On Apr 22, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



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..
. -BradGuth

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

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.
. -BradGuth

***********************************
I went through all this stuff withGuthabout 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?

Not "we". Just you.

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

We went through this before.

No, as once again you have bullied your out-of-context way through
through this without one bit of objective evidence.

Something as bright and shiny upon the nearly coal dark and nasty
surface is going to make a given 10 meter resolution pixel light up
rather nicely, and of the quality JAXA 10 meter resolution TC is in
fact going to record just that.

So, with countless tens of thousands of archived images thus far, it
seems JAXA/Selene has come up empty handed, and for that matter never
once having depicted the .65~.75 albedo worthy terrain of where
several of our supposed missions landed.


The best resolution of terrestrial telescopes results in a pixel area of
about 100 sq metres. The bit of the LEM left on the moon is perhaps 10 sq
metres. Its likely to have a dust coating, and it throws a shadow (also part
of the pixel). So you might (back of an envelope) assume that this 10 sq
metres is twice as bright as the other 90 sqm in the pixel. This would give
you - at a generous estimate - about a 10% brighter pixel than you would
expect. However, its very obvious that the variations between pixels varies
by far, far more than 10%, as the natural topography of the lunar surface
means that some areas are more brightly lit than others (as some are
directly facing the sun, but others are at an angle and hence receive less
incident light). You can confirm this with a cheap pair of binoculars.

So the variation from having the remainder of the LEM still on the moon is
orders of magnitude less than the natural variation in the apparent
brightness of different patches of the ground, and hence would be impossible
to extract from this "noise" deriving from other topographic differences.

Got it this time?

We got the part of your being a born-again liar.
.. - Brad Guth