ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Aarontg on March 11, 2013, 03:26:28 PM
-
FTR,I firmly and strongly believe that Man really did go to the moon between 1968 and 1972.Having said that,Jarrah White said that The Clementine photos of the Apollo 15 landing site showed nothing.I'm curious,What about the resolution on Clementine?Most of the cameras who went up there don't have great resolutions.The LRO has the best resolution that I've seen(Though I haven't seen many).And even that doesn't have great resolution.Oh BTW I didn't watch that piece of trash film he said that on.
-
Hi Aartong
The Clementine had three cameras, each designed to do different things.
The High-Resolution Camera (HIRES) had a pixel resolution of 7–20 m depending on the spacecraft altitude.
The Ultraviolet/Visible camera had a pixel resolution of 25 - 325 m
You can find more details here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft))
-
Welcome to the new forum, Aarontg.
-
FTR,I firmly and strongly believe that Man really did go to the moon between 1968 and 1972.
There really is nothing to "believe" in. Either the evidence is consistent with the Apollo landings happening, or it is not.
Having said that,Jarrah White said that The Clementine photos of the Apollo 15 landing site showed nothing.
I cinsider the source. JW is obsessed with trying to prove the landings didn't happen, so anything he says must be taken as suspect...that he can't see anything does not surprise me one bit.
Most of the cameras who went up there don't have great resolutions.The LRO has the best resolution that I've seen(Though I haven't seen many).And even that doesn't have great resolution.
What degree of resolution do you expect from imaging Apollo "artifacts" from orbit?? My personal opinion is that being able to see where they walked, from orbit, is quite satasfactory resolution.
Oh BTW I didn't watch that piece of trash film he said that on.
I hate to state the obvious, but how do you know what he said, if you didn't watch it??
-
There is a record of a darkened area on the view of Hadley Rille entirely consistent with the location of the landing site.
eg http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html
As you can see from that link, it is too poor a resolution to see anything else.
If you follow the link in my sig I have compared details on Apollo video and photographs with LRO images. This confirms that the dark spot is not found on pre-Apollo lunar orbiter photographs.
-
Just to illustrate why it would be impossible to see any detail of an Apollo landing site in those photos, here is Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) superimposed on the lunar landscape at approximately the same scale.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/sapo_S24.png)
This puts some of those "small" craters in perspective doesn't it?.
-
Just to illustrate why it would be impossible to see any detail of an Apollo landing site in those photos, here is Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) superimposed on the lunar landscape at approximately the same scale.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/sapo_S24.png)
This puts some of those "small" craters in perspective doesn't it?.
You could have used the Astrodome...
-
Talk about an "Away" game!
-
You could have used the Astrodome...
Nobody uses the Astrodome any more.
-
There is a record of a darkened area on the view of Hadley Rille entirely consistent with the location of the landing site.
But keep in mind this is not a visible-intensity photograph. It has been algebraically and/or algorithmically derived from several wavelengths, the intended result of which is to show freshly disturbed surface material. If you were to fly over the site, you wouldn't see this with your naked eye. However, in that the DPS-affected region counts as "freshly disburbed," this is a true bit of evidence.
-
There is a record of a darkened area on the view of Hadley Rille entirely consistent with the location of the landing site.
But keep in mind this is not a visible-intensity photograph. It has been algebraically and/or algorithmically derived from several wavelengths, the intended result of which is to show freshly disturbed surface material. If you were to fly over the site, you wouldn't see this with your naked eye. However, in that the DPS-affected region counts as "freshly disburbed," this is a true bit of evidence.
ah - hadn't realised that about the algorithms!
They should still sort out the stadium parking though.
-
That's the thing about the moon, it's so fractal and similar at so many scales, making it difficult, basically impossible to judge size just by a casual look.
-
Just to illustrate why it would be impossible to see any detail of an Apollo landing site in those photos, here is Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) superimposed on the lunar landscape at approximately the same scale.
Ah ha! Photoshop! I knew it!
