Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I wonder if cries of faked images will start before the images are released?

After all, if the moon landings were faked how could there still be things left behind.

Some people have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to prove that the moon landings were fake, now what will they do?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
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.

You're accusing the CURRENT science team at arizona state university of lying. I wouldn't make such an accusation so lightly without being able to back it up with evidence.


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

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.

According to ASU's LROC site, the apollo 15 photo has a spatial resolution of 1.5m/pixel, apollo 14 photo has a spatial resolution of 1m/pixel.
A14:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
A15:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Lighting conditions are also critical to seeing the footprints.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


According to what LRO has already accomplished, at its peak the most we could see of any apollo landing site is about twice the spatial resolution of the Apollo 14 image, or ~.5m/pixel. The specs for the camera have been known for a long time now, so it shouldn't shock anyone when all we get is meter resolution; that's still amazing.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:39 PM
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.

Some might call that bias. Personally I see no point in setting the goalpost arbitrarily past the meter resolution of the A14 image, but if the forthcoming A12 image happens to have full-blown .5m resolution, will that satisfy you? The way I see it, confirmation of not only the lander but also the small craters near it correlating to apollo-era imagery is air-tight proof. No one before or since apollo had taken pictures of the landing site with as much resolution as Apollo did, so the crater formations are just as critical proof as the lander itself

Apollo 15, taken by command module during Apollo 15:
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Yeah it's definately amazing, however not amazing enough for the skeptics I fear.

As long as I get to see something that resembles a flag and the lunar module and some buggy/foot prints I'll be happy



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by kiwifoot
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.

You're accusing the CURRENT science team at arizona state university of lying. I wouldn't make such an accusation so lightly without being able to back it up with evidence.


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

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.

According to ASU's LROC site, the apollo 15 photo has a spatial resolution of 1.5m/pixel, apollo 14 photo has a spatial resolution of 1m/pixel.
A14:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
A15:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Lighting conditions are also critical to seeing the footprints.


Why is it so hard for you to look at this with an open mind?

If I am able to say that I'm undecided about this, am open to both possibilities and would prefer the truth, could you not for one moment take off your blinkersa and admit it's a possibility that these images are faked.

If NASA faked the landings (hypothetical situation here) and NASA sends the LRO, then it's possible NASA is misleading this university team too.

I don't want to argue with you, I'm just more open minded to possibilites than you are. Read my posts, and which point do I BLINDLY STATE the landings were faked, these images are faked.

If you want people to beleive man could muster the technology 40 years ago to land on the moon (that we couldn't do now), navigate the Van Allen Belt, even with the many photograpic anomolys that are available, then you really have to open up your mind to the possibilty that it may have been faked.

Just a possibility, that's all. It won't kill you mate.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers
 


Trouble is, those spy sats are often the size of a school bus, and getting a school bus to orbit the moon takes one helluva rocket. In other words, better get an Ares V ready if that's what you want to do. And if that's the rocket you need, why not just send a manned mission instead? Honestly though, the full resolution images are impressive, but by their nature, the landing sites are only going to be a tiny part of a VERY high res image.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 
Hiya Kiwi, I'm not mocking people with a critical mind or rational thinking...I was mocking the guys that spend their time time trying to wriggle out of the evidence that we landed on the moon. They do it by accusing thousands of people of lying. Fair and honest questions are what draws a lot of people to ATS. I've got questions too



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Anyone notice that these images are of similar quality to the proposed moon domes and structures?

Hmmmm....

Well I'll bite. I say they are rocks....



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


It's not bias, and nor is it arbitrary, when considering man on the moon there are issues (technology and Van Allen belt) that make me doubt the whole thing to begin with, hence the tendancy to be skeptical in the first instance.

But I am open to it, I'll try again. I would love to that man DID go to the moon, present high res decent images, not smudges on a grey background and I'lbe more than happy to believe.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
The close up for Apollo 14, what's with the lem shadow. And the footprints seems to have made a major trail for some bouncing men.

Gotta wonder...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I don't understand why our own hubble satellite, or even a high power telescope can't find this equipment. Hi-res photos are extremely possible, even from earth. We can find the best photos of saturns rings from the ground, how come we can't spot any equipment on our own?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Why is it so hard for you to look at this with an open mind?

Having an open mind doesn't mean accusing the science team of forging images (or even being capable of such a crime). It means seeing whether or not the images are 100% consistent with the Apollo-era data. As far as I've had time to look, they are.


