the LRO images of the alleged landings sites are dodgy for many reasons:
They should be higher resolution. NASA has made two sets of images of landing site from lunar orbiting satellites. The earlier set at 50 km out and a later set at 25 km out. There was no improvement in resolution in the closer set of images.
At the time they made the images, both times, they have technology that can take images of earth from space with a high enough resolutions to tell what make of car is own the ground and even spot individual people. There is nothing like that resolution in the moon images. Why not?
The trails of the astronauts foots prints and rover tire trails are visible, despite the resolution issues. A stark contradiction. The rover itself appears as a pixelated blob, yet at the same resolution the tracks are clearly defined.
The boot print trails and rover tracks mysteriously stop abruptly outside the confines of the published area of the promotional image, and even rover tracks change color from black to white (the landing site images are a small part of a much larger surface scan)
inconsistent lighting between photos: with some pictures showing the artifacts lit up a bright white and others showing them pitch black, despite the Sun being directly overhead in both pictures; there is even one obliquely angled picture of the Apollo 15 site with the sunlit side of the ‘LM’ in darkness
there are ridiculous photos supposedly showing the US flag still casting a shadow on the lunar surface, when it should have been destroyed by micrometeorites decades ago. For a valid comparison, in 1992 the Soviet Union flag erected outside the orbiting Mir space station was reduced to ‘only two threads’ after less than two years of micrometeorite bombardment
I have no idea what you're talking about or the 'blob' you refer to. WTF are you on about?
inconsistent lighting between photos:
Oh this one again? Hey fuck wit, it's called reflectivity. The moon's surface reflects light onto shadowy areas. The apature of the camera also changes so some photos are different than others. If you know photography you know why. People who don't know (like you) invent conspiracy bull shit facts they know shit about.
micrometeorites decades ago
Baseless conjecture without anyone of any credentials that support you.
As in Flat Earth, you morons invent shit up and claim 'science fact' when none of you know anything, you don't have any degrees in science nor do you have anyone of any accreditation to support you. Come back with someone with more than a grade 12 education and an armchair to support your claims.
You've made no real points here, and launched straight into ad hominem, which is telling.
I'll just address one point:
Because the moon does not have spy satellites orbiting around it.
I'll just quote from the link I provided, since you probably didn't read it:
Since 2009, the LRO’s camera (LROC) has been mapping the lunar surface with resolutions of between 1m/pixel and 0.5m/pixel. In 2011, NASA announced that LRO had briefly descended in altitude and returned pictures of 0.25m/pixel.
For comparison, the cameras aboard the privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite have a resolution of 0.41m/pixel and are perfectly capable of distinctly resolving cars and humans from an altitude of nearly 700km (435.7miles).3
While bearing in mind that the ISRO probe is even more capable than the GeoEye, it is also true to say that having stated that the Apollo lunar landing sites were imaged by the LROC from a distance of 50km (31miles) at 0.5-meter resolution, the NASA images of these locations should be able to show any hardware present at these sites in distinct detail.
Yet the only LROC images that NASA has released since 2009 show a few white or gray pixels. Some are better than others, but generally they leave much open for interpretation.
1 meter per pixel looks exactly what this image looks like. You can see the lander, footprints and other items left behind. What's your problem? Can't understand reality?
Even if we assume those arbitrary low-res lines aren't made by microsoft paint, all that proves is that there is in unmanned robot on the moon. Same as the one Russia put there. Same as the one China put there. It does NOT prove we put men on the moon and got them back safely. Got any more evidence? No ya don't faggot lmao
the LRO images of the alleged landings sites are dodgy for many reasons:
They should be higher resolution. NASA has made two sets of images of landing site from lunar orbiting satellites. The earlier set at 50 km out and a later set at 25 km out. There was no improvement in resolution in the closer set of images.
At the time they made the images, both times, they have technology that can take images of earth from space with a high enough resolutions to tell what make of car is own the ground and even spot individual people. There is nothing like that resolution in the moon images. Why not?
The trails of the astronauts foots prints and rover tire trails are visible, despite the resolution issues. A stark contradiction. The rover itself appears as a pixelated blob, yet at the same resolution the tracks are clearly defined.
The boot print trails and rover tracks mysteriously stop abruptly outside the confines of the published area of the promotional image, and even rover tracks change color from black to white (the landing site images are a small part of a much larger surface scan)
inconsistent lighting between photos: with some pictures showing the artifacts lit up a bright white and others showing them pitch black, despite the Sun being directly overhead in both pictures; there is even one obliquely angled picture of the Apollo 15 site with the sunlit side of the ‘LM’ in darkness
there are ridiculous photos supposedly showing the US flag still casting a shadow on the lunar surface, when it should have been destroyed by micrometeorites decades ago. For a valid comparison, in 1992 the Soviet Union flag erected outside the orbiting Mir space station was reduced to ‘only two threads’ after less than two years of micrometeorite bombardment
https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col2.htm
https://youtu.be/qr3YrmTOQaY?list=PL41EF9DE445B05F89
Yes there is. FFS - you might want to think before you post that what you say is 100% wrong.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/images/index.html
Because the moon does not have spy satellites orbiting around it. Gee, again, your injection of "things you know nothing about" is telling. They do today https://www.space.com/12030-moon-photos-nasa-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter.html
I have no idea what you're talking about or the 'blob' you refer to. WTF are you on about?
Oh this one again? Hey fuck wit, it's called reflectivity. The moon's surface reflects light onto shadowy areas. The apature of the camera also changes so some photos are different than others. If you know photography you know why. People who don't know (like you) invent conspiracy bull shit facts they know shit about.
Baseless conjecture without anyone of any credentials that support you.
As in Flat Earth, you morons invent shit up and claim 'science fact' when none of you know anything, you don't have any degrees in science nor do you have anyone of any accreditation to support you. Come back with someone with more than a grade 12 education and an armchair to support your claims.
You've made no real points here, and launched straight into ad hominem, which is telling.
I'll just address one point:
I'll just quote from the link I provided, since you probably didn't read it:
1 meter per pixel looks exactly what this image looks like. You can see the lander, footprints and other items left behind. What's your problem? Can't understand reality?
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2018/12/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area-1200x900.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
Are you so incompetent that you couldn't replicate that image in MS paint in 30 seconds? Figures.
lmao you're such a simp for the deep state
imagine thinking this image is proof that men landed on the moon and returned safely to earth: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/vikram_ejecta_1100px_scalebar.png
Well yeah, that's a lame ass photo. But this one is not:
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/startswithabang/files/2018/12/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area-1200x900.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
Even if we assume those arbitrary low-res lines aren't made by microsoft paint, all that proves is that there is in unmanned robot on the moon. Same as the one Russia put there. Same as the one China put there. It does NOT prove we put men on the moon and got them back safely. Got any more evidence? No ya don't faggot lmao