-
Just to illustrate why it would be impossible to see any detail of an Apollo landing site in those photos, here is Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) superimposed on the lunar landscape at approximately the same scale.
Even from this altitude you can still see all the pass interceptions.
-
Just to illustrate why it would be impossible to see any detail of an Apollo landing site in those photos, here is Lambeau Field (home of the Green Bay Packers) superimposed on the lunar landscape at approximately the same scale.
Even from this altitude you can still see all the pass interceptions.
The what now? Please explain further, Jay.
-
Heh... I was going to say there was plenty of parking, but it's a heck of a long way from the freeway exit.
(Raven: American football, a pass interception is a bad thing when it happens to your team, or a good thing when your team does it to the other team.)
-
The Packers' offensive strategy is more geared toward throwing the ball rather than running with it. As has been said, when the ball is thrown the other team may intercept it and thereby gain possession of it for their own scoring. Not surprisingly for that strategy, the Packers often lead the league in intercepted passes -- an ignominious statistic.
-
Gawd, I hope you lot aren't going to start talking about eligible receivers, 4th downs, tight-ends, lines of scrimmage and other stuff which only interests people living in the 50 states (and perhaps the 10 provinces in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land" up north).
-
Gawd, I hope you lot aren't going to start talking about eligible receivers, 4th downs, tight-ends, lines of scrimmage and other stuff which only interests people living in the 50 states (and perhaps the 10 provinces in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land" up north).
We have our own variation up here in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land", but I don't follow either; hence my confusion.
-
Gawd, I hope you lot aren't going to start talking about eligible receivers, 4th downs, tight-ends, lines of scrimmage and other stuff which only interests people living in the 50 states (and perhaps the 10 provinces in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land" up north).
Heck no. It's baseball season. Time to talk about the merits of bunting with runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out in a tie game after the 7th inning, 4- vs 5- man rotations during the stretch drive, and whether those proposing to bring the DH to the National League should be shot or merely exiled for life.
-
You lot had better be careful or you'll force me to explain the offside rule....
-
Heck no. It's baseball season.
It's Six Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship) season.
-
You lot had better be careful or you'll force me to explain the offside rule....
Is it even possible to explain the offside rule? ???
-
You lot had better be careful or you'll force me to explain the offside rule....
Is it even possible to explain the offside rule? ???
Here is an explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(rugby))
-
Heck no. It's baseball season.
It's Six Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship) season.
WAAAALLLLEEESSSSS!
Here is hoping. Probably fluff it though.
Anyway. Baseball, rounders innit.........
Sorry, wandering off topic.
Interesting use of media. Never though to do that (ref pic page 1). Went to look at a few stadia at that scale for the heck of it.
-
WAAAALLLLEEESSSSS!
We'll see in just over 24 hours. If they beat England, they'll each be 4-1-0. I'm not sure where they are on tie-breaking criteria. No one else can even match England's record.
-
Gawd, I hope you lot aren't going to start talking about eligible receivers, 4th downs, tight-ends, lines of scrimmage and other stuff which only interests people living in the 50 states (and perhaps the 10 provinces in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land" up north).
Let me promise you that not even all of us living in the fifty states care. Which gets tedious enough when all of my friends on Facebook appear to.
-
Could never get that interested in organized sports.
Managed to follow the Sumo season one year. But half of that was just enjoying the ritual and pageantry.
-
WAAAALLLLEEESSSSS!
We'll see in just over 24 hours. If they beat England, they'll each be 4-1-0. I'm not sure where they are on tie-breaking criteria. No one else can even match England's record.
Now you're talking the REAL oval ball game!!
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/2013-6N.png)
Wales have a points difference of +29
England have a points difference of +43
Overall points difference is 14 in favour of England.
If England wins, they win the Six Nations and the Grand Slam
If Wales wins by less than 7 points, England wins the Six Nations
If Wales wins by more than 7 points, Wales will win the Six Nations
If Wales wins by exactly 7 points, the Six Nations will be won by whichever team scored more tries (that's like "touchdowns" for the yanks/canucks) over the whole tournament. Wales lead 7-5 on that count, so if its a draw, England will have to win the try count in the match by at least three
-
Could never get that interested in organized sports.
