Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 7
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I see. So couldn't we put bigger lens with a huge light on an orbiter? I see that at some point we get into the realm of having such a big rocket that we might-as-well send a crew there to take ground shots (which would be fine with me), but then we are right back to where we started with all the "It's all fake footage taken in Arizona" or some suchness.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Hopefully we will get to see higher resolution images, I can't see jack in those pictures.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by obilesk
 


I think it would require a large telescope placed in orbit. I'd imagine the cost would be staggering.

A light that bright would I think require a huge power supply and be totally untenable.

The biggest issue must be financial. Space Exploration has not been too high on the agenda for many years. I think it is a shame that that is true.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Posts containing childish name-calling removed. Stick to the topic and be courteous or don't post.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
zorgon has a point.

I believe we went there. I think the Rubles would have exposed any treachery on our part if it wasn't on the upinup, as well as the fact that thousands of pwople would have had to be in on it.

But there is a valid point to wit: If these pics were held up by UFOers and the moonbasers and were claimed as "This dot is a spacecraft" and so on, the anomalies would certainly be called nothing more than natural phenomena. To me, that says there may in fact be more to the "rocks" we see, rather than any major fakery by NASA or Arizona State on these pics.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I think all the conspiritor theory people are fakes. They are logged on by real moon landing believers just to create some good debate and interest in the moon landings.
By the way do you realise that if you look hard and hold your head at 37.5 degree angle to the sun you can see an image of Elvis' face at the Apollo 14 landing site!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Seriously (and I have to say that because some will actually be looking for Elvis' face now...!!!) as the LRO slowly lowers orbit the images will get up to 3-4 times clearer. You have to realise, the camera on the LRO is not as powerful as ones zoomed in on earth, which is a pity really.
The disbelievers will always disbelieve. You could take them there and they say it was only a dream (well most of them are on drugs anyway aren't they?)



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I agree. It's obvious we aren't that interested in exploring space with the technology we posses. I think it is more important to work on our problems down here first, despite my fascination with space. But it's just sad that we spend anything at all if we can't spend what needs to be spent. And yet, we can't fix our problems down here - that much is certain.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I aimed to please
. There were a couple of things that began to sway me away from the possibility of 'we landed on the moon'- but one thing that swayed me back was that jackass who got punched out by Neil Armstrong. a) he was well over the top, and the look on Armstrong's face said it all: " I went to the moon, moron. What more do you want?!"
My moments of fuzziness were the Japanese moon pics. Supposedly high def, ect- and I couldn't find so much as a pinprick that looked like a lander. Turns out THOSE are 3d rendered, for whatever insane reason.... Used the data, made cute little 3d models out of it.


I think it was Aldrin that punched out Sibrel.
www.newsweek.com...

On those occasions when the men involved in the Apollo landings have been approached directly by deniers, it's led to calamity. Bart Sibrel, the filmmaker behind the Moon Hoax movie, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, once approached Buzz Aldrin and taunted him, calling him a "coward," "liar," and "thief." Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, had one response: a punch in the face. Ed Mitchell, an astronaut on Apollo 14, reportedly kicked a denier in the rear once. Eugene Cernan, who flew on Apollo 17, had a more elegant solution, plainly saying, "Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me."

But I’m surprised he didn’t get punched more than once.
gershkuntzman.homestead.com...
Make that ex-astronauts. According to Aldrin’s lawyer, Robert O’Brien, Sibrel has been stalking many former Apollo astronauts. Neil Armstrong cursed him out once. Al Bean had to throw him out of his house. Even Al Worden, whom I like to consider “The Forgotten Moonwalker,” got the Bible treatment.

Pull out the list of men who have walked on the moon and Sibrel has stalked them all, said O’ Brien.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by obilesk
 

I suspect the problem to be lens size. I can shoot a clear shot of a car from about 1,000 yards with a 1,000mm lens and an exstention tube, but it requires a lot of light and no motion on top of the extremely limiting size of the lens. To shoot in motion in low light and get any good results would require a very large lens. My first guess is that is the issue.

They have a .195m lens for the narrow angle camera, basically the same size as my telescope. The thing is, it's f/3.59. Why? Well for one thing, as you mentioned, they are in motion, so you need fast exposures to avoid blurring due to the satellite's orbital speed. That means the same size 'telescope' lens could be magnified more if it had more focal length with a slower f ratio (like my own f/10 telescope), but the images would be blurred and useless or so fast in exposure that they'd be underexposed. Furthermore, the kind of resolution enhancement you'd get would be on par with the kind they're going to get just by dropping into a lower final mission orbit; that kind of gain is unlikely to please those who aren't already pleased.

Theoretically you could orbit the moon with a much bigger telescope with the same F/ratio and have a camera with an insane amount of megapixels (5,000 something pixels wide on a CCD like with LROC is already pushing the limit on what we have that's certified as radiation hardened I think), but you're looking at a much bigger satellite at that point, more like a tradiational spy sat 14 times as massive as LRO, so you're basically launching the same magnitude of mass to the moon as a manned mission anyway.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by obilesk
But there is a valid point to wit: If these pics were held up by UFOers and the moonbasers and were claimed as "This dot is a spacecraft" and so on, the anomalies would certainly be called nothing more than natural phenomena.

The major difference is, UFOers and moonbasers didn't make any prior claims of where exactly on the surface of the moon they said they'd find the "ufo" or "moonbase" or whatever. For apollo artifacts, a strict prediction was made as to where exactly they'd appear, what the size would be, and what the crater formations would be around the craft. All of those conditions have been met here, and I can (and have) compare these images to those from the Apollo era and see that they match. It's the difference between making a conclusion based on the evidence, and making the evidence fit the conclusion post-hoc.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
lol at the Apollo 17 landing site
www.nasa.gov...

Where are the Lunar rover tracks?
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


The apollo 17 image is about 40% lower in spatial resolution than the Apollo 14 image. We won't easily see rover tracks until LRO settles into its lower mission orbit. Incidently I do think I see some of the rover track in the west bound direction, but it's really tough to say for sure.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


That guy got abused more than Wile E Coyote.
I lost track who punched, yelled, cursed, called him names, cursed and yelled some more, threatened legal action.....

It stands, tho... Act like a fool and you'll be treated like one.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
These photos Like everything NASA is probably Bogas!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Not to sound rash or CIA-like but why can't this whole Moon hoax just die now? It is painfully obvious that in all probability(you know, I can't rule out the CGI! lol...) we DID go to the Moon, several times. IMO this is simple, we went to the Moon, hoax theory is in flames now, done, over. Maybe , just maybe these pictures can be used to compare images of what known artificial objects look like on the Moon to "anomalies" in many photos that many claim are UFOs or bases. I for one am interested to go that route.


[edit on 7/17/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I've just looked at the Apollo 14 maps compared to the latest image, and I reckon they don't match up. For instance where are the Triplet Craters?

www.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

science.ksc.nasa.gov...
S70-49764 image text Near vertical view of the Apollo 14 landing site in Fra Mauro highlands See: science.ksc.nasa.gov...

Maybe I am missing something?





 
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join