Who Parked The Moon?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby BenDhyan » Fri May 03, 2019 2:48 am

Belligerent Savant » Fri May 03, 2019 10:49 am wrote:.

Thanks for the added links, BenD. I have to say -- and yes, I know that this would be a predictable response by one [like me] who may question the moon landing -- but the coloring of those NASA-related artifacts on the surface of the moon, in those photos, seem unnatural/potentially doctored to me. They may well be genuine, of course.

I remain agnostic, alas. That said, I agree that Hoagland is not credible. As with 911, there will always be those that poison the well.

Yes, you are correct Belligerent Savant, the LRO images would be enhanced in contrast, brightness, etc, using algorithms in the processing of the raw data, it is SOP in remote sensing processing systems..

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318502666_Analysis_of_Image_Enhancement_Techniques_Used_in_Remote_Sensing_Satellite_Imagery
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 06, 2019 2:04 pm

.

Interesting that some of the photos depicting the surface of the moon (or the lunar module on the moon) have 'adobe photoshop' in its file header info (the file 'header' consists of the first few bytes of an electronic file and contains code that helps the operating system identify the 'signature' of a document, and also, software that may have been used to modify the document, when applicable). I can understand, of course, that photos with markers (arrows/pointers/typed words, etc.) would require photo editing, so Photoshop would be expected there. But for photos that are presented as "un-edited", it raises an eyebrow to see Photoshop in the header info.

For example, DrEvil displayed a photo in a prior response which included a photo associated with the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, presumably obtained from the following site:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... riment.jpg

Downloading the version depicted in this linked site does not appear to have 'photoshop' metadata in its header. However, the page references the "source" for this image, which is here:

Source NASA Apollo Archive http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 0-5952.jpg

When downloading the AS11-40-5952.jpg image from the nasa.gov link, the header indicates 'Ducky' and 'Adobe' as part of its header info. "Ducky" is a Photoshop identifier (it uses the JPEG APP12 "Ducky" segment to store some information in "Save for Web" images).

Here's the image, which appears to be intended as an un-edited reproduction:

Image



the late Dave McGowan had some thoughts on this:

...Some true believers also claim that what was what was dubbed the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment also proves that we really went to the Moon. As the story goes, the astronauts on Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 all allegedly left small laser targets sitting on the lunar terrain (one of them can be seen in the official NASA photo reproduced above), so that scientists back home could then bounce lasers off the targets to precisely gauge the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.


I sampled a few other photos from the moon landings -- the ones without any markers/overt edits -- and noticed Adobe Photoshop in the header info in a number of instances. This, by itself, does not 'prove' the photos were altered to fit a narrative (at least not without the 'original' photos to compare, which we'll never obtain) -- Photoshop didn't exist in the 60s/70s, of course, though the capacity to alter photos is an age-old artform -- but it adds another layer to this un-ending inquiry.


The McGowan series, which I believe has been linked here a number of times, is certainly worth reading for those interested in this topic. I remain agnostic on this -- no way to know for certain without boarding a shuttle to the moon -- but it's a compelling overview of the moon landing phenomenon (compared to many of the other 'hoax' sites out there).

A snippet from part 3 of a 14-part 'series':


There is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and self-congratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so.

One thing they like to talk a lot about is the Van Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about them as well. The hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men.

As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon.

On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.”(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005 ... tatics.htm)

[BSavant note: the above 'science.nasa.gov' link is no longer active/available, but I believe I found a duplicate copy here: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... trostatics. Noteworthy, given all this talk of radiation exposure, that the Apollo astronauts mostly all lived to ripe old age, and 4 of them are still alive as of March 2019.]

You’re damn right finding a good shield is important!! Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to the Moon. But now, I guess, being that we are more cultured and sophisticated, we want to do it the right way so we have to come up with some way of shielding our spaceships. And our temporary Moon bases. And figuring out how to do that, according to NASA, could be a real “showstopper.”

