NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites

NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images
ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Images
show the twists and turns of the paths made when the astronauts explored
the lunar surface.

See: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

On Sep 6, 9:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
* *http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images
ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Images
show the twists and turns of the paths made when the astronauts explored
the lunar surface.

See:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

Apollo image archives offer 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) resolution, and in many
of their images those buggy tracks hardly show, and in some of those
images there are no detectable buggy tracks. Go figure.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 7, 6:58*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
* *http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

Have a look through these images. The detail is exquisite!

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/

75 pages of selected sites and 33 pages x 9 thumbnail images per page.
Hours and hours of fun.

On the second set of images it would be nice if the site of interest
was centred in the enlargeable image when one clicked on the
thumbnail. I couldn't even find some of the items mentioned. This,
despite scanning at various "magnifications" up to full size.

On Sep 7, 1:12*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Sep 7, 6:58*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
* *http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html

Have a look through these images. The detail is exquisite!

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/

75 pages of selected sites and 33 pages x 9 thumbnail images per page.
Hours and hours of fun.

On the second set of images it would be nice if the site of interest
was centred in the enlargeable image when one clicked on the
thumbnail. I couldn't even find some of the items mentioned. This,
despite scanning at various "magnifications" up to full size.

In other words, you and NASA approve of using as much applied
PhotoShop (aka image resampling, filtering and detail enhancements)
plus eyecandy hype, all accomplished behind those closed doors and
otherwise taken all the way to the bank and then some.

You are aware of Moonpans and their supposed authentication via
autographed images of their supposed ideal photographic
representations offering far superior resolution (at least worth 2.5
mm) and terrific dynamic range that's supposedly showing us those
Kodak moments of nothing but the whole truth?

Can we assume you know absolutely nothing of Kodak film and camera/
lens physics?

Is there still some reason(s) why Moonpans couldn't get a Kodak
signature?

Is there some reason why the moon was depicted as so gosh darn
reflective?

Is there some reason(s) why the raw unfiltered UV energy had
absolutely no affective on typically reactive minerals or that of any
artificial materials from those Apollo missions?

Do secondary/recoil photons not exist while on or anywhere near our
moon?

Is that why the extremely nearby planet Venus was always invisible?

Is there some Apollo magic that prevented the locally generated plus
continual influx of X-rays, gamma and thermal extremes coming from all
directions that wasn't recorded by any of their Kodak film?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”