Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: gunzlepug's LRO thread

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83

    gunzlepug's LRO thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    It is not up to us to prove anything, rather it is up to you to prove that the LRO images have been faked...
    Interesting topic. It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery. There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other. Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Interesting topic.
    Not particularly...the idea that Apollo was faked is a tired old "story" that ran out of steam a long time ago.


    It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery.
    It's pretty clear that there is no reason to "prove" the authenticity of Apollo.

    That you seem to not understand (or see evidence of Apollo on the Moon) is certainly not reason, nor is it evidence to doubt Apollo.


    There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other.
    I can see the tracks left by the darn Rovers....and you can't see "sufficient detail"??


    Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    Once again, you can see tracks left by the rovers...a wheel base width of just a few feet.

    Just how do you justify characterizing that as "poor" photography?
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2018-Jul-22 at 10:31 PM. Reason: changed base to tracks
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Kinda funny....posted to address the last post in thread, and missed the whole rest of thread...

    How embarrassing....



    edit to add....


    After a quick read...It appears that the OP is the one who should be embarrassed...not an original or new idea in 3 pages.

    Just the same ole, debunked, irrational junk.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2018-Jul-22 at 10:49 PM.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Interesting topic. It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery. There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other. Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    "Infinitely better"? I suggest you look up the word "infinitely". The only "open" question is why you don't look into the facts yourself. The LRO payload weighs 204 lbs and carries 6 different instruments and the Mini-RF. Spy satellites are MUCH larger and less versatile.

    The next-generation NROL-71 spy satellite for the US is scheduled to launch September 26, 2018.
    From https://spaceflight101.com/events/de...heavy-nrol-71/

    "Based on the type of launch vehicle and launch site, NROL-71 is most likely a heavy Keyhole KH-11 image reconnaissance satellite, targeting a slightly elliptical orbit of around 260 by 1,000 Kilometers from where the 19-metric-ton satellites can capture high-resolution imagery for analysis by the various U.S. intelligence agencies."

    To expect the 204 lb LRO to even come close to matching optic capabilities with an enormous (19 metric ton) single-function satellite is just plain ignorant.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Not particularly...the idea that Apollo was faked is a tired old "story" that ran out of steam a long time ago.
    Stick - wrong end.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    It's pretty clear that there is no reason to "prove" the authenticity of Apollo.
    Clear to you maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    That you seem to not understand (or see evidence of Apollo on the Moon) is certainly not reason, nor is it evidence to doubt Apollo.
    Do not patronise me with "seem not to understand". And do not dictate to me either. It only serves your purpose, nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I can see the tracks left by the darn Rovers....and you can't see "sufficient detail"?? Once again, you can see tracks left by the rovers...a wheel base width of just a few feet. Just how do you justify characterizing that as "poor" photography?
    Ah, you got to the point of my post but couldn't resist the swipes. Well done. The LRO photographs may justifiably be considered poor due to pixilation and obvious lack of definition. No hardware is clearly recognisable given the stated height of the LRO and the camera resolution. The simple fact is that earth orbiting satellites resolve far, far better than these alleged images purporting to be of the Apollo landing sites. There is no way around that. You can believe all you like but the photographs presented by NASA do not give a clear picture of what ought to be there according to their records.

    Since you apparently have no doubt of their authenticity how do you account for the lack of LRO definition when a satellite 600km above earth shows far greater detail than the LRO some 50-100km above the moon?
    Last edited by gunzlepug; 2018-Jul-22 at 11:04 PM.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Fix your quotes...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Since you apparently have no doubt of their authenticity how do you account for the lack of LRO definition when a satellite 600km above earth shows far greater detail than the LRO some 50-100km above the moon?
    As I pointed out in my previous thread, where do YOU get your incredulity from, unless it is pure ignorance?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    I'd just call it lack of education in this subject.

    No "shame" in that, but if one remains uninformed (for whatever reason), then there's not really much to discuss...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I'd just call it lack of education in this subject.

