. We tried a good bit inside."]

[Aldrin - "I guess I wouldn't have given it any hope at all."]

[Armstrong - "There was a thought that, if you could look through a tube, you would probably be able to see stars. I don't remember that we tried anything like that."]

[Aldrin - "You could see them in the AOT, which was sort of like that."]

[Armstrong - "Which was just one power (meaning a telescope with no magnification)."]

[A related question is whether or not stellar images could have been captured in any of the lunar surface photography. A discussion from Sky and Telescope Editor Dennis di Ciccio is linked here.

APOLLO 12

115:54:26 Conrad: Al, can you find the Earth? Where's the Earth? Oh, there it is. I can see it. Hello there, Earth. (TV still)

[Earth is in the eastern sky at an azimuth of 84.8 degrees and an elevation of 60.8 degrees. Only a thin cresent is lit ( 80k ), with part of Antractica visible on the right and the entrance to the Persian Gulf visible on the left. Image from Starry Night.]

APOLLO 16

125:56:33 Young: Because I can't make it. (Hearing Tony) Okay, Reset; Mark. 258, 64.

125:56:40 England: Rog. (Long Pause)

125:57:11 Duke: Man, that (UV camera) is some contraption, John. (Long Pause)

125:57:34 Young: 258 and 64, Houston.

125:57:37 England: Okay, fine. We'd like you to get on in then.

125:57:42 Young: Okay. That's not looking at anything that I recognize. (Long Pause)

[AZ258 and EL64 do not correspond to any of the targets listed on the UV camera decal. Because the lunar surface is so bright, he is probably not able to see any stars and, therefore, would not be commenting on his aim relative to the constellations.]

(snip)

[Jones - "Could you see stars out in the shadow?"]

[Duke - "No. The only thing that was visible was the Sun and the Earth. The UV camera was just looking up into the heavens all the time, to me; and I don't know what they were looking at. We didn't take the time to dark adapt."]

[A related question is whether or not stellar images could have been captured in any of the lunar surface photography. All of the photos taken out on the surface were taken at an exposure of 1/250th of a second at f/8 or f/11. The two film types were SO 368 Ektachrome MS color-reversal film ASA 64 and 2485 black and white film, ASA 6000. Sky and Telescope Senior Editor Dennis di Cicco states, "Sirius and a few other bright stars might actually be bright enough to have recorded on the exposures, but the images would be impossibly small and hard to find on the original negatives. Furthermore, when such a negative was printed to show the foreground properly, it certainly would not have shown the star(s)" di Cicco notes that it would be easy to perform such an experiment on Earth. "Go out at night with a similar setup used for the lunar photos and take a similar exposure of bright stars. Develop the film and see if you can find any star images. Then, have the negative printed with an exposure that would be proper for a normally exposed daylight negative. I am confident that you'll never, ever see a star on the print!"]

[Duane Daman]

None of that explains why the Apollo astronauts didn't change the exposure settings on the camera on at least ONE of the alleged Moon trips and fill a magazine with stars above the overexposed lunar surface ... And since a tripod stand is standard photographic equipment , why didn't they take one on at least one mission to photograph the solar corona while suppossedly standing on the Moon ?

Can Stars be seen

on the Moon during the Day?

You probably know why the earth's sky is blue during the day.

What would the moon's sky look like to an astronaut during the day?

A) Black, but full of bright stars.

So full of sunlight reflected from the moon's surface and from the earth that no stars can be seen.

C) Black, but the stars would be too dim for the astronauts to see through their tinted helmets.

D) None of the above.

NASA claims the correct answer is B. When asked why none of the astronauts talked about the stars, NASA scientists respond with remarks such as:

"stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface"

That remark is at: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/images13.html

Is NASA Telling the Truth?

Or is the Truth in the box below?

The Moon’s Sky is Black

and full of Bright Stars

When an astronaut looks up at the stars, how could sunlight enter his eyes? If the moon’s sky is not black, what color is it? And how do you explain the vacuum of space having a color?

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?

Can You Figure Out if NASA is Telling Us the Truth?

Were the Apollo Moon Landings a Fake?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

[Craig Lamson]

Just so we can understand your level of knowlege here, exactly WHAT exposure setting would YOU recommend for taking star photogrpahs with iso160 film?

[Duane Daman]

How does the surface of the moon

affect the reflection of sunlight?

Part 1; A smooth surface

Assume the Apollo astronauts took light sensors to the moon (similar to the light meters that professional photographers use) to measure the intensity of the sunlight.

The sensor at location A is facing the sun, so it will receive 100% of the sunlight.

The sensors at locations B and C will measure reflected light.

If the moon was a smooth, polished sphere of granite, what percent of the reflected light would reach sensors B and C?

Assume the sun is at an angle of 30°, as shown in this diagram.

Assume sensors A and B are also 30°, but rotated as shown.