As NASA notes, “the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option.” Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding, but lead also isn’t very popular with spaceship designers. In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.

Now NASA is thinking outside the box and contemplating using ‘force fields’ to repel the radiation, a seemingly ridiculous idea that, whether workable in the future or not, certainly wasn’t available to NASA in the 1960s. Below is NASA’s own artist rendering of a proposed ‘force field’ radiation shield that would allow astronauts to work safely on the Moon. As you may have noticed in the earlier photos of the lunar modules, our guys didn’t bring anything like that with them on their, uhmm, earlier missions to the Moon. And you may have also noticed that the modules did not have any type of physical shielding.

Image

How then did they do it? My guess is that the answer lies in that gold foil wrap. While it may look like an amateurish attempt to make the modules appear more ‘high-tech,’ I have a hunch that what we are looking at is another example of the lost technology of the 1960s – this time in the form of a highly-advanced superpolymer that provided maximum radiation shielding while adding virtually no weight. So all we have to do is track down a few leftover rolls of that stuff and we should be well on our way to sending guys back to the Moon.

According to Charles Buhler, a NASA scientist currently working on the force field concept, “Using electric fields to repel radiation was one of the first ideas back in the 1950s, when scientists started to look at the problem of protecting astronauts from radiation. They quickly dropped the idea though because it seemed like the high voltages needed and the awkward designs that they thought would be necessary … would make such an electric shield impractical.”

What a real journalist would have asked here, of course, is: “After dropping the electric shield concept, exactly what did they decide to use to get our astronauts safely to the Moon and back on the Apollo missions? And why can’t we do the same thing now, rather than reinventing the wheel? Don’t you guys have some of that gold foil in a closet somewhere?” No one in the American media, of course, bothered to ask such painfully obvious questions.

The 2005 report from NASA ends as follows: “But, who knows, perhaps one day astronauts on the Moon … will work safely.” Yes, and while we’re dreaming the impossible dream, let’s add a few more things to our wish list as well, like perhaps one day we’ll be able to listen to music on 8-track tape players, and talk to people on rotary dial telephones, and carry portable transistor radios, and use cameras that shoot pictures on special film that develops right before our eyes. Only time will tell, I suppose.

The Van Allen belts, by the way, trap most Earth-bound radiation, thus making it safe for us mortals down here on the surface of planet Earth, as well as for astronauts in low-Earth orbit (the belts extend from 1,000 to 25,000 miles above the surface of the Earth). The danger is in sending men through and beyond the belts, which, apart from the Apollo missions, has never been attempted …



http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-3/

Link to the entire series:

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

----------------------------------------------------




I'll leave y'all with some photos from a site linked here before (either in this thread or a related one). Caveat Lector, of course.


http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby stickdog99 » Mon May 06, 2019 4:02 pm

BenDhyan » 02 May 2019 23:24 wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Fri May 03, 2019 6:26 am wrote:.

Indeed, a succinct/astute summary of the conundrum.

----------------------------


With respect to this:

coffin_dodger » Thu May 02, 2019 7:24 am wrote:Hey Ben - in that post from 2009 that you referred to above - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22930&p=248929&hilit=worked+on+Apollo#p248929 - you followed it up a couple of posts later with this:

If skeptics can be patient a little longer, and if all goes to plan, NASA will place the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in orbit around the moon midway through this year and it will the following instrument on board with an agenda to image some of the Apollo stuff left behind and discredit the non-believers.


Have you a link to the outcome of this (back in 2009) - and did it prove the naysayers wrong?


I believe I located the results of this recon mission. First, a preface, which seems to be nothing short of overt trolling on the part of NASA:

Original link from 2005:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20090808020 ... l_lroc.htm


The date was Dec. 19, 1972, and history was about to be made.

Suddenly, soundlessly, Challenger split in two (movie). The base of the ship, the part with the landing pads, stayed put. The top, the lunar module with Cernan and Jack Schmitt inside, blasted off in a spray of gold foil. It rose, turned, and headed off to rendezvous with the orbiter America, the craft that would take them home again.

