Thanks for your Sirius and Venus feedback.
Though again, there's still a good deal of gibberish, at least the part suggesting upon that of said Kodak film, as applied in those same cameras and utilizing the very same optics that would have recorded the near-UV (black light) as if created here on Earth, as based upon a formulation of film emulsion that was specifically sensitive to the near-UV as devised as to tolerate perhaps at most 500 mw/m2 without such impact being noticeably/detectably skewed. Whereas upon the moon, where there's 64 watts/m2 to deal with, that same film product oddly didn't record squat. In fact, the entire spectrum range of red to deep blue was nearly exactly as created by artificial xenon illumination.
OK, so apparently it was the lack of an Van Allen zone, of the moon having no magnetosphere whatsoever, and of those arriving dust-bunny factors of 30+km/s that must have somehow compensated their photography.
I noticed how you didn't manage as to quote nor post a link to anything Kodak Corporate, or of any other information on photography.
BTW; outside of the rather extensive (70,000 km worth) Van Allen zone of death, at least according to NASA, it's actually worse off than where ISS cruises, and by a good factor of at least ten fold, if not 100 fold worse off, and that's without any secondary radiation contributions of hard X-Rays as coming off 1e6 m2 worth of the lunar surface, or of the entire lunar surface irradiating the orbiting command module. I believe the raw radiation density formula has something to do with the square of the distance, thus since there's no atmosphere or other external density between yourself and the moon, the closer you get, the more TBI you get.
As per this official NASA report:
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/radiation/docs/con_x_dose1.pdf where the below Van Allen zone is clearly specified, and even that's based upon orbiting behind Earth half of the time. So, please don't bother taking my word for anything.
BTW No.2;
I never insisted upon the natural course of evolution, or even creation, as I merely included such options only because of what others, that some folks actually admire, have shared as being possible. Whereas unlike "blackholesun" and his flat-Earth-society, whereas absolutely nothing is possible seems on the extreme rather than of founded upon good science.
BTW No.3;
I was in fact initially misinterpreting the NEC/Wang results, but not of their 310 fold differential that could only have been detected if the primary waveguide was slowed down. Thus it seems possible if that waveguide were replaced by another of not much less than "c", whereas there's clearly an indication that a secondary pulse of some quantum packet could be advanced along at somewhat greater than "c", as in those photons leaving the endpoint of the primary moving frame (that being the wavefront of the primary laser beam or waveguide).
BTW No.4;
If I have to point out the considerations for other life (not as we know it), as though I'm the bad guy, then I'm going to be that bad guy because, unlike yourself, I actually give a damn about humanity, even it it's other than Earth humanity.
blackholesun;
"I don't care how good you think you are at "Observationology". You're mind seems prone to seeing more into things than there really is. So why not buildings and airplanes in your mind? Staring at images for hours doesn't make them any more real. I want you to show not only on what part of Venus that was taken on but the altimeter data of the area plus your examples of other SAR images that fell under your "expert opinion"."
Obviously you do in fact care a great deal, as otherwise you wouldn't have bothered, as with most other topics that are not in conflict with your mainstream status quo that you haven't bothered to trash as opposed to thinking a little positive for a change. God forbid, we would want that to happen.
BTW; I do in fact see a number of buildings and such, in fact there's an entire community infrastructure of buildings, in that perhaps I'll come down to your level as to explain of what my "mind seems prone to seeing more into things than there really is" has to offer. I only focused upon the bridge attribute because it was one of the least complex items that should not have existed. Though I'll not create that "wall of words" at this time, but rather edit and/or create another external page on your behalf.