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.

 

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 13
58
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Got a link that works
You can find the one I wanted to use here.
www.satimagingcorp.com...

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Does anyone knows if NASA has taken pictures of other debris or stuff they have sent to the moon besides the Apollo hardware?

Here is a pic of surveyor 1 that landed on Moon on 1967. I would imagine NASA knows the exact spot where surveyor 1 can be found.


Surveyor 1 was the first spacecraft launched in the Surveyor program and the first soft landing on the Moon by the United States. The mission was considered a complete success and demonstrated the technology necessary to achieve landing and operations on the lunar surface.


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...






also, I read something about a reflector earlier. Maybe this will help.


The Lunokhod laser retroreflector is still used by Earth-based stations for laser ranging.


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Also here is a page showing everything that was sent to the moon by US and Russia.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 19-7-2009 by jam321]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I understand all that and agree. Taking known facts (or strictly adhered to claims) and applying them to these pics gives us the perspective we need to make a conclusion as to the veracity of the photos. I believe they are what They say they are.

I am merely pointing out the possibility that things that look like things other than rocks, may actually be things other than rocks, due to the fact that these pictures clearly indicate the ability for things that are not rocks, to look like rocks (even with the knowledge that they indeed are not rocks because of the facts that declared the expected relative positions of these things that are not rocks, but which could be rocks - provided we didn't know better that they are things that are not rocks but are in fact the things that we say they are).

Assuming we were not told what these pictures were, could we at least agree that many would dismiss the opinions and claims of those that say the objects and the footprints look like objects and footprints? My beef is with the quality of the photos, not the reality of what is in them.

Can't wait till the lower orbit shots come in.





posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 

Considering the scale of what we're seeing now it's going to be pretty difficult to claim an "anomaly" is an alien base (unless the aliens really are little green men and have little bases).

This is Rio at the same resolution as the Apollo 16 image



Well, slightly better (.8m vs 1m)

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you Phage for the comparison. Nothing helps my limited imagination like a good before n after.


Yes, I get that we are much further away and resolutions and all that. I am patiently waiting for upper-closer pics that show more definition. I am just so tired of the pics we get helping to feed the theories rather than crushing them under the weight of mighty pixels.

That, and I would like to see what became of what my parents saw, and I would like to believe that my computer to my lower right and the cameras other ATS Members have are not more powerful than the devices NASA uses in the projects for which we shell out billion$.

dubbullyewtieff mate...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 

There is a lot of moon to photograph at these resolutions so it will take a while. But at some point we should be able to compare the LROC images to the Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, and Clementine images to get a much better look at what's really there.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well, aren't the pics the moonbasers and marsfacers always produce taken using similar resolutions and distances and pixelspermeters and stuff?

If we took the orbiter and pointed it at the Pitcairn Islands from the same distance and angle and everything would we be able to see it? If so, would it pick up the General Store ?

Just wondering.


I'm real tired with travel lag, forgive my spongy brain.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 


No.
The telescope on the LRO is not as powerful as the telescope on the Ikonos satellite. But the Ikonos satellite is in a much higher orbit around Earth (because of the atmosphere) than the LRO is orbiting around the Moon. So if the LRO were orbiting Earth it could not take as good images as the Ikonos can.

But it isn't, it's in a nice low orbit around the moon so the result is that the resolution is about the same. That picture of Rio is pretty close to the same scale as the picture of the Apollo 16 landing site. The lander is about the size of a pickup truck. Compare it to the cars in Rio.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkeye1717
Maybe now the Moon Landing Conspiracy people will devote their time and energy to real things like how Goldman Sach's and other banks just posted multi Billion dollar profits for the 2nd Quarter when 6 months ago they were on the verge of insolvency.


You'd think that, wouldn't you? With all the overwhelming evidence showing that we did go to the moon, and more then once !
But NOOOOO, they'll stick to their religion no matter what. We could fly them to the moon and show them what we left behind and they'd just claim we drugged them and set up a hollywood sound stage or something equally as absurd.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
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'!

Agree,

In addition you have to take account of the politics of the time. Basically the US could NOT AFFORD TO FAIL. This in itself promotes the need for the administration to have a "faked" back-up strategy OR a false public image if they know it's impossible. In either case fakery exists whether used or not!!!!!!!!!!! The question to be determined was it used.

In my case I look at the photographs (being a keen photographer myself) and I cannot see how those Apollo images could have been taken with such perfection. I myself had a camera with no viewfinder that my dad gave me to get me started in the Apollo days. Now me with my ungloved fingers and unhelmeted head had difficulty in taking decent pictures. Never ever ever ever did I get picture after picture perfectly framed like the Apollo astronauts. Sorry they are fake! Perfect publicity photos though to ensure funding is maintained.........

