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.

 

NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

page: 8
74
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by weedwhacker

And

reply to post by Phage

 


Donkey_Dean's post is not really Donkey_Dean's post, it's a copy of this post by Exuberant1.



Thanks Armap.

....I'll let this one slide though. It could have been a mistake.


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I can't see anything very sinister here, to be honest. Wherever this was photographed, it's an obvious error. Mistakes happen.


Yep! That's what I said in a couple of previous posts! These clones are not seen in the individual images, but appear only in the panorama. So obviously the process of 'joining' or 'stitching' them has been really screwed up by those dudes at NASA's Imaging Section.

So my line is, what's the point in dishing out pictures of the Moon that are not the true representation of the actual terrain? Now how do I know what I'm looking at is not an 'artificial' representation of the terrain? Were the panoramas made by NASA only for fun and not serious analysis?

That's what gets my goat! As I said, WISIWIDG! (What I See Is What I Don't Get!) And therefore it sucks! Jeeez!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Personally, I think the intent was to display a vista....so the horizon had to match, from the various pictures. As ArMaP pointed out, due to lens distortion, points in the photo at varying distances FROM the lens location, at the moment of the shoot, will result in distortions. In this case, most distortion occured in the foregrounds...which makes sense, if the intent was to have a clear 'infinity' focus, in order to later make the panorama.

Right now, as I type this, it is 0130 EST....so it's either 0630 or 0730 in Portugal....so, when ArMaP tunes back in, perhaps he will have an additional comment.....



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

So my line is, what's the point in dishing out pictures of the Moon that are not the true representation of the actual terrain? Now how do I know what I'm looking at is not an 'artificial' representation of the terrain? Were the panoramas made by NASA only for fun and not serious analysis?


Yeah, they should have been more careful knowing that there are people like Skipper around. People who look at each rock, searching for "proof" (and ignoring reason).

If you had gone to the source you could have avoided this nonsense.

Individual photographic frames within the panoramas were recently digitized and re-assembled by NASA’s Information Resources Directorate at the Johnson Space Center with support from the Advanced Projects Office. These re-rendered panoramas are breathtaking and are being used again to illustrate the types of lunar surface conditions that future missions to the lunar surface will encounter.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The purpose is not detail, it's to get a feel for the Moon. If you want detail use the individual photos (readily available), not the composite panoramas.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Right now, as I type this, it is 0130 EST....so it's either 0630 or 0730 in Portugal....so, when ArMaP tunes back in, perhaps he will have an additional comment.....


Hmmm...And then he has to have his breakfast of poached eggs with fillet and fried bacon/sausages chased down with a pint of mango juice! Probably bat's wings if he's in a foul mood!!
So you may need to wait longer than expected!!


Cheers!


[edit on 23-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Great examples of how old technology stitches photos for panoramic views. I'm hopeful that many of the numerous current and planned satellites photographing the surface will give us some more detail. Lets hope not every country shares the same idea of secrecy. There are however more sketchy photos than these in the archives containing washed out and removed objects. Could be just sloppy editing, but I highly doubt that.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Individual photographic frames within the panoramas were recently digitized and re-assembled by NASA’s Information Resources Directorate at the Johnson Space Center with support from the Advanced Projects Office. These re-rendered panoramas are breathtaking and are being used again to illustrate the types of lunar surface conditions that future missions to the lunar surface will encounter.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The purpose is not detail, it's to get a feel for the Moon. If you want detail use the individual photos (readily available), not the composite panoramas.

Phage, you seem to blindly copy and paste some stuff just because it's written by some dude at JSC/NASA/LPI etc etc, without applying your mind! Do you for a moment believe that the panoramas are meant to study surface conditions for future Moon landings? Now that's pretty silly considering that what one can see in the panoramas is just a couple of square miles over which they have traversed a gazillion times on foot and on their buggies. So what extra info will NASA get from 'studying' the terrain where they have already been?