If I am able to say that I'm undecided about this, am open to both possibilities and would prefer the truth, could you not for one moment take off your blinkersa and admit it's a possibility that these images are faked.

I cannot see a single shred of evidence here to indicate fakery, nor can I accuse a science team at Arizona State of even being capable of doing so without proof.


If NASA faked the landings (hypothetical situation here) and NASA sends the LRO, then it's possible NASA is misleading this university team too.

How exactly would they do that if ASU is the one handling the data?


I don't want to argue with you, I'm just more open minded to possibilites than you are.

Well considering that I ruled out the possibility of a hoax based on data available prior to LRO, in a way I agree, I just find the possibility you state to be, well, impossible given the evidence.

If you want people to beleive man could muster the technology 40 years ago to land on the moon (that we couldn't do now),

Actually we can do it, we're working on it with a shoestring budget compared to before.


navigate the Van Allen Belt,

Why would that be a problem? Aluminum with q-felt insulation is a good shield against van allen forms of radiation. 7 rems in 24hrs would be received from the belts if all you had was just 3mm of aluminum.


even with the many photograpic anomolys that are available,

There aren't any, just people who don't look at the high resolution original images.


then you really have to open up your mind to the possibilty that it may have been faked.

No, you don't.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 



As long as I get to see something that resembles a flag...


Ummmm....these are photos look straight down!!! Go look at some Google Earth pictures of flag poles, and show me the flags!!!

With proper resolution we might get to see shadows of the flags...IF they haven't disintegrated after 40 years! They were made of light-weight nylon, after all....


.... and the lunar module


Well...there it is, partner!! It's the squarish thingy, casting a long shadow.
The shadow is going to be key to prove lack of fakery....

SO FAR, we've seen five of 'em! Apollo 12 to go.....



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
I don't understand why our own hubble satellite, or even a high power telescope can't find this equipment. Hi-res photos are extremely possible, even from earth.

Umm, prove it? Hubble could barely make out a football field (if that) on the moon from earth given its optical resolution.


We can find the best photos of saturns rings from the ground, how come we can't spot any equipment on our own?

The rings of saturn are gigantic, especially compared to the LM's descent stage.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
The close up for Apollo 14, what's with the lem shadow. And the footprints seems to have made a major trail for some bouncing men.

What do you think is wrong with the shadow? Looks fine to me. And you're not going to be able to see separation between footprints, even if you had half meter resolution; they weren't doing long jumps with each bounce. In fact, many times they'd scurry around and hardly even bounce at all. If you look at the Apollo liftoff videos as filmed from inside the LEM, you'll see how the footprints become a long constant trail from a low altitude:
cumbriansky.files.wordpress.com...
This image from just such a liftoff has been sized to roughly match the resolution of LRO at its theoretical maximum, 15cm/pixel (they're not low enough yet to get that kind of res, yet).

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 



...why our own hubble satellite, or even a high power telescope can't find this equipment.


Neither Hubble, nor Earth-based telescopes are designed to see objects that small, that close. They are designed to look out to greater distances.
IF there had been telescopes built to image the Apollo equipment, then we wouldn't have has all of the stupid conspiracy theories all these years!!!


We can find the best photos of saturns rings from the ground...


No, you're probably confusing photos of Saturn's rings taken by spacecraft such as Voyager...they were there, much closer. We don't get such clear photos from Earth.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Honestly, I can choose to believe these images, but the problem is that they don't hold up to the same level of standards that other claims are help up to. I mean, they really *could* be rocks. The footprints are interesting and they tend to sway me a bit.

Disclaimer: I actually do tend to believe we did the moon landings. I also tend to believe some of the footage was probably staged to avoid embarrasement and keep the story consistant. NASA was working with national pride and did want to appear to make mistakes, after all. These images are great, and I do believe we are finally seeing what we wanted all this time to see, but I am just pointing out that they really don't hold up to the same level of standards that we as a community hold everything else up to.


[edit on 7-17-2009 by rogerstigers]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


But why would the "rocks" and other craters be in exactly the same place where the supposedly-faked apollo images tell us they should be? And I agree, footprint trails pretty much seal the deal.

*Comparing apollo imagery to LRO's, I think I see rover tracks in the Apollo 15 image. I'll have to look at the full res original later though and see if I can confirm it.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]






top topics



 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join