Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 155

Thread: LRO to take more detailed photos of Apollo landing sites!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvezdichko View Post
    Now the Apollo hoax supporters scream: Hey, they are not blurry! This is suspicious!
    Do you have a link to support that claim ?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,403
    No, I got it by revelation while praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    I think the new pictures look great, it's so magical to be able to see the tracks and objects on another body.

  4. #64
    A poster on another site commented that there appears to be no trail of footprints leading away from the parked rover, suggesting that an astronaut must still be sitting there

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/5...ea-nolabel.jpg

    I think you can see a footprint trail heading "upwards" from the rover at about 11 o'clock, passing between the two craters just above it and then heading in a straight line almost directly up the photo to meet the main trodden path. Can anyone confirm this is the route they took?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    I also agree with what we've all been thinking in that these great pictures should give a gentle prod with a broom handle to all those people sitting on the fence. :-)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    Quote Originally Posted by Beagle 2's Parachute Cord View Post
    I think you can see a footprint trail heading "upwards" from the rover at about 11 o'clock, passing between the two craters just above it and then heading in a straight line almost directly up the photo to meet the main trodden path. Can anyone confirm this is the route they took?
    Confirmed. The lunar surface procedures call for the commander to perform additional operations at the science experiment station after parking the rover. The visible tracks are consistent with what was published as the commander's procedures.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Stunning, breath-taking, awe-inspiring images.

    Just beautiful.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    209
    Ohh ahh... The new pictures look great.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,032
    I have tried to mention this on another forum here and the response I got is:

    Obviously the pictures are photoshopped.
    How do you refute this?

    Can a photo-shopped image be identified as such?
    Last edited by Sticks; 2011-Sep-10 at 05:23 PM. Reason: correct link

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,564
    It's not up to you to refute it. It is up to the person claiming that something is faked to show their evidence that it is faked. "Obviously" is not an argument.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Can a photo-shopped image be identified as such?
    Yes(link); and it get's easier when there are more images to compare.

    So; it's time for the CT to show us where the image is inconsistant.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    It's not up to you to refute it. It is up to the person claiming that something is faked to show their evidence that it is faked. "Obviously" is not an argument.
    Well according to most CT's it is, and 'I think' or 'It looks to me' are clinching proof of their point.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    Can a photo-shopped image be identified as such?
    Yes(link); and it get's easier when there are more images to compare.
    wait a minute. the answer isn't quite that simple. it very much depends on the content of the image and on the particular manipulations. with everyday images of people and nature scenes with a lot of depth the answer is "probably yes" (still dependent on the particular manipulation).

    but with the images in question here, i would say manipulations can not be identified that easily. we are dealing with fairly uniform images, with hardly any depth and not much color variation. in the hands of a skilled photoshopper i would say it is probably fairly easy to add a few tracks where there were none.

    note: i don't want to partake in the rest of the discussion here and i am not saying that the images in question were indeed manipulated. i am only responding to Sticks' question and pointing out that NEOWatcher's answer was too simplified to be accurate in this context.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    I have tried to mention this on another forum here and the response I got is:



    How do you refute this?

    Can a photo-shopped image be identified as such?
    Sometimes you can easily tell -- sometimes it's more difficult. Did this plane actually fly under the Golden Gate Bridge?
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    Well according to most CT's it is, and 'I think' or 'It looks to me' are clinching proof of their point.
    Yes, but they're wrong, and letting them think they can move the burden of proof is a bad idea.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Yes, but they're wrong, and letting them think they can move the burden of proof is a bad idea.
    Absolutely, especially as they are by their claims accusing those involved with the LRO of fraud and deception.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    4,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    Sometimes you can easily tell -- sometimes it's more difficult. Did this plane actually fly under the Golden Gate Bridge?
    My hunch is that it is faked. For safety sake in a stunt like this I would want the flaps down and the engines working hard. I would expect to see some blurring of the shadow of the wing and the bridge towers under the fuselage, where I would be looking through the hot exhaust. This is based on my own experience in seeing such blurring behind the tailpipes while looking out the window of a similar plane.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Luckmeister View Post
    Sometimes you can easily tell -- sometimes it's more difficult. Did this plane actually fly under the Golden Gate Bridge?
    I very, very much doubt it. Apart from the lack of any haze effects behind the engines, there are some edge problems (could just be bad sharpening or compression effects), if you look at the bridge the sun appears to be at about 15 from directly overhead yet the planes shadow is at about 45, and that shadow appears to be way too short and pretty poorly drawn in...

    Perspective issues and low res images can affect such things somewhat and I'd want to spend a bit more time actually measuring stuff rather than the quick eyeball I just did, but it reeks of fake to me. Even before any consideration on why a passenger jet would be allowed to do that, or why anyone would want to.

    Anyway, if I was seriously investimagating that, I'd first want to hear the full story behind the image and see a larger original. I'm guessing there is no story, or that it will give the game away.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    209
    Photo shop can do anything without being noticed. Depending on the skill of the photoshoper. It just depends on how much time you want to put into doing something. Every single magazine cover on the shelves these days have been photoshoped - Everysingle image anywhere now a days has probably been through photoshop at least for resizing/sharpening/contrast purposes. If I had enough time I could recreate an acurate moonscape - plane flying under a bridge - Apolo landing site, ect. I love photoshop.

