It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Recent Pictures of The Lunar Landing site

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Hi All,

I have been considering the whole did we or didn't we land on the moon scenario.

It occurred to me that even with ground based telescopes we should be able to focus enough on the moon to be able to see the Apollo Lunar Landing site.

I have heard some people say that we don't have enough magnification to zoom in on the moon to that degree but I find that very very hard to believe.

In addition there was very recently a probe that took some images of the moon, however they did not show the site of the Apollo lunar landings.

My question is simple. If we really did goto the moon then WHY has there not been any recent images of the site????

I also have been studying the sun and the solar wind interacting with the magnetic field of earth...... If we had sent humans to the moon then they would have had to travel through a region of intense radiation (see the link below)

Magnetosphere

The space suites the Americans were using were made from Mylar, a material that can block sunlight to a degree.... however, Mylar would literally burn under the radiation belt between earth and the moon.

No one has been able to answer this satisfactory and everyone I talk to who lived in the 60's was too stoned to remember or they were too enamoured about the space race to notice anything.

Any thoughts?

Neon.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Just one
www.badastronomy.com



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Just one
www.badastronomy.com


Thanks for the link mwm1331... That site describes the theory but as I said it doesn't raise the question of why there are no recent images of the landing site and I think there aught to be plenty of Amature Atronomers that should be able to zoom in on the landing site for real....

I get the feeling that I am in a Vanilla Sky world and I am only talking to the people who hide the truth........



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
usally when they launch land rovers and stuff they only show a few pictures of it i think there hidding stuff from from the public about the pictures they get. i thought this was a democracy one of the fundimentel principles is the people are the source to all government power



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I really believe that we did go to the moon. With all the rumors and speculation surrounding the landings, why hasn't there been more press on the European lunar module "Smart 1" that's in lunar orbit right now. Surely that probe can take spectacular photos of the lunar surface since it's been in orbit around the moon for over a month now! It returned some awesome pics of Earth when it was on it's way to the moon...The Smart 1 web site has only a few really lame photos - it would be nice to have a definitive answer to at least one mystery!



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Makuahine
I really believe that we did go to the moon. With all the rumors and speculation surrounding the landings, why hasn't there been more press on the European lunar module "Smart 1" that's in lunar orbit right now. Surely that probe can take spectacular photos of the lunar surface since it's been in orbit around the moon for over a month now! It returned some awesome pics of Earth when it was on it's way to the moon...The Smart 1 web site has only a few really lame photos - it would be nice to have a definitive answer to at least one mystery!


But to the hardcore conspiracy theorist, the Smart 1 module's images are no more proof positive than are the Apollo missions'. It's as easy to fake a satellite image of the moon as it is a handheld camera's. Give me a picture of someone in the desert, Photoshop, and an hour and I can have a reasonable picture of "A guy, in shorts, on the Moon." Well, reasonable except for the guy standing on the moon without life support


Even if images were taken of the landing site, assume a high resolution image of 1 pixel per meter (which is what most of the high-res satellite images you'll find of earth are), the Eagle Lunar Lander was about 4 meters across, say 5m just to err on the side of caution. You'd be looking for a 5x5 pixel area in an image that's at least 640x480 pixels. That's less than 1/12000th of the image's space.

Sure, there are satellites capable of greater resolution than that in use around Earth, but those are generally for military purposes, not for general curiosity.

Even further, were someone to get a spy satellite that can take images of 10cm per pixel (in which the lander would then take up a 500x500 pixel area), someone'd just come along and say "Oh, well, the government just Photoshopped that in there, that's not proof of anything."

To me, the best proof that we've been to the moon is the mirrors they set up there. We regularly measure the distance to the moon by (simplified a bit) aiming a laser at the proper spot on the moon and timing how long it takes the beam to return.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I always wondered why no new photos of the landing site have ever been taken, you would think the public would get updated at some point you know? Like some photos of the rover &the flag.....

Man, in 1969 they couldn't even make a car that didn't overheat haha....how on Earth could they build a space craft to land on the moon &come back?....and ever since, we haven't gone back, or walked on any other planets....strange. It seems hard enough to do today to me, nevermind nearly 40 years ago....

It's an interesting topic, and will probley never be laid to rest.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Maybe because the people that made car's that always over heated didn't make the Space Shuttle? I'm sure we wouldn't hire Toyota to come build a space shuttle.

