this settles it wrote:
Waiting Patient wrote:
So you have a recent image? A recent image would have been acquired with a CCD sensor that has RGB data (like all cameras in the last 30 years). So this means, it will be in colour not black and white!
That picture above is in full RGB. It's not NASA'a fault the moon is gray.
You expect people to believe this crap was taken recently? With the giant arrows and labels.. right.
It took me about 5 minutes to find the picture I posted above, by googling "high resolution moon mapping". (Not to mention that more images were posted way back on page 22).
Generation jpeg wrote:
Spacer rex wrote:
I already told you that I wouldn’t help because I wanted you to fail. Apparently you have poor reading skills in addition to poor research skills.
I don't know if I failed yet. But my classmates were laughing at my moon pictures from a tv show because that was all i got.
this settles it wrote:
Waiting Patient wrote:
So you have a recent image? A recent image would have been acquired with a CCD sensor that has RGB data (like all cameras in the last 30 years). So this means, it will be in colour not black and white!
That picture above is in full RGB. It's not NASA'a fault the moon is gray.
I've seen blue moons, I've seen blood moons. Seems awfully "convenient" that you supply a picture of the gray part of the moon.
This is quoted from NASA and repeated in Wikipedia:
"The (LRO) probe (launched in 2009) has made a 3-D map of the Moon's surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow),[14] including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites."
Where are these 0.5m resolution images of the landing sites? It doesn't say 5 miles resolution, it says 500cm!
We left a lot of trash there apparently.
Generation jpeg wrote:
This is quoted from NASA and repeated in Wikipedia:
"The (LRO) probe (launched in 2009) has made a 3-D map of the Moon's surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow),[14] including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites."
Where are these 0.5m resolution images of the landing sites? It doesn't say 5 miles resolution, it says 500cm!
They did take high-res pictures of the landing site coordinates, but there was nothing there!
Give a hoot wrote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/61911-trash-on-moon.htmlWe left a lot of trash there apparently.
There should be a bigass lander and rover vehicles too.
Tired of banging head against wall wrote:
Generation jpeg wrote:
This is quoted from NASA and repeated in Wikipedia:
"The (LRO) probe (launched in 2009) has made a 3-D map of the Moon's surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow),[14] including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites."
Where are these 0.5m resolution images of the landing sites? It doesn't say 5 miles resolution, it says 500cm!
They did take high-res pictures of the landing site coordinates, but there was nothing there!
The picture already posted are high res images and they do show the decent stages, tracks, equipment, etc. You guys don't seem to understand camera resolutions.
Generation jpeg wrote:
Spacer rex wrote:
I already told you that I wouldn’t help because I wanted you to fail. Apparently you have poor reading skills in addition to poor research skills.
I don't know if I failed yet. But my classmates were laughing at my moon pictures from a tv show because that was all i got.
And what did your classmates provide for their space tourism project?
Tired of trolls stealing other people's screen names wrote:
Tired of banging head against wall wrote:
They did take high-res pictures of the landing site coordinates, but there was nothing there!
The picture already posted are high res images and they do show the decent stages, tracks, equipment, etc. You guys don't seem to understand camera resolutions.
Let me be the first to commend you on your magnificent eyesight.
Miss Crabapple wrote:
Generation jpeg wrote:
I don't know if I failed yet. But my classmates were laughing at my moon pictures from a tv show because that was all i got.
And what did your classmates provide for their space tourism project?
I chose space tourism as my own assignment. Others had different transportation topics.
Generation jpeg wrote:
Miss Crabapple wrote:
And what did your classmates provide for their space tourism project?
I chose space tourism as my own assignment. Others had different transportation topics.
In academia you shouldn't write about a topic that you don't believe in.
This is the Apollo 17 decent stage. You can see the tracks made by the Astronauts in the rover all over the place.
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter wrote:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter#/media/File%3AApollo_17_LM_Challenger_LRO.pngThis is the Apollo 17 decent stage. You can see the tracks made by the Astronauts in the rover all over the place.
If it's good enough for you, then fine. What does it say in the third of the page you linked to? Let me paste it here:
"The probe has made a 3-D map of the Moon's surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow),[14] including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites.[15][16] The first images from LRO were published on July 2, 2009, showing a region in the lunar highlands south of Mare Nubium (Sea of Clouds).[17]"
Are these images you are referring to 0.5 meter resolution, in your opinion?
I come from a long, proud family tradition of college groundskeepers. I can move goalposts all GD day. Just. Watch. Me.
Miss Crabapple wrote:
Generation jpeg wrote:
I chose space tourism as my own assignment. Others had different transportation topics.
In academia you shouldn't write about a topic that you don't believe in.
I *did* believe it. Anyway the picture of moonbase alpha should do since no other pictures were available but that moon map picture and mars images.
Generation jpeg wrote:
Miss Crabapple wrote:
In academia you shouldn't write about a topic that you don't believe in.
I *did* believe it. Anyway the picture of moonbase alpha should do since no other pictures were available but that moon map picture and mars images.
Sounds like you'll be just fine.
If it's good enough for you, then fine. What does it say in the third of the page you linked to? Let me paste it here:
"The probe has made a 3-D map of the Moon's surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow),[14] including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites.[15][16] The first images from LRO were published on July 2, 2009, showing a region in the lunar highlands south of Mare Nubium (Sea of Clouds).[17]"
Are these images you are referring to, 0.5 meter resolution, in your opinion?
Thanks for providing that link, by the way. Very helpful.
You say, "... I wouldn’t doubt it any more than I do now (which is very, very little)."
So, you yourself, unequivocably state that YOU ARE NOT SURE! (Same with me - that NASA faked Apollo, "I wouldn’t doubt it any more than I do now (which is very, very little)." But in MY case; I don't then post all arrogantly & with ridicule.
Thanx for the honesty. So, why then, so much overriding arrogant insistence that we did go?
Pablo Novi wrote:
You say, "... I wouldn’t doubt it any more than I do now (which is very, very little)."
So, you yourself, unequivocably state that YOU ARE NOT SURE! (Same with me - that NASA faked Apollo, "I wouldn’t doubt it any more than I do now (which is very, very little)." But in MY case; I don't then post all arrogantly & with ridicule.
Thanx for the honesty. So, why then, so much overriding arrogant insistence that we did go?
Naturally I cannot be 100% certain because I wasn't involved in the missions, but I'm more than 99% certain.
I'm not sorry that you don't like my tone - you've shown that you will not listen to reason.
