First Moon Picture from Japanese Orbiter

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Besides the color which maybe filter adjustment out of set parameters, the moon looks to be to small for the craters marking the surface. I don't see any smooth area or rocky terrain, fissures of moon surface like shown in other images taken of the moon. This is a fake.




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorldShadowThis is a fake.


Honestly people. Too many of you here are way too "pro cover up" and are instantly labeling this as fake.

I would like to say i am on the "moon base" side, but you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

As jra pointed out, this camera is made to monitor the high gain antenna. Hopefully the real camera meant for taking moon pictures will provide high resolution photos when it gets into observation orbit on the 19th.

Personally i said it looks CGI, not is. I admit it, the moon features themselves look weird, but its just the one picture. The other 2 it took look more like the moon "we know".



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3rdeye

Originally posted by WorldShadowThis is a fake.


Honestly people. Too many of you here are way too "pro cover up" and are instantly labeling this as fake.

I would like to say i am on the "moon base" side, but you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

As jra pointed out, this camera is made to monitor the high gain antenna. Hopefully the real camera meant for taking moon pictures will provide high resolution photos when it gets into observation orbit on the 19th.

Personally i said it looks CGI, not is. I admit it, the moon features themselves look weird, but its just the one picture. The other 2 it took look more like the moon "we know".


I'm not pro cover up. I just pointed out the moon craters are to big for the size of the moon image. Not to mention the moon image is saturated with to many craters. It lookd to me as though craters were dabbed onto a surface with the jaxa overlaid. My opinion points to just that specific image.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorldShadow
Not to mention the moon image is saturated with to many craters.

Hi WS, the reason it has so many craters is because that one was taken on the far side of the moon... the one we don't get to see from Earth.

The far side isn't as well protected from meteors as the side that faces us since the Earth is in the way.


jra

posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorldShadow
the moon looks to be to small for the craters marking the surface.


How so? Craters come in all sizes, some huge, some small. The Moon is covered in them, they look fine to me. The far side of the Moon is covered in them.


I don't see any smooth area


You mean the Lunar mare? The image is showing mostly the far side, which doesn't have any of that.


or rocky terrain, fissures of moon surface like shown in other images taken of the moon.


How can you expect to see the Moons rocky surface from far away with a very low resolution camera? Like wise for the fissures. You have to be much closer, using a much higher resolution camera to see those kinds of details.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I have been looking at this photo from Kaguya. The test (text) says:



A photo from Japan's Kaguya/SELENE moon probe shortly after jettisoning one of two mini-satellites. The western rim Oceanus Procellarum is clearly visible in the image, which was taken on Oct. 5 about 497 miles (800 kilometers) from the Moon. Credit: JAXA




I have looked for the western rim of Oceanus Procellarum which is ‘clearly visible’ and I can’t find it. I can’t even find Oceanus Procellarum.


I agree John. It is not there.
This is some other portion of the moon.
Although I cringe at citing this source, it was easily found and fairly obvious that there is no mare, there. Let alone the "vast lunar mare on the western edge of the near side of Earth's Moon".
en.wikipedia.org...
here is the description of the following pic:
"NASA image PIA00077. This picture of the Moon was taken by the Galileo spacecraft at 6:47 p.m. PST Dec.8, 1990 from a distance of almost 220,000 miles. It shows the dark Oceanus Procellarum in the upper center, with Mare Imbrium above it and the smaller circular Mare Humorum below".


Here is what Oceanus Procellarum looks like from our vantage point here on earth:




Ok so look at the area contained within the green border. It has only a very few craters like Aristarchus, Marius and a couple of others. It does not look like what we are seeing in Kaguya.


Agreed.
It is most definitely not the Oceanus Procellarum or western limb.



Now since all of the craters are not in the Oceanus Procellarum that means that they have to be on the farside.


Please explain how you deduce: Farside. Not clear on that.
I am certain that you are correct, since the far side has few Mare(s), and is heavily cratered, but how can you be sure?
Do you see a recognizable crater?


That being so, then the left end of the terminator has to be north. If the left end of the terminator were south, all of the craters would be in the Oceanus Procellarum which they are not.


Please clarify. Not sure what you mean by "left end of the terminator has to be north".

Assuming you're correct, and I have no argument yet, what would be the point of releasing to the world, a low res photo of another part of the moon (farside) and claiming that it is "the western rim of Oceanus Procellarum" ?
Are we seeing, in your opinion, some sort of leak or clue early in the game?
I just don't get why they would release such an obvious mistake.
do you?



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Access Denied
The far side isn't as well protected from meteors as the side that faces us since the Earth is in the way.


Let me qualify that statement a little more… it’s not just a matter of the Earth blocking direct hits… the Earth is in a deeper gravity well and can “deflect” their trajectories somewhat.


jra

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
what would be the point of releasing to the world, a low res photo of another part of the moon (farside) and claiming that it is "the western rim of Oceanus Procellarum" ?


Did you miss my earlier post that showed the previous photos? You can see the western edge of Oceanus Procellarum in those. Here is the link again. The photo that is being shown doesn't show it.

I've also matched some of the craters to those that are west of Oceanus Procellarum here.


I just don't get why they would release such an obvious mistake.


I don't believe they have. Everything seems to match up.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by WorldShadow
the moon looks to be to small for the craters marking the surface.


How so? Craters come in all sizes, some huge, some small. The Moon is covered in them, they look fine to me. The far side of the Moon is covered in them.


Looking at this clear image of the farside you will see the craters look nothing in size as the blown up purple moom image craters. The image looks doctored.

Image farside of moon with PROCELLARUM on right



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The major difference in the photos I see that could potentially propel your "image is fake" religion is that there is a major contrast problem (washing out many details) with your far side photo, plus it is shot at a very, very different angle. The angle difference alone makes craters look completely different from picture to picture, due to the lighting and how the brain perceives depth.

