John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 1
138
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+30 more 
posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
At long last, the FULL QUALITY, HUGE FILE SIZE, moon images John Lear had scanned into his computer by Bob Lazar many years ago are online here at AboveTopSecret.com, the NUMBER ONE destination on the web for the CIVIL discussion and collaborative research of EVERYTHING "Alternative".

From what John has told me and what I see in these files, this is a wide angle, original black and white NASA photograph split into 5 separate files when Bob Lazar scanned it.

Technical Data:

Four of them labeled Copernicus 1 through 4 are from Lunar Orbiter 2 H-162; Spacecraft Altitude 45.9 kilometers, camera tilt 69˚20’; Frame Center Data: LAT: 5˚30’N, LONG: 20˚00W, sun elevation 24˚40’. Framelet Bearing: N86˚40’W.

This first batch are the huge, best quality, full size images, if you have a dial up connection be prepared for a long download.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...


This next batch are the medium size version for a shorter download but still "good quality" image.



files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...


And finally we have a small size version for a speedy download.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...

ENJOY!

Springer...

[edit on 1-17-2007 by Springer]




posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
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.


+20 more 
posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Those photos are amazing it makes you feel like your there.
Have these photos ever been seen before?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Now this has just made a very long day a little shorter. Thanks


Wayne...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Many thanks Springer/John

These pics are awesome!



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
it might help if the pictures and thier file names were corrolated to the data in the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

the file mames should read

something like this : IV-138-M

the first 2 letters indicate it is from lunar orbiter four .

without this data , they are just pretty pictures .



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape



it might help if the pictures and thier file names were corrolated to the data in the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

the file mames should read

something like this : IV-138-M

the first 2 letters indicate it is from lunar orbiter four .

without this data , they are just pretty pictures .



See previous post.



[edit on 13-9-2006 by johnlear]

[edit on 13-9-2006 by johnlear]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by ignorant_ape



it might help if the pictures and thier file names were corrolated to the data in the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

the file mames should read

something like this : IV-138-M

the first 2 letters indicate it is from lunar orbiter four .

without this data , they are just pretty pictures .




Please see previous post of photo numbers but substitute II for 2 and V for 5. I know it can be confusing. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
it might help if the pictures and thier file names were corrolated to the data in the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon

the file mames should read

something like this : IV-138-M

the first 2 letters indicate it is from lunar orbiter four .

without this data , they are just pretty pictures .


Damn ignorant ape by name, ignorant by nature!

Wheres the 'thank you for the pictures and the effort in getting them to ATS@??

I see you have been on ATS for a long time Mr Ape, but is it an excuse for bad manners and borderline nastiness? They may be numbered wrong, but if you know what they are why not put up a post telling every one what to change the image names to?

[edit on 13-9-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
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...



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
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. )





new topics
top topics
 
138
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join