Those were the last men on the Moon. After they were gone, the camera panned back and forth. There was no one there, nothing, only the rover, the lander and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley. Eventually, Rover's battery died and the TV transmissions stopped.

That was our last good look at an Apollo landing site.

Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.

And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.


Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972.

The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images.

Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels.

What does a half-meter resolution picture look like? This image of an airport on Earth has the same resolution as an LROC image. Moon buggy-sized objects (automobiles and luggage carts) are clear:

Image



Drum roll, folks. We can now view the images referenced, which surely will remove any doubt NASA artifacts were discarded on the moon all those years ago. Evidence of the moon landings - at last.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/ ... sites.html

Check out the detail and unquestionable markers in this offering:

Image

Don't see it yet? Here, this one will surely put it to rest:

Apollo 11 landing site
Image

or this one:

Apollo 16
Image

Careful now -- don't strain too hard.

This last sample... well, now they're just outright laughing at us: a photo of what appears to be a depiction of the moon's surface, but projected by a low-resolution monitor screen (note the vertical lines):

Image


Any of these photos look like the same level of detail/zoom proximity as the sample airport shot above?

NASA is toying with the tinfoil hatters, I tell ya.

Well-played, NASA. Keep us guessing and scrutinizing in futility.


Ahem....if you were to use higher resolution LRO images, you can even see the tracks in the lunar surface left by the lunar rover....

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584 ... 7_area.jpg

Image


Sorry, but I simply do not see any clear photographic evidence of any moon landings in any of those pictures.

Image

Why are we to believe that those are tracks left by lunar rovers rather than "enhanced" natural artifacts like the ones above?

Which begs the question. How is it 50 years after successfully landing on the Moon many times, we still do not have any clear photographic evidence of having successfully landed on Moon many times?

This is the resolution that military grade spy satellites can get peering through the entirety of Earth's thick atmosphere from 35,786 km above the earth:

Image

Now consider that the LRO orbited a mere 50 km above the Moon peering through no atmosphere to speak of. Here's the kind of resolution a camera you or I can buy can get from 40 km, peering through the dense Earth atmosphere.



So where is the actual unambiguous evidence of the Apollo Moon landings that must exist 50 years later? Again, I know this evidence must exist. So, unless you are trying to keep Moon hoax theories alive, why not share it with us?
Last edited by stickdog99 on Tue May 07, 2019 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby DrEvil » Mon May 06, 2019 6:36 pm

^^Those spy satellites are Hubble-grade telescopes, including in size. I don't think it's realistic to send one of those to the moon just to get better pictures, and the NRO probably won't point one at the moon just to convince us we're wrong either.

The LRO's cameras have taken pictures of the surface at 0.5 meter resolution, which is pretty good from a distance of 50 km. The quality is plenty good for their actual mission statement, and they're not going to waste any resources just to prove the theories wrong. There's no point really. They could deliver crystal clear pictures tomorrow and we would be arguing about exactly the same thing, only with better pictures. As long as people don't trust the source it doesn't matter how good the pictures are, they can always be dismissed as fakes.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Elvis » Mon May 06, 2019 6:45 pm

stickdog99 wrote:Why are we to believe that those are tracks left by lunar rovers rather than "enhanced" natural artifacts like the ones above?


Because the tracks weren't there before? :shrug:
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7561
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 06, 2019 10:36 pm

.

Using the same photo linked above, to my eyes, those tracks/markings don't look authentic to me (they appear to be overlays/add-ons). Simply my opinion, of course -- and I'm not an expert in photography:

Image

Are there RAW versions of these photos at the same resolution without any 'arrows'/typed syntax and/or 'enhancements' added to the images? I haven't pored through the archives, so perhaps I'm missing RAW/un-edited versions of these photos.

