Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: gunzlepug's LRO thread

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,162
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    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.
    gunzlepug

    We have had this problem before with you. You come here, cast doubts on the mainstream explanations of things, but when asked directly what you are advocating, you get vague. We have explained to you before how the CT forum works, but still seem to have trouble with it.

    So, I am asking you point blank, in your next post, you will clarify what exactly you are claiming. Are you doubting the LRO images? Are you doubting the Moon landings? If all you are trying to do is understand how the LRO imaging system works, then ask that, and don't argue with the answers given to you.

    If you do not follow my instructions, you will be infracted.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,148
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Better would be for you to answer why 50 years on from Apollo an orbiter only returns pixilated blobs.
    Because, as others have pointed out, the mission of the system was not to produce high resolution imagery. It was a mapping mission. Which sacrifices pixel size on the ground for coverage. There are some other tradeoffs, like space, size, mass etc. But ultimately that is the case. You might as well as why, after more than 50 years of F1, F1 cars can't carry more than one person - after all, buses can. Or why we have had buses for more than 100 years they still can't do 200mph - after all, other motor vehicles can.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    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.
    As previous said to you, the LRO was not sent to the moon to prove or disprove Apollo. It had the cameras that it could carry and unlike Earth orbiting satellites it did not have the payload to carry a higher definition camera or indeed an attached telescope. Your point about the altitude is irrelevant as the bottom line is, the camera only has the resolving power of its onboard optics.
    That considered the job that it has done in resolving the landing sites is remarkable, considering this was not its primary mission. If you accept the photographs as genuine, it does indeed prove the missions happened.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    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.
    Wait, are you one of those folks that believe that spy sats can read car licence plates from orbit? A moments thought would illustrate why that is baloney.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    For anyone interested, GoneToPlaid's deconvolved LRO images are a treat.

    8 minutes illustrating just how much detail was available in the LRO images. Worth a look.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfm7ZU-JKJc

    That is just A11, he did similar for all the LRO Apollo sites.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    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.
    HERE is a direct question for you - based on the information regarding the differences between the LRO and a spy satellite that I noted in post #4 of this thread, do you acknowledge that the LRO's resolution cannot be expected to be close to that of the spy satellites? If you think otherwise, please state why in DETAIL.

    Also, FYI, do you realize how much harder it can be to get a clear picture from a lower orbit than at a higher one? An example is if you viewed a train passing by at 10 miles an hour from 500 feet (similar to a high orbit situation, albeit with the moving objects switched, but the results are the same), you could see it in great detail. If you moved to within 1 foot of that train (lower orbit), you would find it impossible to focus on the nearest part(s) of that train. That is only an example as it relates to the human eye, but the same physics are applicable to modern photographic techniques, and must be factored in to any low orbit filming.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,024
    Not sure what you expect. The best commercial observing satellites I can find are the WorldView satellites which are solely dedicated to high-resolution photos of Earth. From indeed about 600 km up they take images with 30cm/pixel resolution using a camera that includes what amounts to a 110 cm (43") telescope with a 13.3 m focal length. The satellite weighs 2800 kg and has only the single instrument.

    LRO, by contrast, has multiple instruments, the relevant ones here being the two narrow-angle cameras that are part of the LROC assembly. These incorporate 19.5 cm (7.5") telescopes with a .7 m focal length and achieve 50cm/pixel resolution. The satellite goes as low as roughly 60 km and weighs 2000kg.

    Resolution in meters/pixel is proportional to height and inversely proportional to the detector size and the focal length. I'm not going to try to get real numbers, just ratios. The number for WorldView-2 is 600/(110*13.3), which comes out to 0.41. For the LRO LROC NAC, it's 60/(19.5*.7), or 4.4. So you'd expect the WorldView imagery to be about ten times as good as the LRO imagery, and it possibly is - the 30cm/pixel is actually a legal limitation, rather than an optical one.

    Just for comparison purposes, I superimposed LRO's image of the Apollo 11 landing site with a WorldView image of a port near Barcelona, doing my best to match the scale. I think LRO comes off rather well, actually. Certainly if there were letters the same size on the Moon as there are in Barcelona, it would pick them up easily.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Barcelona-Apollo 11.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	696.3 KB 
ID:	23460
    Last edited by ToSeek; 2018-Jul-23 at 09:22 PM.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    gunzlepug

    We have had this problem before with you. You come here, cast doubts on the mainstream explanations of things, but when asked directly what you are advocating, you get vague. We have explained to you before how the CT forum works, but still seem to have trouble with it.

