Apollo 16 Flag is Still Casting Shadows

reply to post by ParasuvO

The mentality of those who are so limited in scope and controlled by those beliefs takes away the ability to be objective...it is what allows this world to be controlled by scum, because it is so easy.

You are quite right. It is exactly this mentality that allows the hoax theory to flourish. People who believe what they are told by cranky websites or YouTubers at face value without doing their research. People who think watching a 20-minute video on the internet will tell them all they need to know about the moon landings.

Have you ever noticed a common trend: it's always the hoax believers who are the ones asking questions (often breathtakingly basic ones) that show they have never really thought about the mechanics of space flight? And it's always the people who have done their own research, people like onebigmonkey, who have the answers?

People who believe in space flight don't believe it because somebody told them to believe in it. They believe it because it makes sense, and the more you research it, the more sense it makes.

Like OBM, the only reason I'm here is that wilful ignorance frustrates and offends me. I am not being paid by NASA, I am not in the employ of the government. I'm not even American so you can't accuse me of doing it out of patriotism or anything like that.

reply to post by ParasuvO


Your determination and conviction could be applauded, if they weren't for the wrong reasons. I'll ask again, if I may, do you really see nothing in those images apart from the natural lunar terrain with nothing but rocks and craters? Do the tracks, the recognisable appearance of the Descent Module, and the flag shadow that shows that it is above the surface tell you nothing?

I provided a link to the "Flip Book" that shows LRO images taken at different times of the lunar day, and in some of them you can see something glinting in the Sun so brightly that it overloads the camera's sensor. Doesn't that point quite clearly to metallic surfaces, such as on the various equipment left there by Apollo astronauts?

Here's one such image from Apollo 14 site, for your convenience:

reply to post by wildespace


When I used (Ctrl and "+" button) zoom, those apparently shiny metal surfaces look like they were added with MS Paint. I don't claim to be an expert on photography or camera sensors but that looks very unconvincing. Boy, I wish we could get some clear cut photos of the landing site. You'd think by now a rover would have been all over it.

cestrup
reply to post by wildespace

 

When I used (Ctrl and "+" button) zoom, those apparently shiny metal surfaces look like they were added with MS Paint.

You know why that is? You've been told but I will reiterate - that image was specifically chosen because the reflections are overloading the pixels. That is, they show up as bright white and exhibit blooming. If you look at a different time of day, then the reflections are less bright:



The LRO is capturing images down to 25cm per pixel, That is HIGHER RESOLUTION than the DigitalGlobe satellite pics of Earth, as used in Google Maps etc.

This is at 30cm per pixel:



The LRO images are higher resolution than that. How much better do you want?

cestrup
Boy, I wish we could get some clear cut photos of the landing site. You'd think by now a rover would have been all over it.

But I wouldn't think that because it doesn't seem logical.

First, we are sending rovers to Mars, not the moon.

If we do send rovers to the moon, wouldn't it be logical to send them to areas which haven't been explored yet? Conversely, considering the vast size of the moon and the tiny number of sites that have been explored, it would seem silly to send a rover to a spot that's already been explored. There might be a small amount of science to be done in determining how materials have aged in the moon's environment, but that seems insignificant with exploring areas of the moon that haven't been explored yet.

Now if we were planning a moon base and sent up different possible moon base materials for "weathering" experiments to see how they held up in the moon's environment, then it would make more sense to re-visit a site where we had set up such an experiment, but we don't have anything like that set up yet which needs re-visiting.

Arbitrageur
There might be a small amount of science to be done in determining how materials have aged in the moon's environment, but that seems insignificant with exploring areas of the moon that haven't been explored yet.

Now if we were planning a moon base and sent up different possible moon base materials for "weathering" experiments to see how they held up in the moon's environment, then it would make more sense to re-visit a site where we had set up such an experiment, but we don't have anything like that set up yet which needs re-visiting.

Well, there was the Surveyor 3 probe, which was revisited by Apollo 12 more than two and a half years after it landed.



The crew examined it and brought parts of it back to Earth.



And here's the scene as viewed from the LRO. Pretty nice landing, getting within a little over 500ft of Surveyor!

cestrup
reply to post by wildespace

 

Boy, I wish we could get some clear cut photos of the landing site.

There's a technical problem with photographing anything on the Moon from a very low orbit (below ~20km) to get higher resolution. Due to the lack of atmosphere, you can't fly a plane there. This means that the spacecraft orbiting the Moon at such low altitude would have to be moving very very fast, and the images would be blurred due to motion. Even LRO images taken at 20 km orbit are slightly blurred, but just good enough to use.
www.universetoday.com...
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

I think this is as good as orbital images will ever get, until we put a Hubble-sized telescope there with an extremely good guidance system to lock on the Apollo site.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Seems logical to me. There's all sorts of variables to be measured using equipment that are earth-based. What doesn't seem logical is the fact that we haven't been back. I know, it makes perfect sense to you but this is where we differ in opinion.



@ Rob - the picture you posted of a city scape looks much more resolute to me than the LRO photos. JMO. The LRO photos are disappointing to me, although, I believe you find them to be much more spectacular. I don't think we're going to have a changing of guard about this. I appreciate the info you give as always.

cestrup

@ Rob - the picture you posted of a city scape looks much more resolute to me than the LRO photos.

Well, there's a lot more to see in a city than there is on the moon

I always have a problem trying to identify scale on lunar photos. Craters are present at all scales - it's almost like a fractal, so without any other clues it's sometimes very hard to know whether you're looking at an area 200km across or 2km across!

I think that's part of why the LROC images don't immediately scream "close-up" - they don't look so very different from an image like this:



which is actually at 145m per pixel, i.e. more than 500 times lower resolution!

reply to post by Rob48


Really? Really? c'mon, Surveyor 3 looks exactly like another crater. I can Paint a couple of arrows on that pic and show you the missing Malaysian plane, Jimmy Hoffa, and the entire squadron of Flight 19.

An arrow does not evidence make.

reply to post by ipfreely32


Welcome back, decisively!

ipfreely32
reply to post by Rob48

 

Really? Really? c'mon, Surveyor 3 looks exactly like another crater. I can Paint a couple of arrows on that pic and show you the missing Malaysian plane, Jimmy Hoffa, and the entire squadron of Flight 19.

An arrow does not evidence make.

It's not meant to be "evidence". We know where Surveyor 3 is. It is not very visible because (a) it's not very big and (b) it's mostly in shadow. The arrow is there as a helpful visual aid to where it is, to give some context. If it was very visible then you wouldn't need it.

Here you go: here's a pic with the sun at a better angle. No arrow required! Happy now?

reply to post by Rob48


Nope. Still seing only craters and natural occurring landscapes.

ipfreely32
reply to post by Rob48

 

Nope. Still seing only craters and natural occurring landscapes.

reply to post by Rob48


Typical response. I, like others, am on the fence about the hoax. Would love to believe, but replies like that make me want to go with the hoax theory. I can see nothing in that picture, or, like yourself, use my imagination and find WHATEVER i want in that picture. Just left of the Surveyor, i can see a 1986 Chevy Chevette parked, can't you see it? Want me to draw an arrow to it?

We all need better evidence than what you have demonstrated, sorry for your fail.

reply to post by Rob48


...and b)? mostly in shadow? You just posted a pic of the Surveyor from the retrieval mission of Apollo 12, looked damn bright to me?

reply to post by ipfreely32

"We all need better evidence"? Who is "we all"? I don't. The vast majority of the human race doesn't.

OK, here's a bit more evidence for you. If that is a naturally occurring craters, it should have been there before 1969, right? It would be a bit of vanishingly small coincidence for a new crater to have appeared exactly on the location where Apollo 12 landed, wouldn't it?

But look here - it wasn't!



That's the LRO view on the left, and on the right is the Lunar Orbiter 3 view from 1967. I hope you can spot the difference without an arrow.

If you still can't see, then I'm afraid you're not trying. I bet if these were "unexplained" images of a mystery object on Mars then you'd be all over them like a rash.

...and b)? mostly in shadow? You just posted a pic of the Surveyor from the retrieval mission of Apollo 12, looked damn bright to me?

In shadow when the photograph was taken! Are you being deliberately obtuse? You might not have noticed, but shadows move depending on the position of the sun. I posted a different LRO picture showing that side of the crater in sunlight when you complained the first one wasn't visible. Surveyor is there plain as day, looking rather shiny.

ipfreely32
reply to post by Rob48

 

Typical response. I, like others, am on the fence about the hoax. Would love to believe, but replies like that make me want to go with the hoax theory. I can see nothing in that picture, or, like yourself, use my imagination and find WHATEVER i want in that picture. Just left of the Surveyor, i can see a 1986 Chevy Chevette parked, can't you see it? Want me to draw an arrow to it?

We all need better evidence than what you have demonstrated, sorry for your fail.

No, you are not on the fence. You know that the Apollo missions are a well documented series of historical events. you understand that, unless there is a vast conspiracy that has generated topographical features that are being used by several different governments to fake their own lunar explorations, there is corroborative evidence from multiple sources that the Apollo missions landed where they are supposed to have, and that there are indications of hardware left behind in those locations. You are merely striking the pose of a pseudo-skeptic to generate knee jerk reactions from people. Fail.

reply to post by Rob48


Oh, I agree there's much more going on in the city picture. I guess I can agree to your scaling as well. I just find the pixelated pictures of the lunar equipment and supposed shadows rather lack luster. Maybe I'm expecting too much. It's rather perplexing to me that many supporters of the official narrative find these images so conclusive. That really powerful telescope in South America (I think) should try to find the landing sites. I'm just on the fence about Apollo. Yes, I realize there's so much on the side of it happening but all of that evidence is controlled by one entity.

I guess, I've always been skeptical since watching the footage of them on the moon. It just didn't seem genuine. It all screams production to me.

cestrup
reply to post by Rob48

 

Oh, I agree there's much more going on in the city picture. I guess I can agree to your scaling as well. I just find the pixelated pictures of the lunar equipment and supposed shadows rather lack luster. Maybe I'm expecting too much. It's rather perplexing to me that many supporters of the official narrative find these images so conclusive.

If the LRO images were the only evidence, then I wouldn't find them conclusive. But they are really just the icing on the cake. It's nice to be able to see the landers on the moon, but that's about all. Even at 25cm per pixel you can't see much, and we have hundreds of high-resolution photos of the landers taken from the surface.

That really powerful telescope in South America (I think) should try to find the landing sites.

If you mean Arecibo, that's a radio telescope. And even if it wasn't, do you really think it would be possible to get better images from nearly 400,000km away, at the bottom of a thick atmosphere, than from 50km away, in space? The LRO is, in relative terms, practically within touching distance of the moon. It provides by far the best images of the moon we've had since 1972.