Sensor C is only a few degrees from horizontal, as an astronaut's eyes might be if were looking at the horizon.

Astronaut George Bush has his back to the sun in this drawing.

What percentage of the sunlight will enter his eyes?

Will so much sunlight enter his eyes that he is unable to see the stars in the sky?

Part 2; An uneven surface of crushed rocks

Sensor A is facing the sun, so it will receive 100% of the sunlight, just as in Part 1 of this Science Challenge.

What percent of the reflected light would reach sensors B and C?

The Astronaut has his back to the sun.

Is NASA correct that the reflected light is so intense that he cannot see the stars?

Would an astronaut on the moon be amazed at the brightness of the surface, or the darkness of the surface?

Can you figure out if NASA is lying to us?

Were the Apollo moon landings a fake?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_25.html

[Craig Lamson]

How much light does the moon reflect?

Take a look at a full moon...how much light is being reflected?

Take look at full moon in a dark sky area and observe how much ligh it casts all around you. How may stars can you see compared to a moonless night?

Finally take your light meter and find the quanity of light reflected from a full moon. Now calculate the quanity of light reflected from the surface of the moon using the law of the inverse square.

Now...will the reflected light from the surface of he moon keep an astronauts eyes stopped down to the point he cannot see stars in the lunar sky?

[Duane Daman]

How much light does the moon reflect?

Take a look at a full moon...how much light is being reflected?

Take look at full moon in a dark sky area and observe how much ligh it casts all around you. How may stars can you see compared to a moonless night?

Finally take your light meter and find the quanity of light reflected from a full moon. Now calculate the quanity of light reflected from the surface of the moon using the law of the inverse square.

Now...will the reflected light from the surface of he moon keep an astronauts eyes stopped down to the point he cannot see stars in the lunar sky?

How much light does the moon reflect?

The Moons albedo is on average 7% ... I.E. its as reflective as dark grey asphalt!

Take a look at a full moon...how much light is being reflected?

No relevance... The Apollo missions all allegedly landed and EVAd during the lunar morning

Take look at full moon in a dark sky area and observe how much ligh it casts all around you. How may stars can you see compared to a moonless night?

Again No Relevance ... During a full moon the light is being reflected directly back towards us and that light is ILLUMINATING the atmosphere distorting ones view- absolutely nothing to do with being on a planet with no atmosphere WHATSOEVER!

Finally take your light meter and find the quanity of light reflected from a full moon. Now calculate the quanity of light reflected from the surface of the moon using the law of the inverse square.

Again not relevant and not a comparison when standing on an airless planetary body!

Now...will the reflected light from the surface of he moon keep an astronauts eyes stopped down to the point he cannot see stars in the lunar sky

If only 7% average of light is being reflected back from the surface and that 7% is not scattering in an atmosphere then any Astro-nots will have no trouble dark adjusting to see millions of not twinkleling points of light in a pitch black lunar sky!

[Craig Lamson]

How much light does the moon reflect?

(Duane in bold)

The Moons albedo is on average 7% ... I.E. its as reflective as dark grey asphalt!

False

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

"A lot of confusing statements are made about the albedo of the moon. The moon is, according to various accounts, "darker than blacktop" or "darker than a black sheet of construction paper." A generous person might characterize statements like these as damned lies. Neither blacktop or construction paper have the special characteristics of the moon. Besides, both materials can be found in colors that actually range from light gray to nearly black, so unless you specify a brand of construction paper, or a particular mile of highway, the assertion is next to meaningless even if it weren't untrue.

Albedo is given in a variety of definitions, and the blacktop analogy is the result of the abuse of a couple of such definitions. Without knowing the definition that is used, its impossible to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. The simplest version of albedo is the Lambert albedo. A Lambert surface is one which scatters light isotropically - in other words, an equal intensity of light is scattered in all directions; it doesn't matter whether you measure it from directly above the surface or off to the side. The photometer will give you the same reading.

........

The original definition of albedo, proposed by Bond, is the ratio of total solar radiation scattered from a body to the radiation incident upon it. The Bond albedo of the moon is 11%. But limiting this figure to V-band radiation produces quite a different value. The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon is 7.2%.

This is what has led to the often repeated statement that the moon is blacker than even very black terrestrial materials. Flocked paper, often used in light traps and as telescope darkening material, has an albedo of about 6%, for example. But the low Bond albedo of 7.2% is the result of the porous upper layers, which cast shadows over a substantial percentage of the visible surface. No common terrestrial material has a similar layer, so it isn't useful for comparison purposes. So the black construction paper theory and the asphalt theory simply have to be abandoned.Another definition is the visual geometric albedo, which is the proportion of visible light received from an illuminated body at zero phase angle to that which would be received by a Lambert surface in the same position. For the moon, the full moon problem again intrudes. The visual geometric albedo of the full moon is 12.5%, but much less at other phases.