But, I also understand it is much easier to point and shout fake than to understand reality, and a lot more fun as well.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
We'll see when the rest of the pictures of the moon surface comes in. I dont think we will see anything remotely new or interesting in the public version of these photos.

I dont know why people think its perfectly natural that images should take weeks or months to reach the public. What exactly is being done to them that takes so long?


[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

I dont know why people think its perfectly natural that images should take weeks or months to reach the public. What exactly is being done to them that takes so long?
[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]


Because, as I stated in another thread, it is THEIR satellite and THEIR PHOTOS. If they dont want to share them with anyone,they dont have to, especially to a bunch of conspiracy theorists who are already accusing them of retouching the ohotos.
Dont like it?, send up your own satellite.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus


I dont know why people think its perfectly natural that images should take weeks or months to reach the public.
[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]


I never said it is perfectly natural, lol. As we all know, data only takes a short few minutes to process, but it is up to each agency as to how long it takes them to release their data. That has nothing to do with the technology, that's politics and budget right there, surely you understand that? As far as that goes, the dreaded NASA releases dated WAY, WAY faster (almost, and in a lot of circumstances, in real time) than any other space agency on the planet.

But I will agree with you on one thing, there is not a single photo this thing will take that will convince anybody of anything. Well, if they show me a clear picture of a bucket loader, building, or something that a three year old can identify...then I will capitulate. On the other hand, if they show very clear images of nothing but rocks and whatnot, are you guys going to roll over...or accuse them of airbrushing, or accuse the aliens of hiding their bases during the passover, lol. You see, common sense and reason can't win with you folk.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Also the apollo landing sites should be there, when are we going to see those?
Isn't any one asking about this?



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I never said it is perfectly natural, lol. As we all know, data only takes a short few minutes to process, but it is up to each agency as to how long it takes them to release their data. That has nothing to do with the technology, that's politics and budget right there, surely you understand that?


Ok, what are the political reasons for delaying it? And what are the economic reasons? Are you implying that its cheaper to wait a couple of weeks and then release them instead of releasing them right away?

They could have a website that automatically puts up images as soon as they get received from the orbiter.



[edit on 14-10-2007 by Copernicus]


jra

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
I dont know why people think its perfectly natural that images should take weeks or months to reach the public. What exactly is being done to them that takes so long?


These images aren't taking weeks, let alone months to come out. JAXA released these photos the day it happened. Where did you get the impression that these were withheld for a while?


Originally posted by pepsi78
Also the apollo landing sites should be there, when are we going to see those?
Isn't any one asking about this?


At 10m per pixel, you aren't going to see any Apollo artifacts. You'll have to wait for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter next year.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by jra




I've also matched some of the craters to those that are west of Oceanus Procellarum. Everything seems to match up.



JRA, I can’t get them to match up. Here are your crater names.



Here is my chart. I have oriented it to the direction of your craters. If Stefan was were you put it then Rynin would be slightly to the east not well to the southeast. And the real Rynin has a big gash on the east side. Yours doesn't. Rynin might be Bragg but that would be a stretch if you know what I mean. (Rynin was not labeled on the chart.)




And if that were Stefan where is Wegener to which it abuts?

And if that were Nernst where is Rontgen immediately to its southeast? And that doesn't look like Nernst. Nernst has a little crater on its western rim.

I don't think we're in Kansas JRA. Either that or someone is messing around with the farside of the moon.

But thanks for the post.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsRus First thing that i thought when i opened the page was WOW, that looks like CGI.


LOL I had noticed the same thing and I made this post in the John Lear Moon thread....

++++++++++++++

I have a small problem... Maybe John you can help me...

I cannot recognize any locations in these images...




Caption Reads...The upper right dark area is ocean, the west rim of the Oceanus Procellarum (The image was taken around 2:50 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 1,500 km from the Moon.)



Caption Reads: Almost the same area as the left image, but closer to the Moon (The image was taken around 3:00 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 1,200 km from the Moon)


Caption Reads: A boundary in the lower left is the line between the area that receives sunshine and the shaded area at around 80 degrees north latitude. It was too dark to observe the North Pole.
(The image was taken around 3:10 p.m. on Oct. 5 (JST) about 800 km from the Moon.)


But I can't seem to line these up with any known features that I am familiar with...

So these images are supposed to be live TV... These captures were taken Oct 5... its the 13th Why does it take so long to show us the video feed? Considering they can obviously take out captures to show us.

And why would they place a camera that has to look through all that junque in the way... junque on which the camera seems focused on hence the 'fuzzy moon images'

And I certainly don't recognize THIS feature...
This is just a 4x enlargement... I certainly hope we get better resolution than THIS
I thought the Japanese were good at making Cameras





posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Thanks for the input zorgon. I did a search of the site prior to post in this thread but didnt find any others. Judging by what johns been saying over the past few posts i think he agrees that things dont match up!

To me a crater looks like a crater looks like a crater lol

its interesting reading what you guys post on this because i dont know much about the moon or the craters ..... I cant wait for the 19th when new images should come in, as soon as they do i will add them to the thread (unless someone beats me to it
)



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrathis was probably taken with one of them and not with any of the scientific imaging ones.


Yes PROBABLY to be sure...



I don't see anything that makes this image look fake, it's just a low quality image, that's all.


Low quality yes... but what makes it look 'fake' is the absence of clearly recognizable feature


As for the "purple moon" comment, that has to do with the colour balance settings of the image sensor, that's all.


So the Japanese... number two experts(after Germany
) on Camera equipment, can't get color balance correct on the first images released to the public of this historic mission?

Uh huh okay sure why not I buy that...







top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join