    No "shame" in that, but if one remains uninformed (for whatever reason), then there's not really much to discuss...
    Ignorance is usually a lack of education, and we are all ignorant about some things, including me, of course. However, "willful" ignorance is something shameful (IMHO), as it involves rejection of information due to bias only. So far, I cannot accuse gunzlepug of THAT..........yet.....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Resolution aside, it is abundantly clear that you choose to believe the authenticity of the LRO photographs despite being unable to see hardware with any clarity whatsoever. You believe the images because you want to even though all you can see are apparent tracks, no definition of anything other. Be honest: The images are rubbish, just blobs, and the lunar rover is a black splodge. Like to account for that?

    "The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts..." Yes, terrible photographs that prove nothing.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    You say potato, I say tomato...


    EDIT Obviously answering post #103.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2018-Jul-22 at 11:19 PM.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    That figures.

    There is also the fact that the LRO was photographing at a mere 50-200km and not the 600km height of earth satellites. So despite its array of cameras it can do no better than presented.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Resolution aside, it is abundantly clear that you choose to believe the authenticity of the LRO photographs despite being unable to see hardware with any clarity whatsoever.
    Yet I can discern exactly the path that the rovers took on the surface. It only CONFIRMS the historical record of Apollo....continually saying "it isn't so", is just kinda dopey?


    ....and that WAS a swipe.



    You believe the images because you want to even though....
    No....stop trying to tell me what I believe. ask me what I know.



    Be honest: The images are rubbish, just blobs, and the lunar rover is a black splodge.
    You lie about Apollo, and I should be honest???

    Shame to you....


    Like to account for that?
    I cannot account for blind disbelief in Apollo....particularly in the face of the evidence...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Be honest and own up. You cannot see any clear definition of Apollo hardware in the photographs. You just believe in them yet can see next to nothing. Blind faith. Shame on you.

    Noted on this forum that I am supposed to answer questions regarding the authenticity of Apollo facets yet the reverse is not so.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Stick - wrong end.
    I have no idea what this means...


    Clear to you maybe.
    Maybe? what does that mean?



    Do not patronise me with "seem not to understand". And do not dictate to me either. It only serves your purpose, nothing else.
    I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt....was that a mistake??

    Ah, you got to the point of my post but couldn't resist the swipes. Well done. The LRO photographs may justifiably be considered poor due to pixilation and obvious lack of definition. No hardware is clearly recognisable given the stated height of the LRO and the camera resolution.
    Explain the rover tracks...


    ...the photographs presented by NASA do not give a clear picture of what ought to be there according to their records.
    See, ya need to demonstrate this with some form of evidence, as in how do you know what "should be in their records??

    Since you apparently have no doubt of their authenticity how do you account for the lack of LRO definition...

    Don't even have to finish that sentence as it COMPLETELY IGNORES the rover tracks...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Be honest and own up. You cannot see any clear definition of Apollo hardware in the photographs. You just believe in them yet can see next to nothing. Blind faith. Shame on you.

    How boring....done with you....
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Resolution aside...The images are rubbish, just blobs, and the lunar rover is a black splodge. Like to account for that?
    Resolution aside? THAT was your complaint. So, what is your continued problem? Oh, just MORE resolution complaints. You have the same logical failure, no matter how many ways you want to re-word it. As for proof, well it is readily apparent that no proof is good enough for you, as you refuse to educate yourself enough to understand the scientific and physical consistency of the Moon landing evidence, and instead just re-hash the same hole-filled rhetoric. So, it appears you are now being WILLFULLY ignorant and logically unsound as demonstrated by the contradiction in your post that I just mentioned. If you do not show any semblance of reasonable comprehension, you are a lost cause - not due to lack of trying on my and others' part. You have only yourself to blame. Not a conspiracy. Not the media. Not the greed and/or ignorance of others. Just yourself. Please try to grasp that concept, if you can.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Interesting topic. It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery. There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other. Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    The images have been at NASA since 2009 and in the purview of the internet. They are either authentic or fake not in between As Obm has tried to patiently explain the data from the LRO is digital and can be downloaded and then manipulated in whatever manner is necessary. The images he put together of Mount Hadley and then verified by other countries Lunar probes proves they are authentic. Craig2 and possibly you have called into question this authenticity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shame on you for even adding that the authenticity can't be proved. BTW there is sufficient clarity of the images to identify even small objects.
    You ask why they are "so poor". The mission occurred in 2009, but panning took many years the camera had to be selected and tested prior to the mission. I suspect that if another probe were launched the camera would be many times the resolution of the LRO.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Multiple things.
    First, this thread was split off from here.