What they are going to use for studying surface conditions for selection of landing sites is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), a robotic spacecraft which the United States plans to place in orbit around the Moon sometime in June 2009. It has High-resolution mapping (max 0.5 m) to assist in the selection and characterization of future landing sites.

One of the six instruments it will have on board is the LROC — The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) which has been designed to address the measurement requirements of landing site certification and polar illumination. LROC comprises a pair of narrow-angle cameras (NAC) and a single wide-angle camera (WAC).

Now that's what is going to be used for a detailed analysis of suitable landing sites on the lunar surface and not some dodgy panoramic images of areas that have already been covered on foot and by the rovers.

Cheers!


[edit on 23-4-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


See!!! I knew it, Mike...all along!!

You were just yanking on our chains....separating the wheat from the chaff, are ye??


As to future possible permanent HUMAN bases on the Moon, I have a few ideas...has NASA publicised any of these??

1) -- A permanent HUMAN base would be best located near one of the poles, but within line-of-sight of the Earth, for continuous communications.

2) -- A lunar 'polar' location would be thermally more stable than an 'equatorial' location, for instance.

3) -- The most likely existence of frozen H2O would be near the poles. Thus, as equipment is launched from Earth, and other various equipment is constructed/manufactured on site, the possiblity of having such raw material as readily available H2O is paramount.

4) -- One detriment to a Polar Lunar base is the lack of rotational energy as a launching platform for continued deep-space missions. However, this is mitigated by the lower gravitational field.

5) -- Big advantage to a Polar Lunar base location is the additional protection, absent the Earth's magnetic field, of extant cosmic radiation sources, as produced by our own Sun.

6) -- Given all the variables, any expeditions to mine other products, as needed (i.e., He3, for instance) could be conducted during the 14-day various windows of opportunity, based on the 28-day rotational period of the Moon. IF one is trying to limit exposure to direct sunlight, and the direct radiation injury potential. A Polar location provides a convenient place to delve almost anywhere, within a certain radius.

7) -- After a certain length of time, technological advances learned, and materials formed, could result in the progression to build safe Human Habitats farther from the Polar areas....so that that Humans would not be endangered by Solar radiation that is normally deflected by a major planet's magnetosphere.

8) -- Assuming the Moon is 'seismically' stable, a great number of underground facilities could also be created, to not only protect from Solar radiation, but to connect various bases in a safe, underground high-speed travel system.

This, of course....is all speculation....and funding should, once begun, become self-sustaining through the mining operations.

Of course....once ANY Corporation gets even a whiff of profit....well, then it becomes "Who Owns the Moon?"

I predict, instead of the 'possible' Utopia that I surmised up above, more battles for 'territory'....

*edit* I changed some typos...and grammar...sure I missed something, though...sorry, 'stet'.




[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 

That's a red herring. Where was anything said about using the panoramas to select landing sites? Of course these panoramas wouldn't be of much use for that. They may select an Apollo site for some future mission but my guess is they will be looking elsewhere.

The idea of the panoramas is to, as I said and as the forward says, get a feel for what it is like to stand on the surface of the Moon. The forward says "illustrate", not simulate, not replicate. A duplicated rock here and there isn't going to be a problem. The purpose is not to get "extra info". The individual photographs are more useful for the details. If a location with similar terrain is chosen, these composites will be useful for things like the small scale "texture" of the terrain (which even the LRO won't be able to provide). In any case the panoramas can be useful in providing the astronauts with information about what to expect about just standing on the Moon. Things like how the horizon is closer than on Earth. Things like how the appearance of hills in the distance doesn't change much even though you're 500 meters away from the spot you took a panoramic shot from so a large rock that was in the foreground doesn't appear in the field of view anymore. Oh wait, that happens on Earth too.

[edit on 4/23/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Excellent post WW!



Originally posted by weedwhacker
As to future possible permanent HUMAN bases on the Moon, I have a few ideas...has NASA publicised any of these??

A permanent HUMAN base would be best located near one of the poles, but within line-of-sight of the Earth, for continuous communications.

Not necessarily. Communications could be relayed via orbiting satellites. I don't think this would be a major constraint if a suitable area is found that is not in line-of-sight.


A lunar 'polar' location would be thermally more stable than an 'equatorial' location, for instance.

Agreed! But remember, the blueprints show Moon bases that would be at least four feet under the surface (regolith) to prevent penetration of hazardous radiation/cosmic particles. But since water is more likely in the polar regions, a landing site would probably be selected in a suitable area here.


IF one is trying to limit exposure to direct sunlight, and the direct radiation injury potential. A Polar location provides a convenient place to delve almost anywhere, within a certain radius.

As I mentioned earlier, an underground base would mitigate the ill effects of such thermal radiation.


Assuming the Moon is 'seismically' stable, a great number of underground facilities could also be created, to not only protect from Solar radiation, but to connect various bases in a safe, underground high-speed travel system.

Ahh! There you have it!


This, of course....is all speculation....

Nope! These are the facts!
You hit the nail on the head!



Of course....once ANY Corporation gets even a whiff of profit....well, then it becomes "Who Owns the Moon?"

Not Bush and his neo-cons!
Thank the lord for small mercies!



I predict, instead of the 'possible' Utopia that I surmised up above, more battles for 'territory'....

Considering that the Outer Space Treaty is in place, this may not happen. But it would perhaps be something like what's happening at the North pole!


*edit* I changed some typos...and grammar...sure I missed something, though...sorry, 'stet'.

Don't lose any sleep over it! We all make mistakes!


Cheers!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Am I the only one on a high-speed wireless connection????

....I've only been around at ATS for a short year and a half....but, there seems to be a temporal dis-connect, at times (pun)....

I've had other members jump on one of my posts in what seems a 'nano-second'....whilst other posts (of mine) languish, or seem to be ignored.

It is a seemingly 'time-delay' that is difficult to comprehend.

....the TV is on the 'History Channel'...and it is a story about 'Nostradamus'....I think I'm being influenced!!!


They earlier mentioned his real name....what my (poor command of French) picked up was that his name was 'something' d'amus....if anyone who knows the French language, perhaps you could help.

For those who don't know...the word 'de' in French is 'of'. Two vowels, when in the same sentence....the first vowel is dropped....especially in the caseof 'de'....and in it's place an apostrophe is placed. In pronunciation, the missing vowel is eluded and merged into the beginning vowel of the next word.

Example....'the gold' is....."le or"....but is spelt, and pronounced, 'l'or'.

Nostradamus' name is thusly, a change...and is Angleticized.

Nostre d'amus....is a possible variant....

How is this relevant?? Well....it is relevant in as much as, the thought came into my head, as I was typing this post.

IF you post on ATS, within a vacuum of general knowledge ability....then irrespective of any evidence that is presented to the contrary, you will defend your original premise as long as you can....even to the ridiculous.

With all props to the OP....I believe this thread has served a purpose....it stimulated discussion.

EVERY contribution added to the complexity of the understanding...everyone had something to offer.

I am seeing this as, even if there is bickering occuring, sometimes....this is a brilliant function of ATS. There is an eventual consensus....usually.

OK, carry on!



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Cheers, Mike....

Speaking of territorial battles, here on Earth.....you mention the Arctic....because of the rampant scrambling for territorial ownership....

In the meantime....the Antarctic is possible the NEXT great unclaimed 'battleground' on the Earth's surface!!!

Back to the Moon, though. ASSUMING that there is not already an ET presence (or, as zorgon and co. assert, a fully-functioning Human base for the last 40+ years) on the Moon....then I stand by my concept for the initial 'colonization' procedures, at the poles....unless one could expect to land near the 'terminator' and hopefully build substantial under-ground shelters within seven Earth-days (about one-quarter Lunar 'day'...)

Of course, in practical, conventional rocket science as we know it....a preliminary base, even on one of the poles, woud require a continual re-supply, from Earth, of nearly constant launches of supplies....over and over and over....

The in-consistent nature of the American Political system is not going to sustain a long-term sustained project. Too many variables.....

Instead, as I heard on the "UFO HUNTERS" episode, tonight....the $400 Billion, or possibly more, (in just ONE year!!!) that is directed to 'Black' projects, could easily account for a whole host of top secret ops....up to, and not to exclude....Moon ops....even Mars ops........

So...MY speculations could actually be 'old' news.........

*edit*....are the MIB going to show up in the next few minutes???!!???

No? I didn't think so.....

[edit on 4/23/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   


Correct me if I'm wrong, but these photo's are from 1972 (mission 17). I would guess that these panoramic images were created without any type of computer software. Sure, NASA could try again with more modern technology, but they did a pretty good job the first time, and they are limited by the photos that they are working with.


This is what I was just going to post, from my memory the panorama's were made by simply sitting each photo on top of the next physical one. I seem to remember seeing walls of these created panorama's on the news.

These panorama's seem to have been recreated very much later using better computer technology..



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Armin

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
now if these artifacts showed up in any one single image, then yes... scream insanity, but these are two photos put together at the edges. there are pretty decent programs that do this mostly successful. nothing beats an actual artist in creating them however.


Agreed! So these could most likely be two images stitched together. But those clones being only in a few areas and not along or across the entire image was what created the doubt.

So how about these two images, the second with the missing rock?




This is what I find weird is that the mountains in the background always stay the same (size, shape, formation), doesn't matter what position you're at the moment.. Kinda strange, huh?! I would like an answer for that one..


Cheers!


[edit on 22-4-2009 by Armin]


That's an easy one....

1st the obvious. The rover is missing from the first as they were taken at different times.

2nd - the less obvious - ever heard of parallax? It means that objects far away tend to appear not to move very much when you move or rotate your p.o.v in the foreground.

So what's happening here is the camera has moved slightly on an ark which still places the distant mountains in its field of vision but has moved sufficiently that the rocks are no longer in the foreground.

If this image was of sufficiently high res, you could overlay the mountains and find that the POV isn't identical, just similar.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Dutty_Rag
 


Don't need high res to see differences in those mountains..

Just take a close look and compare every hill. Those small ones in the middle for example. One of them is missing on the second pic.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your right, I left out one word. I stand corrected. It wasn't a matter of reading what I wanted to.....I just simply misred it.

Thats how rumors get started? Ok if you say so.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Right now, as I type this, it is 0130 EST....so it's either 0630 or 0730 in Portugal....so, when ArMaP tunes back in, perhaps he will have an additional comment.....
Your post shows as having been made at 06:32, I was sleeping like a baby at the time.


 



Originally posted by mikesingh
Hmmm...And then he has to have his breakfast of poached eggs with fillet and fried bacon/sausages chased down with a pint of mango juice! Probably bat's wings if he's in a foul mood!!
So you may need to wait longer than expected!!
No, just bread and butter and a glass of milk, my favourite breakfast.

But then I had to go to work (from where I read these posts, but don't tell my boss), and now, in my lunch break, I finally have the time to answer.

This is what a simple attempt at creating a panorama with the first three photos looks like.


(click for full size)

As you can see, when I tried to align the first two photos by using the large rock on the foreground, everything else became out of place, and the third photo had the same problem when I tried to align it with the second.

Also, it is noticeable that the camera was somewhat rotated during the movement between photos, making the horizon change a little.

Even if I tried to adjust the size to align the foreground and the horizon things would not look good, because then the middle of the photo would be mis-aligned a little.

[edit on 23/4/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Darn! Is this all that we're capable of in the year of our Lord 2009? We don't even possess the technology to do this right? Jeeez!
Probably making a panorama using a pin hole camera would produce better results, what?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
The way I see it is that NASA found something there that they didn't want the rest of us seeing. And they covered it up. The rocks are the same one, over and over again. Only reason they would do that is if there was something important they didn't want us to see. One more lie in a sea of lies.



W: But if they didn't want you to see it, then why would they take photos of it in the first place?

And why would they clone the same rock next to each other instead of a different one?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join