Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 248

Thread: Apollo 11 landing site imaged by Japanese lunar orbiter.

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    How are they a joke? They are of a resolution much higher than any previously available, and magnitudes better than is achievable without a spacecraft. They are comparable to the photographs of HiRes, about which you appear to have no complaint. And they are appropriate to the stated mission.

    Perhaps we need to be more clear about the unstated here. I have reason to believe your characterizations have nothing to do with the stated mission of the LROC, but instead are addressed towards something that was never a mission objective.

    To wit, I believe you are basing your entire line of discussion on the idea that LROC was intended to prove the reality of the Apollo landings, and for that end, you believe the photographs of actual Apollo landing sites that are part of the whole-moon survey fail in that task.

    Is this an accurate assessment of your stance?

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,331
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    How much more definitive can an answer be? I said "No", declaritively and definitively. Now that I have answered your questions, please definitively answer mine.
    Who are you responding to? You haven't answered my questions. See the following posts:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....34#post1883034

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....75#post1883075

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....79#post1883079

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    And if a definitive "No" includes understanding the basics of resolution and why comparison with the sales point of CCD pixels is inadequate to describe satellite imaging...

    Actually, I am at a loss as to the appropriate way to proceed in that case.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,331
    Quote Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
    How are they a joke? They are of a resolution much higher than any previously available, and magnitudes better than is achievable without a spacecraft. They are comparable to the photographs of HiRes, about which you appear to have no complaint. And they are appropriate to the stated mission.
    Just a note, at this point it isn't even clear he's talking about LRO - at one point, he linked to a Kuguya image with 10 meter surface resolution.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Hrm. Clementine was, what, 4 meters? But not entirely complete, due to a different orbit.

    Just looked it up. 7 to 20 meters (was looking at the wrong camera for a moment!)
    Last edited by nomuse; 2011-May-02 at 05:16 AM. Reason: Additional information

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    The title of this forum is, "Apollo 11 Landing Site Imaged by Japenese Lunar Orbiter".

    That claim is preposterous. Nothing has imaged any of the 200 million tons of purported Apollo debris on the lunar surface. The photos referenced in this thread, no matter from the LRO or Japenese orbiter are useless in definitively showing anything other than a lunar blur.

    The photos are useless in proving the preposterous claim of this thread.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,331
    Moonfunk, when can I expect an answer to my questions?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    This is what NASA defines as "High Resolution" images of Apollo debris on the moon at an orbital altitude of 30 miles:
    http://www.universetoday.com/wp-cont...08/07/halo.jpg

    I guess if NASA had taken clearer images of the purported Apollo debris, they just would have taped the Upper Atmospheric Shuttles last take off over them.
    I would be interested in your source for claiming your link is hi res. Here is an example of the resolution the LRO is able to acheive. Note the arrow pointing to the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP). The size of that little square there is 2' X 3'. Note also the trail leading from the LM (which is approximately 12 ft across) to the ALSEP and back. Those are the trails of the astronaut's boots and the MET. Also note the trails leading off to the "Cone" crater to the right. I would say the resolution is quite hi res.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    The title of this forum is, "Apollo 11 Landing Site Imaged by Japenese Lunar Orbiter".

    That claim is preposterous. Nothing has imaged any of the 200 million tons of purported Apollo debris on the lunar surface. The photos referenced in this thread, no matter from the LRO or Japenese orbiter are useless in definitively showing anything other than a lunar blur.

    The photos are useless in proving the preposterous claim of this thread.
    Don't you just hate it when someone provides the evidence, just after you post something like this?

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    The title of this forum is, "Apollo 11 Landing Site Imaged by Japenese Lunar Orbiter".

    That claim is preposterous. Nothing has imaged any of the 200 million tons of purported Apollo debris on the lunar surface. The photos referenced in this thread, no matter from the LRO or Japenese orbiter are useless in definitively showing anything other than a lunar blur.

    The photos are useless in proving the preposterous claim of this thread.
    The title of the thread is correct. "Imaged" carries with it no explicit quantification. We have "imaged" the surface of stars using clever techniques that achieve a field of perhaps 16 pixels of individually imprecise value. There have been successful scientific tests that returned the value of a single pixel, or even detected a single photon.

    I do not intend this as a question, but 200 million tons seems rather high to me.

    And you still haven't linked your terse "no" to a specific question, thus rendering it useless.

    I will ask again; in your opinion, is the pixel count of optical systems an accurate measure by which to compare angular resolutions? And do you understand why this is being asked?

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    Is the ASLEP the little white dot about the size of a period ( . ) or the evn tinier particulate next to it?

    Wait, that was crumb clinging to my monitor. So which is the ASLEP? I think the white dot ( . ) is covering it up? Is it that really tiny shadow that almost looks like a fly on a fence about 100 yards away while looking thru one of those Mickey Mouse polaroid cameras?