    So, I am asking you point blank, in your next post, you will clarify what exactly you are claiming. Are you doubting the LRO images? Are you doubting the Moon landings? If all you are trying to do is understand how the LRO imaging system works, then ask that, and don't argue with the answers given to you.

    If you do not follow my instructions, you will be infracted.
    If you look back, the essence of my contribution to the original thread - by someone else - was, "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."

    What's the issue with that?

    Every time I'm on here you try and get me to make blanket statements about the Apollo program. Why so? What has it to do with my post? Am I not allowed to add comments (as above) to a thread without being interrogated?
    "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

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,344
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    Am I not allowed to add comments (as above) to a thread without being interrogated?

    No. You're not. Not in the CT forum, with its specific subset of rules, and you've now been here long enough to no longer be able to claim ignorance of it. Once again putting in doubt the veracity of the historical record puts you firmly on the side of advocating the Apollo being hoaxed claim, and thus obligated to answer any pertinent questions put to you. You have declined to do so, and declined to comply with a moderator's instruction. That will earn you an infraction. On top of that, you have decided to argue moderation in the thread, which we consider off topic and thus forbidden. That too will earn you an infraction.

    No more playing games, gunzlepug.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    83
    It's plain to see how things are twisted and distorted from my basic comment, i.e. "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."

    Why bother having a conspiracy section? Seems rather pointless.
    "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. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,722
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    It's plain to see how things are twisted and distorted from my basic comment, i.e. "It's pretty clear (unlike the LRO images) that neither side can actually prove authenticity or fakery.
    There is a vast amount of factual evidence that we went to the moon. There are lies and delusions on the other side. If you think those scales are balanced, you need to think again.

    Why bother having a conspiracy section? Seems rather pointless.
    It keeps the nonsense out of serious discussions.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,032
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    It's plain to see how things are twisted and distorted from my basic comment, i.e. "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."

    Why bother having a conspiracy section? Seems rather pointless.
    And I pointed out to you that to answer that question, you needed to look at what the LRO was actually designed to do and what hardware it had available to perform that function. You have completely ignored that, but continued to make innuendos about the supposed poor quality of the images. A bit pathetic to snipe from the sideline but then try to hide when the spotlight turns.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,896
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    It's plain to see how things are twisted and distorted from my basic comment, i.e. "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.".
    Okay, two points.

    First, if the ONLY evidence available to check the reality of Apollo was the LRO images, then yes, I'd be happy to say that it would be hard to prove the reality of Apollo one way or the other.

    Of course, the LRO images aren't the only evidence; there's a heap of other evidence, such as the original photos and video, the telemetry from scientific instruments left on the Moon, the rocks brought back from the Moon, the engineering evidence of the construction and operation of the Saturn V rockets and the spacecraft the astronauts travelled in, and the testimony of thousands of people who were involved in the project. All of that evidence points to the same conclusion, and the LRO evidence matches it.

    Secondly, as others have pointed out, the cameras on the LRO don't have the same resolution as some "...satellites orbiting earth..." That's because it would have been expensive overkill to send a spy satellite to the Moon. And that's because the job of the LRO wasn't the same as the job of a spy satellite (hint: there aren't any Soviet/Russian naval bases or rocket launch facilities on the Moon).

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    If you look back, the essence of my contribution to the original thread - by someone else - was, "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."
    Oh, well if that is all you are saying then I can prove their authenticity easily: They came from NASA. NASA is a reputable source and their data is considered genuine by the mainstream, so I don't need anything else to prove they are real other then to prove they came from NASA. Therefore, if you are suggesting that NASA is releasing fake images then yes that is very much a conspiracy theory. So is that what you are suggesting, or do you now accept the images are authentic?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by gunzlepug View Post
    It's plain to see how things are twisted and distorted from my basic comment, i.e. "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."

    Why bother having a conspiracy section? Seems rather pointless.
    I'll re-iterate my point: the details in LRO imagery are confirmed by images taken by probes from China, India and Japan, including evidence of human activity. Those details match the photographs, live TV and 16mm video footage taken by Apollo. The evidence that they LRO imagery are not genuine consists of...erm...nope, can't find anything.

Posting Permissions

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