On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
It's only going to get better, as time will eventually have the
JAXA/
Selene orbiting at merely 10 km, giving us a raw 1m/pixel look at
those supposed NASA/Apollo landing sites..
. - Brad Guth

China is planning on doing the same reduced orbital range, and thus
offering more than sufficient raw resolution.
. - Brad Guth

So, no matters how reliable the raw pixels are, and of no matters how
many images are stacked or having been properly resampled, you don't
believe in anything that's enlarged unless it's of inert eye-candy.
Are you also Muslim?

None of your ****ing business.

Why are you speaking for Eric Gisse?


Of course 100% of all cosmic eye-candy pictures that are published for
public review are of those stacked, resampled and colorized to death,
whereas oddly that's perfectly OK by your hocus-pocus standards. How
interesting.
. - Brad Guth

***********************************
I went through all this stuff with Guth about 6 months ago - I calculated
the size of a telescope that would be needed to even to show a single pixel
variation from background albedo - its about ten times larger than the
current resolving ability of terrestrial/LEO telescopes. When shown to be
wrong, he called me a Jew and started spouting abuse.

Not that this is in any way directly relevant to whether the Apollo missions
were a fake - nobody would bother using the world's largest telescopes to
look for a single pixel variation in lunar albedo to try and prove that the
Apollo landings happened. It would be like chartering a long range aircraft
to fly around the world to prove the earth isn't flat.

He is simply a crank. No point in discussing the issue with him; when proved
wrong he will simply change the subject, rather than changing his position.

Are we being silly?

Why would a bright and shiny Apollo item as set upon a physically dark
moon not yield a noticeably brighter than average pixel?
.. - Brad Guth