Clementine photos.

[Aarontg]

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.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

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)

[Echnaton]

Welcome to the new forum, Aarontg.

[RAF]

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??

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[smartcooky]

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.




This puts some of those "small" craters in perspective doesn't it?.

[onebigmonkey]

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.




This puts some of those "small" craters in perspective doesn't it?.

You could have used the Astrodome...

[nomuse]

Talk about an "Away" game!

[Echnaton]

You could have used the Astrodome...

Nobody uses the Astrodome any more.

[JayUtah]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[raven]

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.

[ka9q]

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!

[JayUtah]

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.

[raven]

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.