Because it is very difficult to measure this value, the visual geometric albedo at 5% phase angle is often used instead. That should be self-explanatory; the value for the moon is about 8.4%. But it can't be used to compare with terrestrial materials for the same reason the Bond albedo cannot.

Yet another definition - and by far the most useful for observers - is the visual normal albedo. This is the ratio between the brightness of a given area of an illuminated body at zero phase angle and oriented normal to the incident light, to that of a plane white Lambert surface similarly oriented. But normal incidence is never seen from earth (remember, the moon would be eclipsed), so they've introduced the "normal albedo at 5% phase angle" instead - which is a contradiction in terms, but I suppose we know what it is supposed to mean.

The following is a list of the "visual normal albedo at 5% phase angle" of various lunar features. These numbers can be used to directly compare to terrestrial surfaces (reference cited below):

Darkest areas: 8.6%

Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%

Plato's floor: 9.6%

Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%

Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%

Nectaris: 11.4%

Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%

Arzachel: 17%

Tycho ejecta: 20%

Aristarchus: 20%

Aristarchus interior: 22%

Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%

Proclus E wall: 28%

Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30% "

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

Take a look at a full moon...how much light is being reflected?

No relevance... The Apollo missions all allegedly landed and EVAd during the lunar morning

Quite relevent. You are attempting to find the value of light reflected from the surface of the moon. YOU are on earth.

Take look at full moon in a dark sky area and observe how much ligh it casts all around you. How may stars can you see compared to a moonless night?

Again No Relevance ... During a full moon the light is being reflected directly back towards us and that light is ILLUMINATING the atmosphere distorting ones view- absolutely nothing to do with being on a planet with no atmosphere WHATSOEVER!

Again totally relevant. The atmosphere does NOT INCREASE the amount of lihgt reaching the earths surface. Also on very clear nights the atmosphere is quite transparent. This is a well known fact amoung astronomers. Finally, it the QUANITY of the moon light that makes seeing stars more difficult.

Finally take your light meter and find the quanity of light reflected from a full moon. Now calculate the quanity of light reflected from the surface of the moon using the law of the inverse square.

Again not relevant and not a comparison when standing on an airless planetary body!

Once again quite relevant. You want ot figure the amount of lihgt that can be reflected from the lunar surface. Again YOU are on earth. Light refected from the moon makes its way to earh. The quanity of that light can be measured. Lihgt behaves in a very predictable manner. Lihgt is subject to the law of the inverse square.

Now...will the reflected light from the surface of he moon keep an astronauts eyes stopped down to the point he cannot see stars in the lunar sky

If only 7% average of light is being reflected back from the surface and that 7% is not scattering in an atmosphere then any Astro-nots will have no trouble dark adjusting to see millions of not twinkleling points of light in a pitch black lunar sky!

We now know that 7% is a false figure.

But lets work this out.

Taking your diagram that shows the sun at the astronauts back, the standard BASIC exposure for a photograph taken in a sun down direction is 1/250 @ f11. A basic exposure for showing stars is 30 seconds @f2.8. Lets conpute how much LESS light there is. First some basic knowlege, a reduction of the lihgt passing through the lens one photographic stop cuts the light reaching the in HALF. If we reduce that one more stop , its cuts the one half ...in half again.

Reduction via f-stop - 5 stops

Reduction via shutterspeed - 11 stops

Total light reduction is 16 stops. That mean the AMOUNT OF LIGHT AVAILABE TO IMAGE STARS is the standard lunar exposures reduced BY HALF 16 TIMES!

SO... can the reflected light from the lunar surface make it impossible for an astronaut to see stars in the lunar sky? YES!

Edited September 30, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Just so we can understand your level of knowlege here, exactly WHAT exposure setting would YOU recommend for taking star photogrpahs with iso160 film?

This is obviously a "trick" question. Any photographer knows that

taking photos of stars is not a matter of exposure setting (f-stop)

but TIME setting...using a cable release with the camera on

a tripod and the aperture at the most wide open that allows maximum

sharpness. A meter reading is impossible. I have never taken "star"

photos, but BRACKETING would be the best bet, regardless of film

speed. I would first shoot and develop a TEST ROLL, bracketed

by exposure time in seconds to determine the best time range to

leave the shutter open.

Strictly a guess depending on several factors, but I would guess

about 20-30 seconds open shutter might get a good exposure.

The bracketed test roll would give a good starting point.

Jack

[Duane Daman]

Nice tap dance ... but while you were practicing for your recital , you just debunked this nasa astronomer ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

and also your hero Phil Plait , the bad nasa astronomer .

Phil Plaits BadAstronomy Website- NO STARS IN *PICTURES* - Moon hoax de-bunking section!

" The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day. "

I will post a more detailed rebuttal later when have more time .