On 19/03/2011 19:29, David Allan wrote:
Now I don't know about anyone else, but the so-called 'super moon' didn't
look any bigger than loads of other moon rises I've witnessed.
The full-moon at moonrise often appears much bigger (and so does the sun at
sunrise).
OK, so it's also supposed to be closer to us in its orbit to boot, but I
reckon that extra closeness is not THAT close that you're going to be able
to visually notice the difference.
Eye-catcing it was... but no more eye-catching than many another moonrise at
full moon.

If you were measuring it or trying to take a photo with a decent large
lens then the difference would be obvious. The orbital eccentricity is
about 0.05 so the moons apparent diameter last night at perigee was 10%
bigger than it would be if it occurred at the furthest point apogee.

That you cannot easily spot the difference by eye says a lot about the
limitations of the claim that seeing is believing. Once you have a
camera, micrometer or other measuring instrument the change is obvious.

Regards,
Martin Brown