To all those sad people who still doubt the moon landings!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jun 24, 8:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.

Precisely. When it becomes possible for ordinary Americans to launch
their own lunar-orbiting cameras to see for themselves, then the moon
landing deniers will be more thoroughly marginalized.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.

Precisely. When it becomes possible for ordinary Americans to launch
their own lunar-orbiting cameras to see for themselves, then the moon
landing deniers will be more thoroughly marginalized.

More, but unfortunately not completely. After all, aren't there still
a few people running around who believe the Earth is flat? Some
religious sect or cult, as I recall.
--
Dave

On Jun 24, 12:17*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:



On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.

Precisely. When it becomes possible for ordinary Americans to launch
their own lunar-orbiting cameras to see for themselves, then the moon
landing deniers will be more thoroughly marginalized.

John Savard

Correct, as amateur cameras and over-the-counter optics plus narrow
bandpass filters are more than good enough as is.

Our USAF could have easily accomplished 0.1 meter resolution as of 4
decades ago. After all, according to Apollo there's hardly any
radiation and it's not even the least bit hot while in low lunar orbit
over the illuminated surface, thus ideal for plain old film.

However, apparently it's absolutely pitch black while under earthshine
conditions. Go figure.

~ BG

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."


Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.

When the hoax believers see the high resolution images of the Apollo
landing sites, they will claim that NASA actually used the Apollo
missions to send unmanned LEM's to land on the moon where the astronauts
were supposed to have been. There really isn't any evidence that would
convince them, short of making the journey to the moon themselves, after
which they would say it couldn't have been done forty years ago. It's a
no win situation, kind of like trying to commmunicate with Gerald. ;-)

On Jun 24, 7:27*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090622.html

"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to orbit and
better map the Moon, search for buried and hidden ice, and return many
high resolution images.

Some images will be below one meter in resolution and include images
of historic Apollo landing sites."

Well, the images from the LRO are just being synthesized at NASA, aren't
they? It's so much easier these days, with the great CGI equipment, than
it was during the Apollo era when they had to use giant, evacuated sound
stages.

If you believe that it is possible to change the mind of a Lunar hoax
believer (or any other conspiracy nut), you don't really understand the
phenomenon.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

The science of observationology isn't just for dummies.

~ BG

The true question might be not did the US land on the moon, but does
the moon really exist? The answer is obviously 42.

www.richardfisher.com

Helpful person wrote in news:4bad953b-830a-4dc2-8bc4-
:

The true question might be not did the US land on the moon, but does
the moon really exist? The answer is obviously 42.

www.richardfisher.com

All I want is a nice hot cup of tea.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Jun 24, 8:58*pm, Skywise wrote:
Helpful person wrote in news:4bad953b-830a-4dc2-8bc4-
:

The true question might be not did the US land on the moon, but does
the moon really exist? *The answer is obviously 42.

All I want is a nice hot cup of tea.

That's not a difficult problem here on Earth, although if one has a
less provincial perspective, a gin and tonic, or the near equivalent
thereof, might prove easier to locate.

John Savard