DrEvil:
The quality is plenty good for their actual mission statement, and they're not going to waste any resources just to prove the theories wrong. There's no point really. They could deliver crystal clear pictures tomorrow and we would be arguing about exactly the same thing, only with better pictures. As long as people don't trust the source it doesn't matter how good the pictures are, they can always be dismissed as fakes.


That may be true, but as mentioned above, [speaking only for myself] if NASA can provide RAW versions of these photos w/out any 'enhancements', added text/graphics and/or 'adobe photoshop' artifacts added to the LRO images, I'd be more willing to lean towards the "we landed humans on the moon" narrative.

But then there's still the 'shadowing' issues from the original Apollo 11 photographs.

One example:

Image

Quoting once again from McGowan's series, page 4 contains this excerpt, referencing the above photo:

Now let’s turn our attention to the subject of shadows. As skeptics have noted, some of NASA’s photos seem to depict nonparallel shadows, indicating more than one light source. ‘Debunkers’ have claimed that all such discrepancies can be explained by “perspective” and topographical variations on the surface of the Moon. And truth be told, many of the images that I have seen on websites on both sides of the aisle are ambiguous enough that such explanations can be plausibly argued. But there are, as it turns out, images in NASA’s collection that aren’t quite so easy to debunk.

There are, in fact, images that demonstrate unequivocally that more than one light source was used. Take, for example, the image [above] of one of the landing pods of the Apollo 11 lunar module, allegedly parked on the surface of the Moon.

The primary light source, meant to simulate the sun, is obviously positioned to the right of the scene, as is clearly demonstrated by the shadows of all of the objects in the background. But there is just as obviously a secondary light source coming from the direction of the photographer. We know this because we can see in the foreground that the shadows coming off the small ‘Moon rocks’ point away from us. We know it also because we can see the light being reflected off of the gold foil wrap onto the ground in front of the pod. But we know it most of all because we can actually see the light reflected in the foil wrap on the leg of the pod!

The shadows in the foreground and in the background are at nearly right angles, a phenomenon that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be explained away as a perceptual problem – especially when we can clearly see the reflection of the secondary light! One other question concerning this particular photo: how do you suppose you would go about capturing such a low-angle shot with a chest-mounted camera?

(NASA has verified that no other light source -- besides the sun -- was available to the astronauts).


The above photo is also notable in how clean the leg of the module looks:
not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent. The area around the module's legs, and under the lunar module itself, directly below the nozzle, look completely undisturbed
.

One more photo of the undisturbed ground below the module:

Image


http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-5/
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Mon May 06, 2019 11:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby BenDhyan » Mon May 06, 2019 11:00 pm

^ Not sure if the narrative is referring to the upper Lander photo, if it is, the Lunar Surface Sensing Probe (that pipe device coming out of the strut's pad) is in the raised position and that is why its shadow is at a different angle, you can see its impression on the lunar surface underneath where it was laying before it was raised.

I don't see a problem with the shadows of the lower Lander photo, all shadows appear to be in the same direction.

I explained up thread that it is SOP to use contrast, brightness, etc., algorithm based enhancements to the remote sensed raw data images. Here is a raw data image of the Apollo 17 landing site enlarged, the Rover's tracks can be seen.

Image

The Apollo 17 Lunar Module Challenger descent stage comes into focus from the new lower 50-km mapping orbit, image width is 102 meters [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images
Last edited by BenDhyan on Mon May 06, 2019 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 06, 2019 11:20 pm

.
BenD: for the first lunar module photo, the shadow for the pipe coming out of the strut should still cast in the same general direction as the other shadows, no? And what about the light reflected off the foil wrap onto the ground as can be seen in the foreground? Seems to suggest a secondary light source.

(The 2nd LEM photo was added to simply showcase the undisturbed lunar soil directly below the module.)