This does not mean that they did not land just that the photographic record is wrong. As for the Apollo 17 pictures having the same backgound from different locations, I mean come on how gullable do you have to be. Here's another thing. The apollo 11 photos are better quality than the Apollo 17 why? The answer is simple: they did not need to put as much effort into the faking process because nobody cared anymore!

Video footage is also dodgy, especially that Apollo 17 take-off from the moon. Here's why:
1. The tracking is perfect and the guy at Houston is a miracle controller judging to perfection the time delay in BOTH directions!
2. The fuel is oxygen+hydrogen which still burns even in space (you can see this from the earth take-offs to low orbit). However on the moon no flames no exhaust (water vapour)!
3. The laws of physics. You can work out the g-force from the size of the LEM and the frame count. The astronauts would be pancakes on the floor with that number of G's.

Ironically enough I believe that the US military has been to the moon but not back then! Just project technology advances from 1920 to today decade by decade and we have a huge hole for the last 30 years. The hole would be filled quite nicely with a mach 64 craft. There is no way the US military would have no access to it's satellites (grounded shuttles after the accidents) whilst the russians and chinese did.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
You should do some research. All the points you're talking about have been debunked several times.
All photos are hardly perfect. They had huge film magazines and they took alot of shots. There are some good frames amongst them and those are the most published ones.
Check out clavius for more details on the other points.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

In my case I look at the photographs (being a keen photographer myself) and I cannot see how those Apollo images could have been taken with such perfection. I myself had a camera with no viewfinder that my dad gave me to get me started in the Apollo days. Now me with my ungloved fingers and unhelmeted head had difficulty in taking decent pictures. Never ever ever ever did I get picture after picture perfectly framed like the Apollo astronauts. Sorry they are fake! Perfect publicity photos though to ensure funding is maintained.........


The Apollo astronauts were well prepared:


The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results

history.nasa.gov...

But still they took some lousy pictures too.
Like this sunstruck one from Apollo 17 (AS17-133-20193):

www.hq.nasa.gov...

And Alan Bean even managed to destroy a TV camera during Apollo 12:

The only thing that had gone really wrong during the EVA was the loss of the TV camera. This was the first color TV camera to be landed on the Moon and, unfortunately, it quit working while Bean was moving it away from the LM. As was suspected at the time, he accidentally pointed it at a bright reflection off the LM and burned out the target in the vidicon imaging tube.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


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

Yes it is because it's so silly !


It's not about being stubborn, it's not about being ignorant of the facts.

You're right, it's not about one or the other but about BOTH.


It's about not being convinced and maybe believing the 'against' evidence more than the 'for' evidence.

The problem is that there is ZERO evidence against.



[edit on 19-7-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
Those pictures are stankonia! We need to send a remote control rover armed with a camera to get some decent images. I mean a rover that can drive right up to the freaking American flag


I do not deny the moon landings but holy crap those pictures look like they were taken with a disposable 2X zoom camera.

They look terrible! I was hoping for some of that NSA/CIA Spy Satellite Camera type pictures.

You know, the kind that can read license plates on Cars and read the inspection stickers from Earth Orbit?


Oh!
You mean the Hubble telescope?
Yes indeed, the images presented by the OP after being analyzed CAN BE USED AS TARGETS FOR THE HUBBLE TEAMs TO IMAGE THE PARTS OF MOON SURFACE AND PRESENT EXTREME HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by spacebot]

Hubble can image the moon fine, when the timing is right and lighting is at appropriate levels.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by spacebot]

I guess NASA would be capable of doing exactly this kind of thing for several decades now even without the use of another imaging mission as a target. They have every landing GPS on the moon pinpointed for later references and research. Somehow they don't find this idea of any worth to them.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by spacebot]

Also they could be scared if anything else showed up in those pictures that wasn't supposed to be there at the first place.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

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

You're right, it's VERY easy.


Originally posted by malcr
It's not about being stubborn, it's not about being ignorant of the facts.

It is very much about being ignorant of the facts.


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

If UFO photos of the same quality were corroborated by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, and the subject being claimed was completely within the scientific understanding of the time, then yes. That is not the case, however.


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

Reasonable proof happened decades ago. This is another nail in the coffin of credulous and ignorant hoax believers.


Originally posted by malcr
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'!

Aha, the moving goalposts... whatever evidence is provided, it isn't enough.