We haven't walked on any other planets because other planets are harsh enivornments. That, and they are really far away. Mars would take what, 8 month trip one way in the space shuttle?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GB2005
I always wondered why no new photos of the landing site have ever been taken, you would think the public would get updated at some point you know? Like some photos of the rover &the flag.....


I think it would just look the same as it did then.

There's no wind, no air, and so probably, little to no erosion and deteriation.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango

Originally posted by GB2005
I always wondered why no new photos of the landing site have ever been taken, you would think the public would get updated at some point you know? Like some photos of the rover &the flag.....


I think it would just look the same as it did then.

There's no wind, no air, and so probably, little to no erosion and deteriation.



Ahhh But what is the landing site was desimated by an astroid or somthing....???


honestly I think that there is somthing very very fishy about the moon and I think people take it all for granted just because it's there night after night....

Scientists say the moon was formed when a planetoid collided with earth when earth was still forming... So if this is true then the moon would be an excellent source of Minerals...... so why then has there been no attempt in 40 years to mine the moon??? We have the technology today to do that...

I think that we didn't goto the moon in 1969, the Apollo missions were faked... the purpose of the elaborate hoax?????

I think the Purpose is that actually we have a base on the moon and that there are lots of things going on in the background that we the populas never get to know about...

That is why No new pictures and that is why there are mirrors on the moon, cause those mirrors were placed there way way way after 1969!!!!

Just my thoughts..

Neon Haze.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Why would NASA photograph somewhere they've already been in anycase? These are expensive missions and they're not out to prove themselves to you, especially if it's expensive and a waste of time. Also, it's expensive enough getting the weight of a human to the moon, let alone shipping a spacecraft capable of taking the weight of minerals and mining equipment to, and back from, the moon. It's just far too costly when we have more than enough minerals here to leech off of.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slashpepper
Why would NASA photograph somewhere they've already been in anycase? These are expensive missions and they're not out to prove themselves to you, especially if it's expensive and a waste of time. Also, it's expensive enough getting the weight of a human to the moon, let alone shipping a spacecraft capable of taking the weight of minerals and mining equipment to, and back from, the moon. It's just far too costly when we have more than enough minerals here to leech off of.


Not true....

weight of minerals is next to Zero as there is nearly no gravety on the moon. They could mine the material and then just drop it at earth, Next to no energy is required to get it back to earth!!

Also there is a possability that as the moon was formed by a different planetoid there could be minerals there that we have yet to encounter!!

Why should NASA photo the site?? Why not?? They already supposidly have a probe in orbit around the moon.... so why has there been no pictures?? The moon should be one of the most photographed of all objects just from a scientists point of view.... so where are all the pictures???

All I am saying is that if there is nothing to hide then why are there hardly any pictures of the moon???

There are more available pictures of Saturn and Mars and even Jupiter than we have of the moon....

Doesn't that strike you as being Odd??

Neon.


Odd

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   
No, it does not strike me as being.

The lunar lander was really not that large... it comes as no surprise to me that even a very powerful telescope would be unable to pinpont the thing that far away. And if you really want pictures of the moon that badly, I believe it's still in the public domain.


[edit on 2/28/2005 by Odd]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
No, it does not strike me as being.

The lunar Lander was really not that large... it comes as no surprise to me that even a very powerful telescope would be unable to pinpont the thing that far away. And if you really want pictures of the moon that badly, I believe it's still in the public domain.


[edit on 2/28/2005 by Odd]


Odd?? hahah i didn't mean to call someone that is called Odd into lololol

I was simply saying don't you find that strange....

Actually what I find really really strange is how many people just accept that there are very few pictures of the closest object in space to the earth....

It's a bit like me saying that you have to believe in Big foot or that you have to believe that we are being invaded by aliens or something....

If we really went to the moon then why is it so hard to prove??? If it was the Truth then why so difficult to produce evidence that stands up to modern scrutiny??

Neon.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
weight of minerals is next to Zero as there is nearly no gravety on the moon. They could mine the material and then just drop it at earth, Next to no energy is required to get it back to earth!!


No weight (or negligible weight) is not the same thing as having no mass. Since mass is part of what's figured in to an object's inertia, not weight, it will still take energy to move a load of raw materials from the Moon to Earth. At the other end, energy will be required to keep the raw materials from simply slamming randomly into our planet as well.


Why should NASA photo the site?? Why not?? They already supposidly have a probe in orbit around the moon.... so why has there been no pictures??