(Note: edits to my last 3 postings were to correct typos only)
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Tue May 07, 2019 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby BenDhyan » Mon May 06, 2019 11:45 pm

No, the pipe is on an angle, about 25 degrees, the shadow is precisely where it should be. Work backwards from the shadow and imagine at what angle it would have to be to throw that shadow and that's exactly where it is. The light reflected on the surface from the foil wrap is also just what you would expect, some of the light is being reflected forwards and downwards.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue May 07, 2019 12:25 am

.
I'm not an expert in shadows/lighting for photography, so can't speak definitively on the topic, but the sample above does appear to utilize a secondary light source, though I'll grant that it may be the angle of the photo/position of the 'photographer astronaut' that could be a factor as well.

To be clear, when I mention a 'raw' sample photo from the LRO, I mean a version without syntax, markings or enhancements, if even feasible. Also, the photo sample you provide (Apollo 17 landing site) contains vertical lines, similar to an earlier photo sample shared here, that gives the appearance of an image taken of a monitor/picture screen display of the photo.

Again, I can appreciate how subjective this can be, and fully grant that it's all relatively moot - we're not going to resolve this via forum chatter.

I'll cut myself off this topic for now, though... at least until the next big update out of our trailblazers @ NASA.
Last edited by Belligerent Savant on Tue May 07, 2019 8:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby BenDhyan » Tue May 07, 2019 12:56 am

The images of the landing site taken by the LRO are digitally based, each pixel is about 19 inches square at the height of the LRO spacecraft altitude from the Lunar surface. The pixels squares (and the vertical lines you refer to) are seen clearly because of the magnification factor. Among the enhancement techniques is repixelization to get a finer image as we see in those images that show more defined Rover tracks. None of these enhancement techniques is considered 'doctoring', it just helps to produce an image whose resolution and definition is more like one taken with a higher resolution imaging device. I worked on Landsat remote sensing data acquisition, it used the same 'push broom' digital imaging technique as the LRO, Landsat pixels were about 35 feet square at an altitude of about 600 Km and mostly our products were digitally enhanced to the consumer's requirements.
Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Australia Gold Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby stickdog99 » Tue May 07, 2019 2:17 am

DrEvil » 06 May 2019 22:36 wrote:^^Those spy satellites are Hubble-grade telescopes, including in size. I don't think it's realistic to send one of those to the moon just to get better pictures, and the NRO probably won't point one at the moon just to convince us we're wrong either.

The LRO's cameras have taken pictures of the surface at 0.5 meter resolution, which is pretty good from a distance of 50 km. The quality is plenty good for their actual mission statement, and they're not going to waste any resources just to prove the theories wrong. There's no point really. They could deliver crystal clear pictures tomorrow and we would be arguing about exactly the same thing, only with better pictures. As long as people don't trust the source it doesn't matter how good the pictures are, they can always be dismissed as fakes.


1) Who told you that military satellites are Hubble grade telescopes, including in size? Source?

2) The difference between a 50 km without an atmosphere and over 35,000 km with an atmosphere would allow what reduction in mass?

3) Again, we are now 50 years later and we still haven't been able to take a decent picture of where we landed. How long before "you doubters wouldn't believe it anyway" stops being a legitimate excuse? We obviously have the technical capacity to survey the Moon's surface with far better resolution if only by lowering the orbit of a single orbiter. Why has no orbiter ever done so (despite the pictures you and NASA both promised the LRO would deliver) more than 50 years later? I just want to know why the photos that must exist have never been released. Why pretend that the US military has never surveyed the Moon at a better resolution than those publicly available?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby stickdog99 » Tue May 07, 2019 2:19 am

Elvis » 06 May 2019 22:45 wrote:
stickdog99 wrote:Why are we to believe that those are tracks left by lunar rovers rather than "enhanced" natural artifacts like the ones above?


Because the tracks weren't there before? :shrug:


Got the before images for us?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby DrEvil » Tue May 07, 2019 3:50 pm

stickdog99 » Tue May 07, 2019 8:17 am wrote:
DrEvil » 06 May 2019 22:36 wrote:^^Those spy satellites are Hubble-grade telescopes, including in size. I don't think it's realistic to send one of those to the moon just to get better pictures, and the NRO probably won't point one at the moon just to convince us we're wrong either.

