Just wondering where these images were taken from? i.e. space or from a telescope? and have you noticed that they show stars in the background where as i believe the original moonlanding shots didn't?

Oh and before i forget thnx for the great images

Oh this is why ATS is so damn awesome!!!

Oh the lowly can only stare in awe as the ATS forum rolls out another great thread....

Damn i love this place.

Oh and many thanks for posting all of those pictures.

Springer, thanks for posting my photos.

The first 4 are separate scans of one photo Lunar Orbiter 2-162H. I ordered this photo many years ago from a NASA contractor, I forget which. When the package arrived it was a 16x20 inch negative. It took until a couple of years ago to find someone in Las Vegas that could print from a 16x20 negative. I had 2 prints made, one a 16x20 print and one 20x24 which is now on my den wall. I took the 16x20 over to Bob Lazars and he scanned it in 4 sections: no. 1 is top left, no. 2 is top right, no. 3 is bottom right and no. 4 is bottom left. No. 5 is a scan of Lunar Orbiter 5-155M.

The LO-2-162H has not been retouched as far as I can tell. LO-5-155 has been retouched which is obvious from others photos I have of 155. The other photo I am refering to is published in "Exploring the Moon Through Binoculars and Small Telescopes by Ernest H. Cherrington, Jr. published in Canada by the General Publishing Co. Toronto, copyright 1969, 1984. It is on page 230 I think but I will check.

LO-2-162H is an oblique photo of the north face of Copernicus looking north. I will post the technical data in the next couple of days. The Lunar Orbiter cameras were launched in 1965-1966 and 1967. There were 5 Orbiters. They sent back thousands of crystal clear photos of the moon. As I mentioned most of these photos have been retouched. Through some quirk of fate I not only received on that wasn't retouched but received the actual negative.

Of course with the talent available at ATS its possible we will find out a lot more about these photos. I am going to wait for a while to tell you the specific area I think was retouched so that I don't 'front load' the information.

Those photos are amazing it makes you feel like your there.
Have these photos ever been seen before?

Now this has just made a very long day a little shorter. Thanks

Wayne...

Originally posted by CYRAX

Those photos are amazing it makes you feel like your there.
Have these photos ever been seen before?

These photos have always been available to the public but they are not well publicized by NASA. These extremely clear photos were used in the Lunar Lander simulator to simulate as close as possible what the astronauts would be seeing on the ground where they were going to land. That is why Neil Armstrongs story about the 'boulders' and how 'surprised' they were to come upon a field of 'boulders' which they had to 'overfly' is not very believable. In others, in over 500 simulated landings Armstrong and Aldrin never saw that 'field of boulders'?

Of course, the real story, as many of us know is that there were 2 saucers on the ground in the primary landing area and that is why they had to overfly and find someplace else to land. And we all thought it was great of Neil to bring the subject up on his '60 Minutes' interview when he really didn't have to.

Thanks, Spring... John's right - you can get these elsewhere (even form NASA), but it's nice of you to post 'em here for us to re-peruse.

My question: I'm having a VERY hard time finding any Hi-res images of the BACK side of the moon. I know both we and the Ruskies have 'em, but other than low-res, small-scale maps/images in the public domain and by request, the good stuff (hi-detail, hi-res, larger scale iamgery) seems to be particularly scarce to absent.

Anyone have a source?

Originally posted by johnlear

Of course, the real story, as many of us know is that there were 2 saucers on the ground in the primary landing area and that is why they had to overfly and find someplace else to land. And we all thought it was great of Neil to bring the subject up on his '60 Minutes' interview when he really didn't have to.

Riiiiight...

The trouble I have with all of this "space stations on the moon" garbage, is that you'd think someone who is watching the night sky closely would notice some sort of activity going on by the moon. And yet, there isn't. Everyone continues to put down NASA for not releasing information, but they fail to remember that NASA is not the only organization watching.

How would they get supplies? wouldn't people notice all of the launches from Earth? Or do these aliens hide behind the moon all the time?

220,000 miles takes a while, even if you are going 10,000 miles an hour.

Many thanks Springer/John

These pics are awesome!

Thank you John. It is appreciated
It will be interesting to look at these. I'll merge them to recreate the larger original and see whats there. Thanks again.

Thank you gentlemen! Amazing pics!

John,

Can you give us any hints on what to look for?

#4 of the big pics definitely looks touched up at the top of the picture. Looks like artificial shading is added to the large (mounts?, rocks?). Especially the one with the two upside down triangular black shading.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by jbondo]

Originally posted by jbondo

Thank you gentlemen! Amazing pics!

John,

Can you give us any hints on what to look for?

Thanks jbondo. Springer went to a lot of effort to get this on and it has
taken about 3 weeks to get everything together.

As far as what to look for, NASA and the Apollo astronauts have said that the moon is barren, desolate, dead...nothing but old rocks and moon dust. Can't imagine anything else...maybe a few boulders...

The only thing that jumped out at me was in the last image, it seems like tiny water spots on the image... but then it seems like they're casting shadows... very strange.

edit: could it be bob and john got a little liberal with the cognac..?

[edit on 9/13/2006 by mythatsabigprobe]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by jbondo

Thank you gentlemen! Amazing pics!

John,

Can you give us any hints on what to look for?

Thanks jbondo. Springer went to a lot of effort to get this on and it has
taken about 3 weeks to get everything together.

As far as what to look for, NASA and the Apollo astronauts have said that the moon is barren, desolate, dead...nothing but old rocks and moon dust. Can't imagine anything else...maybe a few boulders...

Ditto Thanx John-

In your opinion are there stars in the background of these shots as someone posted previous?

Where are the little "cross hairs" that are normally on lunar photographs? ( Excuse my ignorance but I don't remember the technical name for them. )