Originally posted by johnlear
If the depth of Copernicus was 12,500 feet and you measured from the floor to the approximate top of the rim on a photo of Copernicus and got approximately 80 millimeters...

Thanks for the math.... I will work on that "ruler" today. I have seen different dimesions though 1 site says 90 feet diam... thats a lot of discrepancy... you would think they could get that part right with modern technology

The 60 feet is a non NASA source I think I will stick with that one until we can send an indepentdant survey crew up there.

So they call that the Lunar Lander? Ummm errr okay it does sorta look like one ...



Didn't know we had a Lunar Lander in 1946...

[edit on 2-10-2006 by zorgon]

My first impression is that it is not the same region imaged in the two photos. Any source for them? Any context pictures for them?

It's the Archimedes Crater. If you are looking at a full
picture of the moon it is northwest of the center of the picture.
Another nice find Zorgon.

So the second Lick picture is from 1946? And we don't have a date for when the first one was taken right?

Ok...but still, any sources for that? How can we be sure that it is the same region imaged? All I see are two photos with no context at all. And no other explanation (like where were find, who found them and so on...)

Originally posted by SearchEngine
It's the Archimedes Crater. If you are looking at a full
picture of the moon it is northwest of the center of the picture.
Another nice find Zorgon.

So the second Lick picture is from 1946? And we don't have a date for when the first one was taken right?

Correct.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but those Lick pictures show a whole side of the moon. Please remember that the diameter, is 1/4 of Earth. You can not, I repeat, can not see buildings in that picture even if they were there. Not that I don't beleive there are any.

There's some interesting pictures in this thread, but I'm sure if you stripped the Earth down to its bare rocks and viewed it from space we'd see just as many weird structures. It's bound to happen after being battered in space for millions of years, or am I totally wrong in this assumption?

Originally posted by SteveR
Sorry to rain on the parade, but those Lick pictures show a whole side of the moon. Please remember that the diameter, is 1/4 of Earth. You can not, I repeat, can not see buildings in that picture even if they were there. Not that I don't beleive there are any.

Nobody has said anything about buildings just some terrain differences
so far. Comparing lick001 to a lunar atlas or lick002 brings up some
differences...

[edit on 2-10-2006 by SearchEngine]

Originally posted by John Nada or am I totally wrong in this assumption?

Yup

Oh yeah... forgot no one liners.... The weather is really nice in Vegas today....

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by John Nada or am I totally wrong in this assumption?

Yup

How so?

Oh yeah... forgot no one liners.... *looks for the shape of angelina Jolie's butt in Moon pictures*

mmmmm....

Originally posted by SteveR
Apollo shot of Earth, 440 pixels wide. Moon diameter 0.27 of Earth. 27% of 440 = 119 pixels.

Good thought, but the apollo piccie was taken with a regular lens and the lick shot was taken through a 40" telescope. You'd probably see earth's highways and beaches with a 40" telescope on the moon. I'm not sure about buildings, but we can clearly see small craters that are only a couple of miles across.