LROC: First look at the Apollo landing sites

Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Lets get something strait here...

If I were to take the exact same image resolution and try to "prove" something was on the moon be it a craft or structure or whatever....It would get debunked because of lack of image quality, and people would say it could be anything.....

So now NASA is using the very same image quality to "prove" the landing sites and I am supposed to believe that is good enough????

I am not saying we went there or not, what I am doing is merely pointing to the bar in which something can be proved. In all fairness, for somebody to say this image quality is good enough to prove NASA was there, but the very same image quality is NOT good enough to prove things are on the moon is ridicules.


[sigh]

Edit: Nasa is using these images to prove..... or rather confirm


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

Did you bother to look at the post above your one we know where the landers landed and when the LRO takes a picture we see the LANDER at the correct position YOU DO THE MATHS.
Did you look at the overlay on the picture above your post can you explain how the crater and lander line up with the overlay.

PS Not got shot of the polaroid yet

[edit on 22-7-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Lets put things into perspective. Nasa have provided pictures of the apollo landing sites that are a bit crap that are supposed to prove that Man went to the moon.

The pictures show a blob with a shadow and just because NASA have said thats the LM then everybodies happy.

Now, There are a number of pictures of anomalous objects on the moon and mars which have the same clarity as the latest LRO images, but as per ususal the debunkers say rocks or processing errors.

Just because they are not supposed to be there doesn't mean they are not...

Take a look at this image... This was taken by Lunar orbiter 5

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4cf00b08ca28.jpg[/atsimg]

Now what ever this thing is it shouldn't really be there but it is.





Steve

[edit on 22-7-2009 by stevecc]

reply to post by stevecc
The LROC mission is not seeking to 'prove' the Apollo landings happened. It's likely at the bottom of a long list of priorities. The quality of the images have been explained in at least three threads...

The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

LRO page

How about a link to the original image you've posted? It's possible that some members have LPI wallpaper and can identify it

Despite claims that 'debunkers' deny there's anything but rocks...you'll find that most Mars/ Moon images are of rocks. Agreed, there are anomalous images...but these are often simply yet to be identified. Too many members think the definition of anomalous is 'crashed alien spaceship.'

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by stevecc

 

The LROC mission is not seeking to 'prove' the Apollo landings happened. It's likely at the bottom of a long list of priorities. The quality of the images have been explained in at least three threads...

The satellite reached lunar orbit June 23 and captured the Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. Though it had been expected that LRO would be able to resolve the remnants of the Apollo mission, these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

LRO page

How about a link to the original image you've posted? It's possible that some members have LPI wallpaper and can identify it

Despite claims that 'debunkers' deny there's anything but rocks...you'll find that most Mars/ Moon images are of rocks. Agreed, there are anomalous images...but these are often simply yet to be identified. Too many members think the definition of anomalous is 'crashed alien spaceship.'

Source = www.lpi.usra.edu...

You will find it in the bottom right quarter of the picture.

I understand that the landing site pictures are not the main mission of the LROC, which is surprising as you would have thought that NASA would have planned to do something better for the 40th Anniversary.

Steve

[edit on 22-7-2009 by stevecc]

reply to post by stevecc
That's an interesting image! A 17mb zipped .TIFF image is available from here.

It's curious. The object is brighter (albedo) than surroundings and the shadows appear to be where they should be in relation to the direction of light. The lower right quarter of the mosaic is damaged. Some of the damage appears like chemical burns...other than the blotches...there are also white 'burn' marks in a NW direction. The object is also on a NW bearing, but doesn't necessarily look like an outcome of burns/ degradation.

It's in roughly the right area to be what's left of a Luna (Luna 7), but is way too big. I can't say what it is...possibly 5-6 regular members will know better.

I don't think its a processing error and certainly looks like its definately there. I belive Zorgon, Internos and Mike Singh were going to take a further look.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Steve

[edit on 22-7-2009 by stevecc]

reply to post by stevecc
An objective appraisal would be interesting. The problem of definitive identification would still remain. Unless it's one of our own Moon probes ( Landing Sites ) in an area it's supposed to be in...it can only be 'stamped unknown' or image error. The next series of images from LROC might put us in a position to compare the locations.

(Mike Singh has left ATS, but Armap is usually curious about such images)

I asked phage to take a look to get a balanced view and he is thinking its a processing artifact. Hopefully Armap will cast his expert eye over it.

Mike did take a look and did a blow up of it in the link on my previous post.
looks real enough to me, but will never know what it is.

Regards
Steve

[edit on 22-7-2009 by stevecc]

[edit on 22-7-2009 by stevecc]

reply to post by stevecc


Your find IS interesting, thank you for sharing it with us! Sadly there were many problems with the Lunar Orbiter images, so it is really difficult to determine if this is indeed a processing artifact. Let us hope ArMaPwill give us his opinion too.

I also want to post a link to a page with detailed information about the Lunar Orbiter camera and they way the images were processed, in case anyone is interested. The page also has it's own section about the imperfections in the images:

www.lpi.usra.edu...