The LRO's cameras have taken pictures of the surface at 0.5 meter resolution, which is pretty good from a distance of 50 km. The quality is plenty good for their actual mission statement, and they're not going to waste any resources just to prove the theories wrong. There's no point really. They could deliver crystal clear pictures tomorrow and we would be arguing about exactly the same thing, only with better pictures. As long as people don't trust the source it doesn't matter how good the pictures are, they can always be dismissed as fakes.


1) Who told you that military satellites are Hubble grade telescopes, including in size? Source?

2) The difference between a 50 km without an atmosphere and over 35,000 km with an atmosphere would allow what reduction in mass?

3) Again, we are now 50 years later and we still haven't been able to take a decent picture of where we landed. How long before "you doubters wouldn't believe it anyway" stops being a legitimate excuse? We obviously have the technical capacity to survey the Moon's surface with far better resolution if only by lowering the orbit of a single orbiter. Why has no orbiter ever done so (despite the pictures you and NASA both promised the LRO would deliver) more than 50 years later? I just want to know why the photos that must exist have never been released. Why pretend that the US military has never surveyed the Moon at a better resolution than those publicly available?


1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nati ... on_to_NASA
They might not be the exact same size as the Hubble, but they're not small, and they're not something you can strap to a lunar orbiter.

2) Not sure what you're asking here.

3) A resolution of 0.5 meters is more than good enough for the job. What would NASA gain by having even better resolution of an endless wasteland? And why would the military survey the moon at a greater resolution? What would be the point?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who Parked The Moon?

Postby stickdog99 » Wed May 08, 2019 2:42 am

DrEvil » 07 May 2019 19:50 wrote:
stickdog99 » Tue May 07, 2019 8:17 am wrote:
DrEvil » 06 May 2019 22:36 wrote:^^Those spy satellites are Hubble-grade telescopes, including in size. I don't think it's realistic to send one of those to the moon just to get better pictures, and the NRO probably won't point one at the moon just to convince us we're wrong either.

The LRO's cameras have taken pictures of the surface at 0.5 meter resolution, which is pretty good from a distance of 50 km. The quality is plenty good for their actual mission statement, and they're not going to waste any resources just to prove the theories wrong. There's no point really. They could deliver crystal clear pictures tomorrow and we would be arguing about exactly the same thing, only with better pictures. As long as people don't trust the source it doesn't matter how good the pictures are, they can always be dismissed as fakes.


1) Who told you that military satellites are Hubble grade telescopes, including in size? Source?

2) The difference between a 50 km without an atmosphere and over 35,000 km with an atmosphere would allow what reduction in mass?

3) Again, we are now 50 years later and we still haven't been able to take a decent picture of where we landed. How long before "you doubters wouldn't believe it anyway" stops being a legitimate excuse? We obviously have the technical capacity to survey the Moon's surface with far better resolution if only by lowering the orbit of a single orbiter. Why has no orbiter ever done so (despite the pictures you and NASA both promised the LRO would deliver) more than 50 years later? I just want to know why the photos that must exist have never been released. Why pretend that the US military has never surveyed the Moon at a better resolution than those publicly available?


1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nati ... on_to_NASA
They might not be the exact same size as the Hubble, but they're not small, and they're not something you can strap to a lunar orbiter.

2) Not sure what you're asking here.

3) A resolution of 0.5 meters is more than good enough for the job. What would NASA gain by having even better resolution of an endless wasteland? And why would the military survey the moon at a greater resolution? What would be the point?


2. I am asking if you can explain how the mass of a camera would vary with its distance from its target if its pixel resolution remained constant.

The Moon is a potential military resource that is very easily mapped with extreme topographical accuracy. If the USA doesn't map it first, other countries will.

And NASA always gets the best. LOL.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests