"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a01cd3b-9ed8-4be5-a362-828db3b89cc1@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb"
webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3a1bb49-ccae-422d-ae6f-a040ed01cf91@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 22, 6:14 pm, "Peter Webb"
webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> 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 fucking 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.
Except that I provided the calculations which show that the remnants of the
LEM would not be visible.
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 you say. I did some calculations for you which showed the opposite.
Perhaps you could identify an error in my own calculations, or provide
alternate calculations which show otherwise.
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.
I was unaware that high resolution images of the landing sites had been made
after the landings. Where can they be found? What was the resolution of the
images? Can I have a look?
In short, have you any evidence that what you claim is true - that
photographs exist with sufficient resolution to identify the parts of the
LEM, but that they show that the LEM doesn't exist (that is what you are
claiming, right?).
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.
Where do you think I lied? I can assure you that what I wrote is what I
believe; it may be wrong - nobody's perfect - but it certainly wasn't an
intentional lie.
If you do believe that what I have said is wrong, you need to identify
exactly where. I am always interested in learning new facts about optics.
. - Brad Guth