Managed to follow the Sumo season one year. But half of that was just enjoying the ritual and pageantry.
We used to watch that in my physics class. (See also--why I never really learned physics.) I have a perverse fixation with curling, though I don't get to watch it much these days, because we no longer get the CBC. But the closest I'm going to get to putting the kid into sports, unless he asks, is requiring him to take swimming lessons. No team, just learning how to swim.
-
Gawd, I hope you lot aren't going to start talking about eligible receivers, 4th downs, tight-ends, lines of scrimmage and other stuff which only interests people living in the 50 states (and perhaps the 10 provinces in "Bacon and Maple Syrup land" up north).
Mmmm... Bacon and maple syrup. Forget that other stuff.
Fred
-
They make bacon (side bacon) infused with maple syrup flavour. It is uber-delicious. As a personal preference, I like my bacon not crispy but instead still having some chew to it. Using the resulting grease to cook, well, any thing just adds to the pleasure. I made a lovely fry up once using bacon, mushrooms, bread, onion and garlic.
-
Heck no. It's baseball season.
It's Six Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship) season.
It's rugby league time! (Oh wait, the Canberra Raiders have just delisted their highest-paid player for poor off-field behaviour...)
It's cricket time! (Oh wait, the Australian coach just stood down four players from the third test against India for poor off-field behaviour...)
It's Aussie Rules time! (Oh wait, Collingwood just got thumped by 50 points by Geelong in a practice match...)
*sigh*
Anyone for a game of lawn bowls?
-
WAAAALLLLEEESSSSS!
We'll see in just over 24 hours. If they beat England, they'll each be 4-1-0. I'm not sure where they are on tie-breaking criteria. No one else can even match England's record.
Now you're talking the REAL oval ball game!!
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98915197/2013-6N.png)
Wales have a points difference of +29
England have a points difference of +43
Overall points difference is 14 in favour of England.
If England wins, they win the Six Nations and the Grand Slam
If Wales wins by less than 7 points, England wins the Six Nations
If Wales wins by more than 7 points, Wales will win the Six Nations
If Wales wins by exactly 7 points, the Six Nations will be won by whichever team scored more tries (that's like "touchdowns" for the yanks/canucks) over the whole tournament. Wales lead 7-5 on that count, so if its a draw, England will have to win the try count in the match by at least three
I see, so if ends up being Wales with 21, all from kicks, and England with 14, from two tries, then it's all tied up.
-
I see, so if ends up being Wales with 21, all from kicks, and England with 14, from two tries, then it's all tied up.
Yes, and there is no other tie-breaker. The Six Nations Championship would be shared
-
I see, so if ends up being Wales with 21, all from kicks, and England with 14, from two tries, then it's all tied up.
Yes, and there is no other tie-breaker. The Six Nations Championship would be shared
I have Italy/Ireland on the DVR, I'll be watching that now, so I'll find out the championship a bit behind real time.
-
I see, so if ends up being Wales with 21, all from kicks, and England with 14, from two tries, then it's all tied up.
WAAAALES
WAAAALES
WAAAALES
WAAAALES
30 - 3. What a thrashing!!!
-
Yeah whatever.
Nobody likes Rugby Union anyway.
Hmph!
It was in Cardiff... It was raining... Wrong type of leaves... Kirchner... The European Commission...
-
Heck no. It's baseball season.
It's Six Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship) season.
It's rugby league time! (Oh wait, the Canberra Raiders have just delisted their highest-paid player for poor off-field behaviour...)
It's cricket time! (Oh wait, the Australian coach just stood down four players from the third test against India for poor off-field behaviour...)
It's Aussie Rules time! (Oh wait, Collingwood just got thumped by 50 points by Geelong in a practice match...)
*sigh*
Anyone for a game of lawn bowls?
Nope. It's Formula 1 time!