    That thing?

    Completely useless for any claims its purported Apollo debris.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    I do not accept the standard of an arbitrary resolution as scientifically meaningful, but is there a resolution that you, personally, would find acceptable as "proof" (your conception, your goal) of the presence of Apollo-related materials on the Moon? Please be specific in terms of ground resolution. I will not accept any answer not phrased in n/pixel (where n is a stated fraction of 1 meter) or meter/n pixels (where n is the number of pixels in each linear meter).

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    well it would be nice if they could take a photo of 200 million tons of purported Apollo debris that was larger then a period ( . )

    I might accept a 12 point 0 (zero) in a tru type font?

    A "High Resolution" photo shouldnt need circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying, "Cant you see the King's clothes".

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Font sizes are dependent on monitor resolution. Do you understand why angular resolution (or, given a known target) ground resolution in linear measure is necessary? I can image California with a 200 megapixel camera, or one person in California with a 30x40 monochrome LCD. Which will tell me if that person has a mustache?

    Please tell me the pixels/meter or meters/pixel you think appropriate. Or ask for clarification if you do not understand the question.

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    Is the ASLEP the little white dot about the size of a period ( . ) or the evn tinier particulate next to it?

    Wait, that was crumb clinging to my monitor.
    1) Please provide us with an image of your monitor, showing the image of the Apollo picture and the crumb clinging to your monitor. Otherwise, it's a very valid location of the ASLEP in the image. Which can be compared to the location of the ASLEP placed during the first EVA of the Apollo 14 landing.


    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    So which is the ASLEP? I think the white dot ( . ) is covering it up?
    Of course, the white dot is the ASLEP. The location of that white dot is at the same place as the location the ASLEP was placed at during the first Apollo 14 EVA. This is mainstream information.

    2) If you wish to claim otherwise, please provide the links showing a difference in the location of where the ASLEP was recorded as being placed during the Apollo 14 EVA and the location of the white dot on the image. Porvide links to your coordinates showing the difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    Is it that really tiny shadow that almost looks like a fly on a fence about 100 yards away while looking thru one of those Mickey Mouse polaroid cameras?

    That thing?
    3) Please provide an image from a Mickey Mouse polaroid camera of a fly on a fence about 100 yards away showing it looks the same as the shadow of the LM in the image I provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    Completely useless for any claims its purported Apollo debris.
    It's only useless if you can provide the coordinates of the ASLEP that are different in either the recorded location or the location of the white square on the image. Or, you can provide what a fly looks like in a Mickey Mouse polaroid camera from about 100 yards away.

    4) Now, is that 102 yards? or 98 yards? For that matter, what exactly is your definition of about 100 yeards, in the case of taking an image of a fly?

    You have four questions to answer, which are numbred.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Incidentally, estimates are that somewhat over 170,000 kg of material has been left on the Moon (a significant part of that "crashed into," actually). This includes several Apollo third stages, but the heaviest item that might be found at the actual landing and EVA sites would be the lower part of the LMs, at 10,149 kg each.

    Your "200 million tons" is incorrect. This is NOT a question. This is a statement of fact.

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    The fact is, without the circles and arrows and paragraph on the back of each one, those photos are useless.

    They imaged nothing relevant or distinguishable. Its a Kings clothes argument.

    The majority of this board can fool themselves into believing whatever they want, but when the King walks down the street naked, the little boy chuckles.

    If individuals have convinced themselves that the itsy bitsy teeny weeny spec, smaller than the white period ( . ) next to it is Apollo debris, all I can say is, they need to repeal those marijuana laws in CA.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,785
    It's spelt ALSEP.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    Completely useless for any claims its purported Apollo debris.
    Says you...

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    And what would you get (in terms of images) with a camera like that, on an orbiter, taking images of the lunar surface, without the help of additional optics?
    Moonfunk, as it is highly relevant to your statements earlier, I would also like to hear a DETAILED answer to Van Rijn's and Grashtel's questions, or a retraction of the comments.

    By detailed, I mean an enlightened discussion of the sensor size, resolution, and angular resolution (taking into account the fitted optics) of the camera in question, as against your proposed 'solution' with regard to the specified purpose of the spacecraft. It should obviously include the actual numbers, rather than handwaving about 'high resolution' - a term which is quite meaningless without those numbers.

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,641
    Direct challenge. Find an identical set of markings (Descent Stage, ALSEP, tracks) on any other part of the LROC images.

    We'll wait.

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    This thread is, "Apollo 11 Landing Site Imaged By Japenese Lunar Orbiter", I do NOT intend to take over any ones thread with debate not concerned with the thread.

