Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I have never made any claims with regard to the authenticity of that Apollo 8 video and you know it.


Which can only mean that you accept that it is authentic and proves Apollo 8 went to the Moon. Debate over.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Those satellites you talk about are the size of the Hubble Telescope, show us a picture of a flag on a golf course then taken from SPACE !!!!


GeoEye operates at an altitude of 684 km (425 mi) above the earth and has the ability to zoom past .5M resolution. Take a look at some of their images on their site.

www.geoeye.com...

Remember, these are not their best images. They can zoom closer, but the US Govt will not allow sub .5M resolution images to be released. In a lower earth orbit, they could see even more detail.

SELENE was in a final circular orbit around the moon at 50-kilometres (31 mi). We can orbit closer to the moon, and we have technology that can zoom in far closer than what is being shown, so why can't we zoom in closer on the moon?

KH-11 sattelites were able to provide high fidelity images in the mid 1970's (down to sub .5 m resolution) and operated at a higher altitude than previous examples.

en.wikipedia.org...

KH-11 operating altitudes:

19 December 1976 – 23 December 253 km (157 mi) 541 km (336 mi) 541 km (336 mi)
23 December 1976 – 27 March 1977 348 km (216 mi) 541 km (336 mi) 537 km (334 mi)
27 March 1977 – 19 August 270 km (170 mi) 537 km (334 mi) 476 km (296 mi)
19 August 1977–1978 January 270 km (170 mi) 528 km (328 mi) 454 km (282 mi)
1978 January – 28 January 1979 263 km (163 mi) 534 km (332 mi) Deorbited

So, I'm just trying to understand why we cannot view the surface of the moon at even 1 M resolution. Even the lunar orbiter program in 1966 had the ability to zoom to 1 M resolution.




I still don't understand why we can't get good (close) resolution pictures of the moons surface...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


0.25 meters isn't good enough for you?
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


0.25 meters isn't good enough for you?
wms.lroc.asu.edu...


You keep saying that, but the max stated resolution for the LROC is .5 M. So I don't understand how they got it to .25...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I have never made any claims with regard to the authenticity of that Apollo 8 video and you know it.


Which can only mean that you accept that it is authentic and proves Apollo 8 went to the Moon. Debate over.


In an ideal , utopic world yes, the debate would be over.

Sadly that is not the world in which we live.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


You keep saying that, but the max stated resolution for the LROC is .5 M. So I don't understand how they got it to .25...


I don't get it. You just complained about it not even having 1 meter resolution, you then say it's 0.5.

In any case there are times when the orbit is lower than the nominal altitude of 50km. At 50km the resolution is 0.5. When it is lower the resolution is better. You could have read the caption for the image and learned that.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I have never made any claims with regard to the authenticity of that Apollo 8 video and you know it.


Which can only mean that you accept that it is authentic and proves Apollo 8 went to the Moon. Debate over.


Now I can see that your terrible logic has gotten the best of you. If this were a real debate about the Apollo 15 video, would the moderator/judge allow the use your A8 video to counter my claim about the A15 video...? I don't think so. A fair moderator or judge would instantly rule your A8 'out of bounds'


It's pretty obvious that you are wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth over this A15 video because there are No Floating Objects STRIKE ONE! and Richard Orloff omitted the Tv transmission from his official NASA timeline published in document SP-4029 STRIKE TWOOOOOooooooooo!.

DJW wants to call the "debate over" because he's about to STRIKE OUT on this A15 video. The count was 0-2.

Now we will never know what happens because DJW called the debate over. Sayonara!
edit on 9/13/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: i spelled my own name wrong hee hee it's been a long day


jra

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It's pretty obvious that you are wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth over this A15 video because there are No Floating Objects...


Why should there be floating objects in the inflight press conference?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Now I can see that your terrible logic has gotten the best of you. If this were a real debate about the Apollo 15 video, would the moderator/judge allow the use your A8 video to counter my claim about the A15 video...? I don't think so. A fair moderator or judge would instantly rule your A8 'out of bounds


The title of this thread is: "Did NASA really send astronauts to the Moon?" NASA sent Apollo 8 to the Moon.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


Now I can see that your terrible logic has gotten the best of you. . . .


I don't think they guy who believes properly stowed equipment is proof of a moon landing hoax should be commenting on anyone's ability to use logic.

But please, enlighten us as to how stowing/securing lose articles is proof of a hoax. Last time I was on a plane they made me secure my carry on before landing, does that mean the flight never happened?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


You keep saying that, but the max stated resolution for the LROC is .5 M. So I don't understand how they got it to .25...


