View Single Post
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 02-May-2008, 02:27 PM
NEOWatcher's Avatar
NEOWatcher NEOWatcher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the E(e)rie coast
Posts: 6,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bart5050 View Post
I am not looking to debunk or to prove validity. I want to know the truth.
That sounds confusing to me. Wouldn't knowing the truth be done by proving validity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bart5050 View Post
When I inquired of this from NASA they did not respond. ...
I'd like to add my vote in favor of NASA's busy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bart5050 View Post
The photos from official sources are not clear enough to say with any absolute certainty. I have seen some really blurry ones from earlier in the lunar day than the one A15 high res photo to make public release. So other high res photos do exist.
I don't follow your logic here. Are you saying that that particular hi-res exists because other hi-res exists?

You made a comment earlier about the grain of the pictures. If the scan is detailed enough to show grain, then how can you suppose that there are higher resolutions?

I would also call into question the eccentricity of the orbit. Can anyone out there tell me about that? If it were eccentric, there there is a more likely chance that there were no other opportunities for such a hi-res when compared to other parts of the orbit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bart5050 View Post
Leaves me undicided and I want to know the truth. Seems that will have to wait for better evidence.
It's fine that your undecided, but I would like to know how you think the evidence weighs against each other.
__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)
Reply With Quote