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeyboysdontknow View Post
    As I pointed out in my previous thread, where do YOU get your incredulity from, unless it is pure ignorance?
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I'd just call it lack of education in this subject.

    No "shame" in that, but if one remains uninformed (for whatever reason), then there's not really much to discuss...
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Be honest and own up. You cannot see any clear definition of Apollo hardware in the photographs. You just believe in them yet can see next to nothing. Blind faith. Shame on you.

    Noted on this forum that I am supposed to answer questions regarding the authenticity of Apollo facets yet the reverse is not so.
    Second, there are a lot of rude, inappropriate, and infractable comments here (only some of which I have quoted). The entire lot of you will knock it off or we'll start dishing infractions.
    Last edited by Swift; 2018-Jul-23 at 01:30 AM.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Interesting topic. It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery. There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other. Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    Actually, the LRO images are quite remarkable, but let's put that to one side. If you want to know why the LRO images have the resolution they do, then really you need to do some homework:


    • What was the purpose of the LRO? (Hint: it wasn't to confirm the bleeding obvious for an insignificant subset of general population with no particular specialty in the field)
    • What equipment was available to be considered for inclusion in the mission.
    • What equipment was eventually selected for the mission (keeping in mind the mission objectives, mission duration, weight considerations to carry to a lunar orbit, etc)
    • Given the equipment selected for the mission, what are the optical constraints of that equipment at various altitudes and/or phase angles.


    If the equipment selected was appropriate for the job it was intended to achieve, then comparing it to current imaging hardware that is intended to achieve a completely different purpose is entirely spurious. LRO can't read the Apollo 11 plaque for instance, but it was never designed to.

    However, even though it was not designed to do so, its images do show the LRV tracks in some beautiful detail; it shows the descent modules precisely where expected and it shows the areas where the regolith has been disturbed by the astronaut's activities - and they are all entirely consistent with the (comprehensive) Apollo record.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Interesting topic. It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery. There is insufficient detail in the photographs to prove anything one way or the other. Given satellites orbiting earth resolve infinitely better, it leaves open to question why the LRO photographs are so poor given its much lower orbit.
    Any mission to another celestial body with a camera is going to involve a compromise between what is desirable and what is achievable. Taking pretty pictures is a good thing, but it takes second place to other more important scientific instruments, and the quality if the camera always has to be balanced with how much that will cost in terms of mass on the probe. You also need to bear in mind that the quality of the LRO images is not far off those in Earth orbit, but what is missing is the amount of detail that helps give you an idea of scale and location - there are no buildings or vegetation present to give context.

    As for proof, if you have Apollo images showing the layout of equipment and the tracks between those pieces of equipment, as well as rocks and small craters around the scene, and you then have photographs taken from orbit by the LRO that shows that equipment, in the right place, with the tracks between them, and those same rocks and small craters in the right locations then I would say that you have some corroboration there. If you then have images taken by probes from three other countries that also confirm some of those features then I would argue that you have quite definitive proof.

    You also don't have to rely on anyone else to supply you with the images, you can get the raw data yourself and do your own work on them. If or one am happy that the processing I have done on Chinese, Japanese and Indian images shows evidence of human activity that is a match for that recorded by Apollo and also by the LRO.

