Apollo Hardware Spotted!

LRO has imaged at least one of the Apollo landing sites now (and it sounds like there were able to get more than one), and NASA is releasing the images at noon today:
www.nasa.gov...
This is the first time since the end of the Apollo program that images have been taken that resolve some of the actual hardware left behind. Depending on the probe's altitude at the time the images were taken, these may or may not be as good as LRO can ultimately provide.

*There's a press conference to discuss the images at 2pm eastern, but I suspect the images will go up on the LROC site when they're released to the media at 12:
lroc.sese.asu.edu...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]

I cannot wait to see these, I will keep checking back.

reply to post by ngchunter


That's cool news., although there must me loads of probes, landers etc from even unmannned missions and the Russians. So unless it's a very close, high resolution image that shows identifiable Apollo manned equipment, the doubts will still linger for me.

I won't even get started on photo fakery!

But I'l be checking it out for sure.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Ok, but why would an unmanned lander be parked at Apollo's landing sites? With the notable exception of apollo 12, that shouldn't be the case.

This might throw a spanner in the moon hoax proponents

ahh but they will claim they are fake - don't want to lose those book sales do we......

reply to post by ngchunter


Did they not test them on the moon at all?

They just landed there with technology that hadn't landed on the lunar surface?

I'm not arguing with you mate, just asking. I'm no expert, not even close.

I hope they do prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man went to the moon. But it will take some damn hard evidence to convince me.

In some ways it's more fun beleiving the conspiracy, but the truth would be a much better idea.

Apollo Landing Sites

Please tell me there's more than just these small low res images...

The images are up here: www.nasa.gov...

They have Apollos 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17!

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Did they not test them on the moon at all?

They tested them in earth orbit and in lunar orbit doing everything BUT landing (went within meters of the surface) before they finally landed on the surface on Apollo 11.

reply to post by nataylor


Like I said above, it would have to be some damn close up images.

I thought this probe was looking to scout possible landing sites for manned missions in 2020/ Wouldn't they have the ability to take better images (more close up and detailed).

Sorry NASA, this proves nothing to me.

reply to post by nataylor


Thanks! I had to eat lunch and couldn't wait any longer for the link to get put up. These are amazing images, especially Apollo 14. I hope they get the other sites again later when the lighting conditions are more akin to the Apollo 14 shot.

By the way, full uncropped shots are available here:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Mate you should upload the NASA pics to your ATS album, then put them in the OP!

Let everyone decide themselves.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Mate you should upload the NASA to your ATS album, then put them in the OP!

Let everyone decide themselves.

While that's not the worst idea, I would prefer people click the link i provided above:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
The reason being, the original source files are huge, gigabyte size files. If you want to seriously inspect the new images, you need to get the originals, not compressed web-based images like JPGs, and not cropped images like the NASA media site.

Originally posted by kiwifoot
I thought this probe was looking to scout possible landing sites for manned missions in 2020/ Wouldn't they have the ability to take better images (more close up and detailed).

Sorry NASA, this proves nothing to me.

In short, no. The maximum res of LRO is about half a meter per pixel (these images are roughly 1.5m/pixel due to altitude at the time they were taken). That's good enough to determine if a potential landing site has dangerous boulders in the way or not. I'm sorry if that doesn't prove anything to you, but i don't see how else you can explain the astronauts' footprints or these descent stages.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]

Awesome photographs. I didn't think they'd be able to resolve the trail of the astronauts footprints. Way cool.

reply to post by ngchunter
Somebody with a mischievous sense of humor might just want to post this image on an 'alien moon bases' thread. "OMG!!! PROOF of aliens!!!"

Post it on a 'Moon landings are a hoax!!' thread and it'll get...'It's obviously been photoshopped!'

Whatever...folk will criticize the resolution, the camera, the image, the mission and NASA. Some of them could be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the moon and have their faces rubbed in whatever's left of Armstrong's footprints...they'll just smile cynically and mutter...'Something's just not quite right here...I wanna see the OTHER footprints!?'

reply to post by Kandinsky


Well I think once we get to see slightly higher resolution images the Moon Hoax crowd will finally fade. The Real question is.... Where are the "Rover" Tracks? If anything they should be larger and more numerous than a path of footprints.


[edit on 17-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by kiwifoot
I thought this probe was looking to scout possible landing sites for manned missions in 2020/ Wouldn't they have the ability to take better images (more close up and detailed).

Sorry NASA, this proves nothing to me.

In short, no. The maximum res of LRO is about half a meter per pixel (these images are roughly 1.5m/pixel due to altitude at the time they were taken). That's good enough to determine if a potential landing site has dangerous boulders in the way or not. I'm sorry if that doesn't prove anything to you, but i don't see how else you can explain the astronauts' footprints or these descent stages.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]

I just am a born sceptic that's all.

That image, (Apollo 14) is very intersting I grant you. But definitive proof? Not really. How hard would it be to create that image, it would take 3 minutes.

One problem I see, why are footprints not visible on the other landing site images?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/702c64336591.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d080e2160285.jpg[/atsimg]

If you look here, below the images it says the images are of an area 384m wide for Apollo 15 and 538 m for Apollo 14, but the image is twice the size, I'm sure footprints should also be visible in the Apollo 15 image too.

This is the best resolution we can see ?



It's not even in colour

And when do we get to see Apollo 11 ? I want to see the flag! In full colour!

reply to post by Kandinsky


I think it's very easy to mock people who doubt the moon landings.

It's not about being stubborn, it's not about being ignorant of the facts. It's about not being convinced and maybe believing the 'against' evidence more than the 'for' evidence.

If those images of the same quality wee waved around as 'proof' of a UFO would you blindly believe it or ask question?

I'm not decided about the whole thing, but I really don't think these photos are proof possitive.

If a high res close up of that Apollo 14 site was published, I'd be more than willing to step from 'leaning towards they diodn't do it' to 'lening towards they did to it'!