    So when they say it looks photoshoped that is a null statement. If you were to resize an image in photoshop BAM its been photoshoped. Does that mean you faked it. umm no. Does it mean its been photoshoped? of coarse it does.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,032
    Any point anyone else signing up to that forum and educating the posters there?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Any point anyone else signing up to that forum and educating the posters there?
    to be honest, you would need to tell them that in this case faking the images would be pretty easy from a technical pov.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    'faking the images would be pretty easy'???

    You would have to, at least:

    1. Match all current and future moon-mapping (by any country).. (not quite sure how one would achieve the latter )

    2. Match all the information in the Apollo records (eg lunar surface journals, mission debriefings, all photos, video/film footage) in 3 dimensions, down to the smallest detail (eg I see they have verified the direction the LRV's wheels were turned when it was parked...)

    3. As above, do all this in 3d to match the sun angles and light/shadow effects (for multiple passes, now and in the future) and then coordinate the release of the images to match LRO's location as per the LRO missions stats, with lighting to match the actual sun angles at that time

    Also, LRO's incoming data stream is highly directional, and could be (is being?) captured/intercepted by other antennas/dishes in the form of raw data. So to do this properly, 'they' would have to have a transmitter (or some reflector arrangement) on the moon to make the data come from the correct direction at the correct time..

    I'm sure there is more..

    Pretty easy?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,058
    Quote Originally Posted by chrlzs View Post
    'faking the images would be pretty easy'???

    You would have to, at least:

    1. Match all current and future moon-mapping (by any country).. (not quite sure how one would achieve the latter )

    2. Match all the information in the Apollo records (eg lunar surface journals, mission debriefings, all photos, video/film footage) in 3 dimensions, down to the smallest detail (eg I see they have verified the direction the LRV's wheels were turned when it was parked...)

    3. As above, do all this in 3d to match the sun angles and light/shadow effects (for multiple passes, now and in the future) and then coordinate the release of the images to match LRO's location as per the LRO missions stats, with lighting to match the actual sun angles at that time

    Also, LRO's incoming data stream is highly directional, and could be (is being?) captured/intercepted by other antennas/dishes in the form of raw data. So to do this properly, 'they' would have to have a transmitter (or some reflector arrangement) on the moon to make the data come from the correct direction at the correct time..

    I'm sure there is more..

    Pretty easy?
    The raw data being received needs to be carefully constructed to match the images in case any future third party gets access to it.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,714
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulLogan View Post
    to be honest, you would need to tell them that in this case faking the images would be pretty easy from a technical pov.
    Then ask that they do so. If it is so easy, someone should try to recreate such an image in Photoshop.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    The raw data being received needs to be carefully constructed to match the images in case any future third party gets access to it.
    Phil Plait has done "something" like that on his blog. He took the the new LRO image of the A17 site and "compared" it to a frame of film from the A17 ascent.

    They match perfectly. Fact is...the LRO image is more detailed than the image in the ascent film frame.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,032
    My earlier link went wrong, I have fixed it now

    It should be this

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    166
    Why don't they land a small craft at an Apollo site? 11 would be best. I am beginning to have some doubts now. The photos do not seem conclusive one way or the other. Can't they take good pictures and settle it?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by HighGain View Post
    Why don't they land a small craft at an Apollo site? 11 would be best. I am beginning to have some doubts now. The photos do not seem conclusive one way or the other. Can't they take good pictures and settle it?
    Spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to give more evidence for conspiracy theorists to ignore may be a bit of a waste of money.
    And these images seem conclusive to me, and a nice bonus to the primary mission of the LRO.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by HighGain View Post
    Why don't they land a small craft at an Apollo site? 11 would be best. I am beginning to have some doubts now. The photos do not seem conclusive one way or the other. Can't they take good pictures and settle it?
    Why? So a tiny minority of obstinate people with blinders on can be convinced? Even with pictures taken at ground level, they'd still cry "Photoshop!" The LRO probe is probably going out of it's way as it is.

    There is already a mountain range of evidence that the Apollo landings transpired if anyone cares to look. The HBs choose to ignore it. They enjoy a conspiracy more.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    166
    I disagree. These photos border on a total waste of money. a bunch of squiggly lines and arrows, white specs. Who cares? Take some real pictures. This is worthless junk from an Apollo proof perspective. Maybe map people like the photos for other reasons, but as far as proving Apollo, its money down the drain.

Similar Threads

  1. Apollo Landing Sites, Now in 3-D!
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-14, 08:41 PM
  2. Gigapan the Apollo Landing Sites
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2009-Aug-02, 11:13 AM
  3. Apollo Landing Sites
    By kryton in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-19, 10:59 PM
  4. Apollo landing sites
    By paul f. campbell in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-18, 12:13 AM
  5. Photos of lunar landing sites from earth?
    By James_Oak in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-03, 05:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: