You are making a false analogy assuming the studio light reflected from the soft suit that would never protect you from being in zero air pressure is equivalent to pointing a camera at a bright light.
There are thousands of fake photos and not one shows any stars or hint of stars. Again, it is impossible to fake the complex array of stars so they just make the background blank and tell religious zealots a story why they cannot be seen.
There should be stars in the background as they would be very bright. Since the concept of "space" as described by the satanic pedophiles is impossible according to physics, a sane person would just assume the pedos are lying.
There is a device called a "light meter".... It can objectively measure the brightness of an object.
Put a white suit in direct sun light.... And point the light meter at the suit.
Then point the same light meter at a street light at night...
The suit will be brighter....
Dynamic range means the camera has to select which area of the image it's focusing on. It can either capture the detail in the dark areas, at the expense of turning the light areas all white. Or it can capture the light areas, at the expense of turning the dark areas all black.
It can not photograph both at the same time because that's not how cameras work.
Let me explain again, none of their fake thousands of photos have any stars in the background, there are plenty of times where there would be photos taken that have nothing in the frame accept "space" which would show billions of super bright stars.
Besides this, it is possible to see bright lights in the background even though a bright object is in the foreground. You are taking a valid concept of lens/camera dynamics and twisting it to protect your religion.
You have been duped with an idiotic fraud that breaks the laws of physics.
Besides this, it is possible to see bright lights in the background even though a bright object is in the foreground.
Stars are not "bright lights".... They are so dim you have to sit in total darkness for 20+ mins in order for your pupils to adjust enough to get a good view of them.
Try viewing daylight with dilated pupils... You'll go blind.
Get it? It's not even close to the same level of brightness. They are so far apart your eyes have to physically adjust to protect you from injury.
You can keep manufacturing excuses for your failed religion but it does not change the fact that stars should be visible when there is nothing else in the frame. Just admit you were told idiotic Jesuit lies and you believed it, it's time to move on into reality.
You are making a false analogy assuming the studio light reflected from the soft suit that would never protect you from being in zero air pressure is equivalent to pointing a camera at a bright light.
There are thousands of fake photos and not one shows any stars or hint of stars. Again, it is impossible to fake the complex array of stars so they just make the background blank and tell religious zealots a story why they cannot be seen.
There should be stars in the background as they would be very bright. Since the concept of "space" as described by the satanic pedophiles is impossible according to physics, a sane person would just assume the pedos are lying.
Let me explain it again...
There is a device called a "light meter".... It can objectively measure the brightness of an object.
Put a white suit in direct sun light.... And point the light meter at the suit.
Then point the same light meter at a street light at night...
The suit will be brighter....
Dynamic range means the camera has to select which area of the image it's focusing on. It can either capture the detail in the dark areas, at the expense of turning the light areas all white. Or it can capture the light areas, at the expense of turning the dark areas all black.
It can not photograph both at the same time because that's not how cameras work.
Let me explain again, none of their fake thousands of photos have any stars in the background, there are plenty of times where there would be photos taken that have nothing in the frame accept "space" which would show billions of super bright stars.
Besides this, it is possible to see bright lights in the background even though a bright object is in the foreground. You are taking a valid concept of lens/camera dynamics and twisting it to protect your religion.
You have been duped with an idiotic fraud that breaks the laws of physics.
Stars are not "bright lights".... They are so dim you have to sit in total darkness for 20+ mins in order for your pupils to adjust enough to get a good view of them.
Try viewing daylight with dilated pupils... You'll go blind.
Get it? It's not even close to the same level of brightness. They are so far apart your eyes have to physically adjust to protect you from injury.
You can keep manufacturing excuses for your failed religion but it does not change the fact that stars should be visible when there is nothing else in the frame. Just admit you were told idiotic Jesuit lies and you believed it, it's time to move on into reality.