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.

 

Undebatable PROOF that we are not being told everything about the moon

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


YOU ARE KIDDING?!

Surely you can't be serious mate? That is so obviously a prime example of digital manipulation that it screams out at you. And one example amongst hundreds of others.

Your reason for not believing a cover up is because the graphical artists would have used a clone tool?


That's one of many reasons. Only an amateur would use a smudge tool to hide the data. You know another way they could have gone about it? They could have simply removed that particular frame. Why release a smudge when it would, in many conspiracy-theorists minds, verify the belief that NASA is hiding something?

Put another way, you're basing your decision on how to interpret this smudge based off of your position and the belief system you used to arrive at that position.

Let me say it again. I don't just think, I know, UFOs represent a real phenomenon. However I don't find the moon-base theory compelling. Many of the smudges people are calling out are on the light-side of the moon! These blurs are enormous. The one you just linked to is 98 miles across! That's easily visible from any ground based observatory. So you're asking me to believe that every astronomical society the world over is complicit in this cover-up? It doesn't make sense.

Heck, head to the nearest public observatory and look for yourself. Sure you won't get the same resolution Clementine had, but it should be enough to detect artificial light sources in dark areas on the surface of the moon. If you don't see any it more than likely means no one's up there. Or if they are that they're beneath the surface or they don't use modern technology like electric lighting.

This is all besides the point though as I've already provided a technical explanation for most of the blurs, smudges, and lines.

I'm not saying that NASA is innocent. They probably have obscured data from the public's view, but this moon-base myth is very likely a waste of everyone's time. Yes I have listened to Karl Wolf's testimony. I urge you to read this to better decide for yourself how much of this is science fiction versus science fact.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Xtraeme]




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
So its not proof but that doesnt mean nasa's not covering something up, I have no doubt they are, why would their budget be so high if the government/military didnt see something useful in space?
From what I have seen, the most common way of an organisation spend too much money is by paying high wages to people that do nothing special, so maybe an oldish organisation like NASA has some dozens of people getting fat salaries for doing nothing special.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Coincidentally, i was just looking at one such example (among many available to view) from the US Navy's Clementine site.
It's funny how people insist on using that image browser that has some clearly identified problems instead of looking at the real photos.

Are 203 CDs with photos from Clementine enough for you?

Knock yourself out.



The key phrase being: "global mapping of lunar surface", do you not find it at least odd, that the probe only has a TC capable of 10m/pixel?
The problem of maping some planet in high resolution is the time it takes, Clementine mapped the whole Moon in lowish resolution but it took much less higher definition photos.

If mapping the Moon with a 10m/pixel resolution takes a year, then mapping it with a 1m/pixel at the same speed would take 100 times more, a 10X10 square has 100 1X1 squares.

That is why Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is photographing Mars since November 2006 (although the first photo is from October), and after 9430 photos taken (with at least five not with Mars as the subject) they have covered a very small area, as you can see here.



jra

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
Coincidentally, i was just looking at one such example (among many available to view) from the US Navy's Clementine site.


That looks like crater Zeeman, if I'm not mistaken. Looking at other sources I don't see any signs of smudging and blurring. Using a program called WorldWind, which uses the same Clementine data, the crater has no signs of smudging what so ever. Same with every other image I find of it. It seems only the Clementine Lunar Image Browser has this issue.


The key phrase being: "global mapping of lunar surface", do you not find it at least odd, that the probe only has a TC capable of 10m/pixel?


"global mapping of lunar surface" does not mean "super high res imaging". There are other types of instruments that are used to map the surface, like x-ray, gamma ray and charged particle spectrometers as well as using radar and laser altimeters. Every probe is built with certain requirements and limitations. Getting 1m per pixel res images was not one of the goals for JAXA (nor was it for the ESA, China and India), but it is for NASA and the soon to be launched, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
It seems only the Clementine Lunar Image Browser has this issue.

And only that version of the browser has that issue, it was corrected on the updated version, available here but ignored by most people (I wonder why...).



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

I want everyone to go to google moon. www.google.com...

Keep in mind, we have the ability to map every square inch of earth. And of course, just as easily we could map EVERY square inch of the moon fairly easily.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by king9072]


1) Zooming in on Apollo 11 landing site. The images look horrible at best. They look more like artist renderings of the moon surface. The "tracks" look like a photoshop burn tool on a light setting.

2) Mapping the earth is one thing. Easier to get images by plane/satellite/etc. The moon is much further away. Everything becomes more complex when your dealing with larger distances.

Nevertheless...you have a point. We're definitely NOT being told everything. It'd be a whole lot less confusing if they were just honest with us.

Then again, some people might not be able to handle what they're being told!


jra

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackbirdish
1) Zooming in on Apollo 11 landing site. The images look horrible at best. They look more like artist renderings of the moon surface. The "tracks" look like a photoshop burn tool on a light setting.


It is an artistically rendered map. There are no high resolution maps of the landing sites yet.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join