I don't get it. You just complained about it not even having 1 meter resolution, you then say it's 0.5.

In any case there are times when the orbit is lower than the nominal altitude of 50km. At 50km the resolution is 0.5. When it is lower the resolution is better. You could have read the caption for the image and learned that.



I will chalk this one up to, you don't know why we can't get closer. Will gladly say, that the photo posted, says the scale is .25M. I will also say that I do not think that photo was taken at .25M resolution.

Just because the max stated resolution is .5, doesn't mean we have photos that were ever released or even taken at that resolution. I really think, that with all of our advancements in satellite and optic technology.

I mean, they're saying that this old technology could produce .5 M resolution at 50KM... Well, GeoEye can go sub .5M resolution from 681KM

"The image in question is of Kutztown University, Pennsylvania, caught on camera while the satellite was "moving north to south in a 423-mile-high (681 km) orbit over the eastern seaboard of the US at a speed of four-and-one-half miles per second:"

www.geoeye.com...

I mean, we really don't want to take high resolution photos of the cool stuff at the landing sites? We have the technology to do it, so why not? Instead we get a distant, grainy shot of the area...


jra

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I will chalk this one up to, you don't know why we can't get closer. Will gladly say, that the photo posted, says the scale is .25M. I will also say that I do not think that photo was taken at .25M resolution.


Well it is at a 25cm pixel scale. They lowered the LRO's orbit for a short time during one of there station keeping maneuvers.

You can read about it here


Just because the max stated resolution is .5, doesn't mean we have photos that were ever released or even taken at that resolution.


Yes we do.


I mean, they're saying that this old technology could produce .5 M resolution at 50KM... Well, GeoEye can go sub .5M resolution from 681KM

I mean, we really don't want to take high resolution photos of the cool stuff at the landing sites? We have the technology to do it, so why not? Instead we get a distant, grainy shot of the area...


LRO isn't old technology. The LRO's NAC has an aperture of 198mm. Geo-Eye has an aperture of 1.1m. But Geo-Eye doesn't have to carry a bunch of other scientific instruments like the LRO does. There isn't room for a 1.1m mirror on the LRO. Getting higher resolution imagery from satellites depends on the size of the mirror and has little to do with technology in general.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by AngryAlien
I will chalk this one up to, you don't know why we can't get closer. Will gladly say, that the photo posted, says the scale is .25M. I will also say that I do not think that photo was taken at .25M resolution.


Well it is at a 25cm pixel scale. They lowered the LRO's orbit for a short time during one of there station keeping maneuvers.

You can read about it here


Just because the max stated resolution is .5, doesn't mean we have photos that were ever released or even taken at that resolution.


Yes we do.


I mean, they're saying that this old technology could produce .5 M resolution at 50KM... Well, GeoEye can go sub .5M resolution from 681KM

I mean, we really don't want to take high resolution photos of the cool stuff at the landing sites? We have the technology to do it, so why not? Instead we get a distant, grainy shot of the area...


LRO isn't old technology. The LRO's NAC has an aperture of 198mm. Geo-Eye has an aperture of 1.1m. But Geo-Eye doesn't have to carry a bunch of other scientific instruments like the LRO does. There isn't room for a 1.1m mirror on the LRO. Getting higher resolution imagery from satellites depends on the size of the mirror and has little to do with technology in general.


The questions is, in the most simple of terms:

Why, with our current capabilities and technology, can we not get a decent picture of the moon landing sites?

It is the only thing that I find odd about the moon landing site. We could get better photos of the area (from low orbit), but haven't. Seems strange to me. I, for one, would love to see some better photos of one of Americas' most historic sites, and we certainly have the technology to do it...

Oh, and it has everything to do with the entire technology of a observation sattelite. I can just strap a huge mirror connected by 500KM of CAT 5 cable (hooked to my laptop eternet port) on a rocket and expect to have high res images. It requires a very technologically engineered machine to get high res photos from orbit.

If I had a few billion dollars, I might even be willing to invest in the venture...





edit on 14-9-2012 by AngryAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Why, with our current capabilities and technology, can we not get a decent picture of the moon landing sites?

It is the only thing that I find odd about the moon landing site. We could get better photos of the area (from low orbit), but haven't. Seems strange to me. I, for one, would love to see some better photos of one of Americas' most historic sites, and we certainly have the technology to do it...


Oh, I get it. You think that hundreds of millions of dollars should be spent on a dedicated satellite to provide proof of the Apollo landings. Sorry, that isn't what science is about. I'm pretty stoked with the images of the landing sites (and the lunar surface) which are available.
edit on 9/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Why, with our current capabilities and technology, can we not get a decent picture of the moon landing sites?