    You do not have to have an absolutely crystal sharp perfect image of the lunar module to show that it is the lunar module. The fact that there is an artificial object exactly where there should be one surrounded by other equipment should be a clue.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    All of these pictures are fakable so they're not proof of anything.
    https://www.google.es/search?q=apoll...w=1024&bih=677

    Even if the pictures were of higher resolution, they'd still be fakable. The also don't make the mountain of hoax proof* go away so these fakable pictures are really a moot argument. If the anomalies have already proved the hoax, we can deduce that these pictures were faked.


    *
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-here-on-earth

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    All of these pictures are fakable so they're not proof of anything.
    https://www.google.es/search?q=apoll...w=1024&bih=677

    Even if the pictures were of higher resolution, they'd still be fakable. The also don't make the mountain of hoax proof* go away so these fakable pictures are really a moot argument. If the anomalies have already proved the hoax, we can deduce that these pictures were faked.


    *
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...-here-on-earth
    Answer the question proving that the images from LRO ARE faked.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    42
    Answer the question proving that the images from LRO ARE faked.
    I don't see how it can be conclusively proven either way. What you said here isn't proof.
    The images he put together of Mount Hadley and then verified by other countries Lunar probes proves they are authentic.
    Other countries can be in bed with NASA and lie too.

    An objective truth-seeker of normal intelligence has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity. You have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the pro-Apollo stuff and an a priori incredulity when you look at the hoax-believer stuff.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig2 View Post
    I don't see how it can be conclusively proven either way. What you said here isn't proof.


    Other countries can be in bed with NASA and lie too.

    An objective truth-seeker of normal intelligence has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity. You have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the pro-Apollo stuff and an a priori incredulity when you look at the hoax-believer stuff.
    Somewhat ironic coming from the man who has done nothing but post other people's 'work' on Apollo without question.

    As an objective truthseeker you would take the information on the videos and links you post and examine them carefully to see whether they stand up to objective scrutiny. You have not done this and have shown an a priori credulity of hoax believer material.

    I, on the other hand, have done this, and have shown to my own satisfaction, and that of a number of others, that the photographic, video and live TV record of Apollo is vindicated by the evidence available from a variety of sources.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    It is clear that pro-NASA people apparently believe whatever is put out by the Administration. What isn't clear are the LRO images despite some folk suggesting they are! 2009 - 50 years on from the Apollo program - and this is the best that's on offer? Despite the LRO dropping as low as 21 km from the lunar surface all we have are indistinct blobs. The photographs are a poor excuse as evidence.
    Last edited by gunzlepug; 2018-Jul-23 at 04:27 PM. Reason: typo
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    I think it's pretty clear that you're not seeing what you don't want to see.

    The fact is that there are clearly objects in places identified s Apollo landing sites that are not lunar in origin. Where else do you think they came from?

    The appearance and configuration relative to each other of those objects is entirely consistent with the information available in Apollo photographs, 16mm video and live TV. The trails between that equipment can also be found in images from other non-NASA probes. Despite the high regard in which you obviously hold your opinion, you are not the arbiter of what counts as evidence. The fact that they are not perfect crystal clear images does not remove them from the list of available evidence, neither does it mean they are faked.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,805
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    It is clear that pro-NASA people apparently believe whatever is put out by the Administration. What isn't clear are the LRO images despite some folk suggesting they are! 2009 - 50 years on from the Apollo program - and this is the best that's on offer? Despite the LRO dropping as low as 21 km from the lunar surface all we have are indistinct blobs. The photographs are a poor excuse as evidence.
    Please explain...quantitatively...what resolution you expect from such missions and why. Show your math.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Who suggested faked? 50 years on from the Apollo program and these photographs are trundled out as 'clear' evidence? Images taken from 21km above the lunar surface might be another story altogether.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Please explain...quantitatively...what resolution you expect from such missions and why. Show your math.
    No. That is the chicanery you like to enforce here.

    Better would be for you to answer why 50 years on from Apollo an orbiter only returns pixilated blobs.
    "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."
    - Plato

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •