Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - Will we finally see the Moon Base?, page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 09:38 PM by kinda kurious

Originally posted by aleon1018
I suppose others have mentioned that it's shadow appears to be cone shaped like the upper part of a rocket. It's straight up as well. Another would be the size.......So, why would a base look like a rocket as if it landed like our old cartoon versions? Some alleged alien or whomevers bases have been said to be cone shaped as well?

You are ASSUMING they've "landed." Perhaps they haven't lifted off yet.

RENDERINGS / ARTIST INTERPRETATIONS

Images Source

Just sayin'.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 06:12 PM by ArMaP

There were two updates and three photo in two days.

From today's photo M101291859R, something that looks like rolling rocks.

Zoomed to 200% so its resolution is something like 42 centimetres per pixel.

This photo has too many rocks, it almost looks like someone or something has been throwing rocks at that area (Tsiolkovskiy crater's ejecta field).

Edited to add a second image.

This one is definately a rolling rock.

Sorry, no images of bases or mines yet, but you can see that I am looking.

I forgot to say that this one was not resized, so its resolution is the original 83 centimetres per pixel.

[edit on 4/8/2009 by ArMaP]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 07:02 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP
This one is definately a rolling rock.

So explain how this rolled so far... in and out of several craters

[edit on 4-8-2009 by zorgon]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 07:07 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by zorgon

Maybe it's easier to jump over small, shallow craters when the gravity is smaller.

At least it looks like an explanation.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 07:28 PM by watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by ArMaP

How do you know that is a 'rolling rock' and not the moon buggy stuck in gear?

These photos are a joke... and they are here to divert attention from something else NASA are up to...

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:27 PM by kinda kurious

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

I enjoyed the links in your sig.

Learned a few new terms from the skeptics. I really love "Impact ejecta"

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 08:30 PM by kinda kurious

reply to post by ArMaP

What ArMap, no links? You're slipping dude.

Honestly, what do you think of the "Rolling Rock?" (Not a beer question)

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 09:02 PM by zorgon

reply to post by kinda kurious
[

Link here he did give image number

but the tiffs are 245 megabytes

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

I LOVE this.. And so will Jack

As ArMaP said... :This photo has too many rocks, it almost looks like someone or something has been throwing rocks at that area (Tsiolkovskiy crater's ejecta field)."
And the other 'object' with the tracks..

Tsiolkovsky is the area we sent in a request for specifically

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Movie: Download Tsiolkovsky's Secret (33.7 Mbs) AVI

The ejecta in one area looks like mining debris (or recent land slide

)

Its also the same area as this

All kinds of odd things on the original

So now we have 'moving things' where we were expecting to find 'moving things'

[edit on 4-8-2009 by zorgon]

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 09:27 PM by zorgon

Closeup of the tracks... just like the odd weaving tracks on that lunar orbiter image...

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 05:23 AM by ArMaP

Here you go, more rolling rocks (and I don't think these look like a "buggy stuck in gear"

).

(click for full size, 83 centimetres per pixel)

Four rocks in a row?

It looks like those white rocks are below the surface.

I will post later an image showing where I found those images in the larger image, I forgot to do that yesterday.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by ArMaP]

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 07:14 AM by easynow

reply to post by ArMaP

hey ArMaP, cool pics

question for you please sir,

how do you view the tif files ? i downloaded some images but can't view them. i was going to ask in U2U but i thought other people might have the same problem.

is there a special program for these tif files ?

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 07:30 AM by ArMaP

reply to post by easynow

I have been using Photoshop (it's better in the handling of very large files, but it's not free), but GIMP (freeware) can also open those files.

Microsoft Office Document Imaging can also open the files.

An old copy of PaintShopPro that I have cannot, but that is only natural, TIFF has so many possibilities that many programs use only the most basic and ignore the others. In this case they probably "think" that 52,224 pixels it's too big (they are probably limited to 32,768 pixels in either dimension)

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 08:15 AM by easynow

thank you ArMaP, ... that program works good and i can now view the pictures. i must say they are much better detail in this tif format.

nice find on this pic

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 10:19 AM by ArMaP

Here is an image showing the places where I found those images that I posted before.

From top to bottom:
Yellow - possible rolling rock (the first image I posted)
Blue - definately a rolling rock
Green - large rolling rock
Red - four rocks in a row
Cyan - white rocks below surface

I hope this helps.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 03:08 PM by ArMaP

More rolling rocks, from the other photo published yesterday, the one for the left camera.

(click for full size)

(click for full size)

The top of this image is the same as the bottom of the previous on, it looks like that area is lower and the rocks roll down from both sides to that area.

(click for full size)

(click for full size)

There are two things that I find strange in these two photos from yesterday.

First, the white rocks that appear from below the ground; it almost looks like that area is loosing its soil and the rocks below become exposed and break. As I am not a geologist I do not know what may be happening there (and I don't know if any geologist knows), but those white (or just brighter) rocks look fragile.

The second things is that the tracks look "old", and by that I mean with little defined edges.

I almost forgot to show where did I found the above images, they are marked in colour rectangles in the image below, from top to bottom by the same order they were put on this post.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 03:27 PM by Omece

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by tezzajw

Since no one else seems to want to share their images, NASA are all we got.

It's better than nothing.

Having said that, if they do release images of lunar landing sites, no doubt the people who doubt man went to the moon will just claim the images are fake anyway.

reply posted on 5-8-2009 @ 03:56 PM by Cygnific

reply to post by ArMaP

Very nice picture of the 4 rocks!. There are alot of rocks around there, so the change some might be in line is not to far out. But, the size of the rocks look pretty much the same. Nice catch

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 02:26 PM by ArMaP

It took me a little longer than I was expecting (it took me some time to download and work with a 1.2GB image, only to reach the conclusion that it did not looked good and I had to download a 2GB image, convert it and work with it), but here is an image showing the location of photo M101291859 (L and R).

The brighter are is the area covered by Apollo 15 photo AS15-M-1710, that also shows this area, and it's a little distorted to align with the base image, I don't know if there is any mapping problem with the Apollo photo (the base photo is from the Clementine Browser 2.0).

The red rectangle shows LROC photos M101291859L and M101291859R.

Photos LROC photos M101291859L and M101291859R, joined and resized to 25% to fit on ATS.

As a comparison, here is the same area from the Apollo photo AS15-M-1710, resized to 50%.

PS: The last two images are posted as links because they are big and could make the page too slow for slower connections.

PPS: The area that interests you the most is not this one, while this is on the bottom right of the first image, what you want is the top right area.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by ArMaP]

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 03:31 PM by Cygnific

reply to post by ArMaP

Very nice, it's amazing how good the quality was from the camera's back in the Apollo days. What is so special about the top right of tsiolkovsky

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 04:44 PM by mystr

ArMap, your work is impressive!

It seems that we finally have those promised hi-res pics.

Let's hope we'll get another pass over the apollo 11 to 17 (and 20?

)
sites and/or known suspect locations like Aristarchus.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by mystr]