It is the only thing that I find odd about the moon landing site. We could get better photos of the area (from low orbit), but haven't. Seems strange to me. I, for one, would love to see some better photos of one of Americas' most historic sites, and we certainly have the technology to do it...


Oh, I get it. You think that hundreds of millions of dollars should be spent on a dedicated satellite to provide proof of the Apollo landings. Sorry, that isn't what science is about. I'm pretty stoked with the images of the landing sites (and the lunar surface) which are available.
edit on 9/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



I agree with angry alien,,,.., I dont think it would take millions of dollars,,, because i think the line of thinking is,, if we have telescopes and satellites which can view distant galaxies,, how can we not view an area of the moons surface,, the closest celestial body to us,, one that is largely visible to us with the naked eye,, and often lit up well,..,

i do not know much about the images which are available of the landing site already,,, if they exist and are legit,, then thats case closed anyway,,



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


Yeah, like somebody would spend a 'few billion' in an effort to assuage the appetites of a few moon hoax nuts.

Either way the majority of fake landing theorists would still yelp 'fakery'.

As long as there are people out there who have short attention spans, who are easily led, who think in a superficial manner, who are convinced there is a conspiracy behind everything, people who consider watching a youtube video to be 'research', people who are devoid of the ability to objectively study a subject without bias etc. There will always be a 'wake up, they never went to the moon' crowd.

Nothing short of dragging them up there and shoving their spotty faces in Armstrong's footprints would change their deluded minds.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


if we have telescopes and satellites which can view distant galaxies

Galaxies are very large. Apollo artifacts are very small.
If you are interested you can do some research on angular resolution and what it takes to achieve it.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


if we have telescopes and satellites which can view distant galaxies

Galaxies are very large. Apollo artifacts are very small.
If you are interested you can do some research on angular resolution and what it takes to achieve it.


This is the problem with some moon hoaxers they will never look up the other side of
things.Because if they did we wouldn't be seeing the radiation/no stars/flag waving/
resoloution questions keep popping up. - That a five year old can look up..

If i had the money id send all of you moon hoaxers to the moon and leave you there till
you get bored of seeing mans greatest achievment untill you see the error in your ways.

You will repent on national tv and we will forgive you..

peace p.s keep it real




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
So there is still no real answer to the question...

How about this question:

Do you think it is possible to get better, .5M resolution photos with a different sattelite, if one were to orbit the moon?

We have spy sattelites (and even commercial sattelites) that can zoom, with greater clarity, closer than what we are being shown, from a higher altitude. Again, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there should be better photos. Maybe the Govt just doesn't want other countries to know just how close our sattelites can zoom, maybe theres a cover up, maybe there's not enough money, maybe space is just a projection, maybe our existence is virtual reality. maybe they just don't care. Who knows? Not me, that's why I'm debating it until it makes sense to me...

I never said anything about a dedicated sattelite, though I thought the LRO WAS a dedicated moon observation platform (guess it's not). If we are willing to spend billions on a sattelite to observe our enemy countries, why not throw some money at something that will preserve our greatest accomplishment? Why not photograph the area in spectacular detail, preserving it in a photograph for all time? I would love to have a high res photo of the area on my wall. Maybe they plan too, I don't know.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that we should have some better pictures of the apollo sites from orbit. I've said before, that I'm not a "hoaxer", I just find it weird that they didn't take better photos of the moon, or put a better camera on the LRO.



Originally posted by denver22
Because if they did we wouldn't be seeing the radiation/no stars/flag waving/
resoloution questions keep popping up. - That a five year old can look up..



Really, the resolution of the images and how lose we can actually take photos from space has been discussed? I've followed the moon hoax debate pretty closely, and never heard about it. Can you show me where the resolution issues are discussed and debunked?

edit on 14-9-2012 by AngryAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 


I never said anything about a dedicated sattelite, though I thought the LRO WAS a dedicated moon observation platform (guess it's not).
Visual imagery is only one of its functions.


I would love to have a high res photo of the area on my wall.
Actually, I prefer the images taken at the time of the landings. Much more of a "being there" feeling.


I just find it weird that they didn't take better photos of the moon, or put a better camera on the LRO.
The images of the Moon are spectacular. Apparently you don't really understand what "a better camera" would entail. Apparently you don't understand the LRO mission.


Not me, that's why I'm debating it until it makes sense to me...
You are not debating. You are complaining about not getting what you want.

BTW, for the record, it seems that you actually are a hoax believer. Your "debate" follows that line of reasoning quite closely.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join