Originally posted by malcr
In my case I look at the photographs (being a keen photographer myself) and I cannot see how those Apollo images could have been taken with such perfection. I myself had a camera with no viewfinder that my dad gave me to get me started in the Apollo days. Now me with my ungloved fingers and unhelmeted head had difficulty in taking decent pictures. Never ever ever ever did I get picture after picture perfectly framed like the Apollo astronauts. Sorry they are fake! Perfect publicity photos though to ensure funding is maintained.........

This exemplifies your capacity as a critical thinker - or at least how you've come across in this post. Clearly you've never thought about the thousands upon thousands of # pictures that the astronauts took (they're the vast majority in fact) but were never published because they're #. What you've seen, being the non-NASA, non-academic, average Joe are only the pictures fit for publication.

As a self-described keen photographer, I'd also expect you to understand how a poorly framed photo can be salvaged with some simple cropping. That's not rocket science.

Image Quality



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 



Video footage is also dodgy, especially that Apollo 17 take-off from the moon. Here's why:


Oh, do tell! (chin resting in hands....)


1. The tracking is perfect and the guy at Houston is a miracle controller judging to perfection the time delay in BOTH directions!


Yeah, mate. It's called practice! Practice, practice practice...and more practice. Because you only get one chance (well three, but Apollo 15 and 16 were other practices....he nailed it finally on 17.)


2. The fuel is oxygen+hydrogen which still burns even in space (you can see this from the earth take-offs to low orbit). However on the moon no flames no exhaust (water vapour)!


Bzzzzzzzt! Wrong. The fuel used on the LM was NOT, I repeat NOT LOX/LH. Look it up, before you repeat the mistake and get more egg on your face. Wait, I'll do it for you:


Rocket engines

LM RCS (N2O4/UDMH) x 16: 100 lbf ea 441 N

Ascent Propulsion System
(N2O4/Aerozine 50) x 1: 3,500 lbf ea 15.6 kN

Descent Propulsion System
(N2O4/Aerozine 50) x 1: 9,982 lbf ea 44.40 kN

en.wikipedia.org...


3. The laws of physics. You can work out the g-force from the size of the LEM and the frame count. The astronauts would be pancakes on the floor with that number of G's.


You can work out the g force by using the above figures for the thrust of the ascent engine (3,500 lbf @ 15.6 kN) and the mass of the stage (4,547kg/10,024 lb).

NOW...even without doing any math, consider this: Saturn V launching from Earth, with much higher gravity, the g-forces are what? 3, 4?

Launching from the Moon, lower gravity, to a lower orbit needed for the rendezvous with the CM....get it yet???

OH...and "counting the frames" from the video? Irrelevant. The remote camera panned up, and zoomed simultaneously. What you propose makes as much sense as trying to determine the g forces in a truck crash sequence in a Hollywood movie just by watching the film!


I wish to add: To repeat what has been said previously, the "hoaxists" have to be more convoluted, with more incredible stories, (lies, misconceptions...) than the truth of the actual events!!!


[edit on 19 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
weedwhacker

If you're going to start throwing common sense and science around, I'm just going to hold my breath until it goes away



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So, if we took the Ikonos and sent it to the moon, we could get great pics?

If so, the problem is that the Ikonos and other Capable Satellites are too much of a job to get to the moon? That sending one there is so fuel intensive that we could in theory send a manned mission, so there would be no point to send the Ikonos or other Capable Satellites as it would be a waste of resources because if we would be spending enough resources to send it there we sould just send a guy there to take pics on the surface?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 

As far as I understand it, it's not really a problem of how to send them (Ikonos is a 726Kg satellite, LRO is a 1846Kg satellite, although made for several different types of work, so it's not just a weight problem) but what we could get with them (what is more important, data from several different sources or just photos?) and what they have to add to it to make it work flawlessly in space, out of the Van Allen belt protection.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 



So, if we took the Ikonos and sent it to the moon, we could get great pics?


Yes. Of rocks, craters, escarpments....it'd be like spending enormous sums of money and energy to photograph, in great detail, the Sahara Desert.

The LROC is designed to do what its mission intended --- photograph areas near the South Pole especially, in preparation for future MANNED missions, and possible permanent bases.

The fact that they wish to image the pole(s) means that the spacecraft is in a polar orbit, NOT an equatorial orbit. Hence, more opportunities to ALSO image the Apollo sites, since it's orbiting overhead anyway.

Get this: Apollo photos are NOT the reason for the LRO mission!! They are bonuses. Pure. And. Simple.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join