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.
Originally posted by reasoner
The original maximum "resolution" would likely be either around 2.5 meters (from the best resolution of HR and MR straight down expanded by the obliquity),
Originally posted by reasoner
The image was made from approximately 120 km (46 km height at roughly 70 deg obliquity) - obviously at that oblique angle the distance varies across the picture. As nobody has located the features on a standard lunar map yet, we don't know the scale. The original maximum "resolution" would likely be either around 2.5 meters (from the best resolution of HR and MR straight down expanded by the obliquity), but that is based on best resolution possible with the 1966 satellite lenses and densitometer spot size, NOT the pixels of Bob Lazars scanner after many analog electronic or optical processing steps, none of which increased real resolution.
The first three missions, dedicated to imaging 20 potential Apollo landing sites, were flown at near equatorial orbits as close as 22 miles above the lunar surface. The fourth and fifth missions were devoted to broader scientific objectives, and were flown in high altitude polar orbits.
On a typical Lunar Orbiter mission, the photographic system provided high-resolution pictures of 4,000 square miles of the Moon's surface with enough clarity to show objects the size of a card table.
but let's assume that virtually the full width of the HR images was used in the montage
As the GIF scan by Bob Lazars would have been around 6000 pixels wide, that would give a midpicture scale of about 6 meter/pixel, of the largest images uploaded by Springer. Given the uncertainties above, the best estimate I'd make is 4-10 meters/pixel - but it certainly could be outside that range (eg: with more cropping than I'm assuming).
reasoner
Originally posted by reasoner The image in question here was one of NASA's crown jewels so it was probably ordered more than most, explaining why John Lear would have happened to purchase this particular image decades before getting a print made and happening to notice that it had interesting anomolies.
I haven't seen any of those links (but it's easy to miss something in a thread this size), could you please tell us least who post those links?
Originally posted by zorgon
The original scan was not in gif but in bmp and the full size bmps have been linked to several times in this thread. Springer posted the gifs not the bmps
Originally posted by reasoner
The image was made from approximately 120 km (46 km height at roughly 70 deg obliquity) - obviously at that oblique angle the distance varies across the picture. As nobody has located the features on a standard lunar map yet, we don't know the scale. The original maximum "resolution" would likely be either around 2.5 meters (from the best resolution of HR and MR straight down expanded by the obliquity), but that is based on best resolution possible with the 1966 satellite lenses and densitometer spot size, NOT the pixels of Bob Lazars scanner after many analog electronic or optical processing steps, none of which increased real resolution.
Originally posted by zorgon
First of all the 'four images' you talk about are 4 sections of ONE image... cut in order for them to be downloadable by most people.
Originally posted by zorgon
As to the feactures being located on a 'standard lunar map'
The first three missions, dedicated to imaging 20 potential Apollo landing sites, were flown at near equatorial orbits as close as 22 miles above the lunar surface. The fourth and fifth missions were devoted to broader scientific objectives, and were flown in high altitude polar orbits.
On a typical Lunar Orbiter mission, the photographic system provided high-resolution pictures of 4,000 square miles of the Moon's surface with enough clarity to show objects the size of a card table.
but let's assume that virtually the full width of the HR images was used in the montage
Originally posted by zorgon
Lets not assume anything of the sort as we KNOW how the images are processed and scanned...
Originally posted by reasoner so let's work together.
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by reasoner so let's work together.
No thanks... as I said John is no longer here and I don't have time or inclination to upload all my work to ATS media to post images
Originally posted by reasoner
I was trying to add something useful to the understanding of the Lunar Orbiter image in which many people perceive anomalous features - a documented and reasoned estimate of the scale. If others have made that calculation "many times" already, I apologize for missing that -