Apollo Hardware Spotted!, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 55 times

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:47 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by ExPostFacto

...why is the sun reflecting on the lander in the opposite direction that the sun is shining on the terrain?

It isn't.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:49 PM by dampnickers

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]

Absolute rot!

Did you miss the Apollo Mission 101 back at the beginning?

When the mission was in the initial investigation stages probes were sent that took high resolution images of the surface and beamed them back to Ground Control. These pictures were then printed out on massive sheets of photographic paper and laid out on the floor of a warehouse (there are a number of archive photos of Apollo scientists working on smaller ones too).

These photos were cutting edge technology back then, and weren't digital as they are today... Are you seriously telling me that they haven't improved things in the last 40 years?

The military tells us that they have been able to read newpapers from 150 miles away for over a decade... and you still think that NASA doesn't have that kind of technology at its diposal?

Are you mad?

Sorry, but I've seen better than this, from smaller and cheaper probes. There is a company in the UK that produces this sort of hardware for commercial purposes, and their technology is much, much superior. Are you telling me that NASA haven't thought to spend a few extra dollars on getting the best bang for their buck?

Either something is wrong, or you are nuts to believe such crap images as these!

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:50 PM by dampnickers

In fact... just to let you know... some of the most powerful earth-bound telescopes can achieve this sort of detail from 250,000 miles away...

What's wrong with this picture?

Answers on a post card.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:51 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by ngchunter
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]

This is really neat and all but alas the moon landing conspiracy nuts will just say the photos are fake so they can keep living the lie

In any case, good thread and a solid attempt to bring sanity to the moon landing

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:53 PM by silversurfer6161

Photoshoped or not,it could also be a rock,an alien base or whatever!It's not really a proof yet,but we are hopefully getting there.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:55 PM by dampnickers

Originally posted by Solar.Absolution
Yeah I don't think I'd believe anything NASA has to say on the subject.. What has always bothered me is.. They had the technology for live uninterrupted footage of the moon landing in the 60's ? Me thinks not!

Oh, I'm convinced that they had the technology to do all that was claimed back in the 60's... What I am not convinced about is the poor taste exercised in producing such low quality images of what is supposed to be the moon.

A 5 year-old child could do better!

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 05:59 PM by GoldenFleece

Apollo hardware spotted? Where? I see nothing that's even close to recognizable. Just some white pixels. The astronots tracks can purportedly be seen, but nothing else?

First, the 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes that were supposedly just found in Australia have reportedly been erased and now this?

Sounds like the NASA PR/disinfo campaign is in overdrive. What a crock!

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:01 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by dampnickers

...some of the most powerful earth-bound telescopes can achieve this sort of detail from 250,000 miles away...

Then there should be photographs from said telescopes, no?
Where are they? It's been 40 years.

NASA doesn't have the DoD budget to include the sort of optics used in 'spy satellites' that image the Earth. The LRO is built to image at a certain resolution deemed sufficient for its stated mission. Taking photos of Apollo hardware is just to try to shut up the 'hoax' believers.

I knew it wouldn't work.

They could have imaged NONE of the Apollo sites, and then be accused of 'covering up'. NOW, they imaged, and are still accused.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"Hoaxists" have their religion, and nothing will sway them. You could take them there and show them in person, and they still wouldn't trust what they saw with their own eyes, if it goes against their "beliefs".

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:02 PM by dampnickers

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Agreed.

They certainly seem to be spending huge amounts of time, effort and money on convincing us that it all went as they say it did.

I for one don't believe what they claim.

I do believe men went to the moon, and that they did some interesting things there. I do not believe that they did as we have been told to believe.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:03 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by GoldenFleece

They say it's a wive's tail that ostriches stick their heads in the sand...true. Only Humans do so...

First, the 13,000 "missing" Apollo tapes that were supposedly just found in Australia have reportedly been erased and now this?

Way to mix up the stories, eh??

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:03 PM by Stuship

If these photos didn't come from NASA, people would be saying they were an Alien base! However, since they're from NASA no one wants to believe their actually there. Pretty ridiculous.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:14 PM by crichton13

What I find interesting is that we can see pretty much down to a high level of detail using current systems (Google Earth) on Earth but can't see much more than a series of Pics with large white/yellow arrows pointing at nondescript parts of the Moon!

And thats through an Oxygen rich atmosphere I hasten to add and yet in the relative Vacuum of Space surrounding the Moon we get these images? Pffftt....

Currently, everybody should be treating these as nothing more than pics of boulders on the surface.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:15 PM by dampnickers

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dampnickers

Then there should be photographs from said telescopes, no?
Where are they? It's been 40 years.

NASA doesn't have the DoD budget to include the sort of optics used in 'spy satellites' that image the Earth. The LRO is built to image at a certain resolution deemed sufficient for its stated mission. Taking photos of Apollo hardware is just to try to shut up the 'hoax' believers.

Well, they can use said telescopes to release photos of far off galaxies in amazing detail. Even boast about how they can make out objects on nearby planets... so ask yourself why they don't release the photos.

What really annoys me is that you have come here seeking to deny ignorance.

Well, ask yourself the following:

If NASA are so ingenuous why don't they release all photos of the moon missions?

Why do they persist in drip feeding photos from missions that the public have paid for twice over and then some!?

Why do Malin Space Science Systems get first dibs on most of the photos taken by NASA missions, and why do MSSS get to dictate which photos NASA can release?

If the public is paying for it, shouldn't the public get it?

It does make you wonder doesn't it...

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:16 PM by Blaine91555

This is the best. I was able to pull the most detail from the Apollo 14 image.

As we speak, hoards of crazed "we never landed on the Moon" fanatics rush to their psychiatrists for a quick shot to calm them down.

I figured this would come about one day. I'd imagine eventually we will get even better images.

It was demonstrated that the lazer target was and is on the Moon. Now we see the first photo's of the landers on the Moon. The real conspiracy is claiming we never landed on the Moon to sell books and tapes. That is a genuine conspiracy by people who are probably trusted by their customers.

No doubt there are those who would deny the truth even if they were personally flown to the Moon and viewed the landers first hand. Pretty sad actually.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:19 PM by elfie

Originally posted by ngchunter

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.

Very exciting to see the sites having watched the landings lo those many years ago.

For the record, how many miles/km away is the LRO orbiting?

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:20 PM by Blaine91555

Originally posted by dampnickers
they can use said telescopes to release photos of far off galaxies in amazing detail. Even boast about how they can make out objects on nearby planets... so ask yourself why they don't release the photos.

You do understand that those "far off galaxies" are huge and photo's show only their mass and almost zero detail. Don't you

Rather than mix apples and oranges you are mixing a tiny lunar lander with things hundreds even thousands of light years across.

[edit on 7/17/2009 by Blaine91555]

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:23 PM by wylekat

I shouldn't do this- I'll cause WWIII to break out in this thread, the Moon Hoax yuks will be screaming "See??? SEE?????" But I want to point out something about 'photoshopping' vs other ways to fake the moon.... Photoshopping is for the internet types who want a quickie fake. For real good looking crap, I am sure NASA would use 3d programs that'd blow the doors off of anything you can buy.

Proof? I made my own 'proof' sometime back for a diff thread. I handmade *as opposed to just flopping an image or map into the program* the far side of the moon image that has that 'thing' poking out of the crater rim. Took me oh... about an hour. It's quite detailed, and in MY opinion- almost indistinguishable from an actual pic. Hey, I made it, I am entitled to a glowing review of my own work.

Now, if I can do *that* in around an hour with a free 3d program, on a dual core Athlon 3600... Do you not think Nasa wouldn't be able to surpass that by light years with crap that'd make me look like I was playing with tinkertoys and my own drool? I mean really... Photoshop? Yeah, those pics blow chunks- but Photoshop???

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:25 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by dampnickers

Well, they can use said telescopes to release photos of far off galaxies in amazing detail.

Yesss.....the telescopes are meant to see the large-scale structures at great distances...

Even boast about how they can make out objects on nearby planets...

OH? Which nearby planets? Mars and Venus are closest...Venus is covered in clouds, so there's only IR and Radar imaging.

Anything imaged from Earth on, say, Mars is going to be a heck of a lot bigger than the LM descent stage! We're talking about 3 meters for that, almost 9 if you include the span of the landing gear, but those spindly legs are gonna be hard to see.

What really annoys me is that you have come here seeking to deny ignorance.

Got that right!

If NASA are so ingenuous why don't they release all photos of the moon missions?

Don't know...what's being held back?

Why do Malin Space Science Systems get first dibs on most of the photos taken by NASA missions, and why do MSSS get to dictate which photos NASA can release?

Don't know, news to me. Sounds like a new thread?

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:26 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by dampnickers

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dampnickers

Then there should be photographs from said telescopes, no?
Where are they? It's been 40 years.

NASA doesn't have the DoD budget to include the sort of optics used in 'spy satellites' that image the Earth. The LRO is built to image at a certain resolution deemed sufficient for its stated mission. Taking photos of Apollo hardware is just to try to shut up the 'hoax' believers.

Well, they can use said telescopes to release photos of far off galaxies in amazing detail. Even boast about how they can make out objects on nearby planets... so ask yourself why they don't release the photos.

Keep in mind those telescopes are designed to be "far sighted". In other words the optics are designed to see things far away and not up close. It would be like trying to read a newspaper 1 ft in front of you with a pair of binoculars.

reply posted on 17-7-2009 @ 06:28 PM by masonwatcher

It is a rock formation. Next you will be imagining a skull on Mars!