There are pictures from the Clementine lunar satellite. The best resolution I can find for those is 1-pixel/KM. Since the lunar lander, Eagle, is at best 4 or 5/1000ths of 1KM, it's not going to show on those images. Even most survey satellites around the Earth are only going to get you a 1 pixel/meter resolution. To quote my earlier post on the subject:

Even if images were taken of the landing site, assume a high resolution image of 1 pixel per meter (which is what most of the high-res satellite images you'll find of earth are), the Eagle Lunar Lander was about 4 meters across, say 5m just to err on the side of caution. You'd be looking for a 5x5 pixel area in an image that's at least 640x480 pixels. That's less than 1/12000th of the image's space.


The moon should be one of the most photographed of all objects just from a scientists point of view.... so where are all the pictures???


We have a lot of images, most of them from ground-based telescopes. The Moon is the most photographed of celestial bodies.


All I am saying is that if there is nothing to hide then why are there hardly any pictures of the moon???


Try the Clementine Lunar Image Browser. Clementine was a lunar survey satellite (among other things) launched in 1994. It got us pretty complete images of the moon's surface, similar to what Magellan did for Venus.

For comparison to what you're asking, below's a picture of the Mount Rushmore park from Terraserver. The image is at a resolution of 1 pixel/meter. You can pretty plainly see the parking lot of the visitor's center, but the mountain itself is a lot harder to see. Now imagine trying to pick out a 4 meter square object from this picture. For reference, the road running through the image is about 4 meters across at the narrowest.





There are more available pictures of Saturn and Mars and even Jupiter than we have of the moon....

Doesn't that strike you as being Odd??

Neon.


Not really. It's not that we have more pictures of Saturn et al than of the Moon, it's just that NASA makes a bigger deal about pictures of the other planets. The average, non-astronomy buff finds them more entertaining ("after all you can look up and see the moon most any night"), so NASA keeps sending out the "cool" pictures to keep the public happy. It's the same reason that you see so few true-color images of phenomena such as nebula or galaxies.


[edited to fix bad tags.]

[edit on 2/28/2005 by Whiskey Jack]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack
[
No weight (or negligible weight) is not the same thing as having no mass. Since mass is part of what's figured in to an object's inertia, not weight, it will still take energy to move a load of raw materials from the Moon to Earth. At the other end, energy will be required to keep the raw materials from simply slamming randomly into our planet as well.

Not really. It's not that we have more pictures of Saturn et al than of the Moon, it's just that NASA makes a bigger deal about pictures of the other planets. The average, non-astronomy buff finds them more entertaining ("after all you can look up and see the moon most any night"), so NASA keeps sending out the "cool" pictures to keep the public happy. It's the same reason that you see so few true-color images of phenomena such as nebula or galaxies.


Excellent reply post Whiskey Jack!!

Firstly you are right it would take some energy to move mass from the moon to Earth... but my point was that it would be an economically sound thing to do as the cost of the energy used would be more than underwriten by the value of the resources we would gain.

2ndly I would say that if you are correct about nasa not taking the moon as seriously as other more Exotic bodies in space, then I am very very very suprised at thier attude. This would be a bit like walking down the street with a pair of binoculas on, you can see everything far away but may infact trip up over somthing that is just below you.

If I was in command of earths space resources I would have built and sent automated probes to the moon to find signs of valueble mineral deposits. Then there would be an entire industry set up just to mine the moon.

We could use some of the resources we found on the moon to build a solar shield that we could control the amount of sunlight that reached the earth. The earth shield would remain in a orbit similar to where SOHO is currently positioned and would be able to let in variable amounts of light.

Of course such a device would be self powered as it would draw power directly from solar enery. it would need constant maintanence and would have to be powered as the solar wind would be a strong force against such a large object. But we could ensure that it was in a stable orbit by ensureing there are powered thrusters keeping it in place.

That's what I would do anyway...

Neon Haze



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Clementine is probably the best res pics you can hope for, and even then we're needing more resolution to make out the objects....but, here's a pic of the landing site and analysis of it...showing the Apollo objects....

www.space.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I would think that French scientists at ESA would be more than happy to if they could use SMART-1 to debunk one of americas greatest accomplishments. But this will not happen for the mere fact that you indeed will find old cans of coca cola and Neil Armstrongs footprints on the moon




[edit on 28-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
maybe ATS should fund a moon mission to finally put this to rest.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Gosh dern it, Gazrok, where is that "applaud" button?!
I can't seem to find one for you.





seekerof




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join