    The photos prove nothing. I will no longer argue what cannot be seen.

    Anyways, I heard a rumor these photos were deleted and NASA used the memory to record the office Xmas party.

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    185
    These photos are so poor, no self respecting UFO advocate would have them in his portfolio. I have seen better photos of the Loch Ness Monster.

    Did you know "Gullible" isnt in the dictionary?

    Can you imagine if a UFO'ologist used these photos as proof of UFO debris on the moon? He would be laughed out cell block D in the home for cognitively challenged blind people.

    If you see UFO's or Apollo debris in these photos, good for you. Unfortunately, I dont take mind altering narcotics.

    G'night

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    8,322
    Please save further questions if you have them. moonfunk's rudeness and insults have resulted in a 7-day suspension.
    Brett's the name. Peters Creek is the place.
    ─────────────────────────────────────────────
    My moderation comments will appear in this color.
    To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
    .
    Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
    It's spelt ALSEP.
    Yeah, actually, I knew that. But for some reason I switched the L and S. The only thing I can think of is that I was watching the news and trying to type and chew gum. Two things are so bad, three and I screw something up. You'll notice I had it correct in post # 218. I even had the long form correct.

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9
    My apologies for making LRO comments on the Japanese Lunar Orbiter thread. I realized my mistake AFTER I submitted my post.

    I do want to clarify something for Moonfunk, since he has a special agenda regarding the SPACE Shuttle. The international community defines space as beginning at 100k. So renaming the shuttle to the upper atmosphere shuttle is not required and inappropriate. It would be like me calling you by a different name; you chose the name "Moonfunk" and we use it. When you are off suspension and would like to discuss further the definition of space, I'd be happy to discuss it with you ... even though it has nothing to do with this topic or any other moon topic.

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    A couple of comments for moonfunk's return.

    Is the ASLEP the little white dot about the size of a period ( . ) or the evn tinier particulate next to it?

    Wait, that was crumb clinging to my monitor. So which is the ASLEP? I think the white dot ( . ) is covering it up? Is it that really tiny shadow that almost looks like a fly on a fence about 100 yards away while looking thru one of those Mickey Mouse polaroid cameras?

    That thing?

    Completely useless for any claims its purported Apollo debris.


    Actually, since the LRO images match the record of Apollo - including still and motion imagery, tracking, the mission operations timeline, etc. - it's very good corroborative evidence. Not that it's needed - imaging Apollo landing sites is just a fun byproduct of LRO's purpose. It's also worth pointing out that the images specifically match the ALSEP (not "ASLEP") deployment and operations record, including years of telemetry from the Moon received at multiple locations around the world. (My boss, in fact, was one of the people who oversaw the development of the power system.)

    well it would be nice if they could take a photo of 200 million tons of purported Apollo debris that was larger then a period ( . )...

    I'm assuming hyperbole here, but repeating it doesn't really help your claim.

    A "High Resolution" photo shouldnt need circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one saying, "Cant you see the King's clothes".

    I have worked on "high-resolution" commercial (Earth) imaging systems. "High resolution" is not an absolute term. LRO is "high resolution" for lunar imaging, just as MRO is "high resolution" for Martian imaging.

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    The "Claim" is, "It is the Acme of foolishness to use these photographs as proof of anything other than, bad photos."
    Well, I suppose it is a good thing no one is using them as proof of anything then.

    Did you never get one of those postcards from a friend on holiday where they draw an arrow to a hotel window and say, "this is our room". Would you decide they didn't actually go on holiday because you can't see any details of what is in the room?

    That is all these pictures are, "oh look, there's the stuff we left behind". We don't need any "proof" of the moon missions because it is obvious they happened.

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,006
    Quote Originally Posted by moonfunk View Post
    How much more definitive can an answer be? I said "No", declaritively and definitively.
    So, if you don't understand the difference between the number of pixels in a CCD and the angular resolution of that camera, why should we take you seriously?

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,663
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Please save further questions if you have them. moonfunk's rudeness and insults have resulted in a 7-day suspension.
    Did we all miss this?

    The thread wasn't closed, because it does not "belong" to moonfunk. But for now, there's no point directing discussion at moonfunk.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    Quote Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
    I'm assuming hyperbole here, but repeating it doesn't really help your claim.

    Wasn't it Publius that was always pushing for more heavy lift boosters?

    200 million tons of Apollo debris from 9 missions - he'd be... well... over the moon!

Similar Threads

  1. Chandrayaan imaged landing site
    By ToSeek in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-10, 03:55 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-16, 10:20 PM
  3. Apollo 16 landing site?
    By DaveOlden in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-25, 05:57 PM
  4. APOD- Apollo 17 landing site from lunar orbit
    By Rift in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2002-Jun-28, 12:34 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: