I was wrong, if this is right. apollo did land on the moon., page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 20-10-2009 @ 08:18 PM by Anti-Evil
I just have one stupid -- nagging qustion.... what do you see in the photo... look close...

www.nasa.gov...


now - what is odd is... well we went there to see what we can see from home all those times... not one outside our line of sight... whats on the back side..?

and well it appears there is stuff on the moon that appears to be apollo sites... so, ah I'm speechless unless these are offical fakes which I doubt.

www.nasa.gov...


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 09:01 PM by Tifozi
reply to post by Komodo



In case this wasn't a joke:


Hubble looking to the moon is like you using binoculars to read a book.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 11:45 PM by jra
Originally posted by stanlee
iits all bukllocks especially with apollo 14. when did the astronauts get large enough to have foot paths and foot prints visible from space.


Well anything can be visible from orbit, it just depends on the magnification one has. In the case of the LRO it took the images of the Apollo sites at roughly 1m/pixel, which were the highest resolution photos ever taken of the Moon. And now that the LRO is in it's mission orbit, it's already putting out images at roughly 50cm/pixel. They will take new images of the sites again a number of times.

And you don't need to be a giant to make a noticeable disturbance on the Lunar soil. If you pay close attention to the astronauts feet while they move around, you'll notice them kick up a lot of the Lunar dust, so it's not just the foot prints that we see, but the disturbed soil around them as well. Also, on Apollo 14, they were dragging this thing along with them.
AS14-68-9404 It's the Modularized Equipment Transporter or MET for short.

The apollo mission wasnt there long enough to create such tracks.. so where are we stuffing the gargantuan astronauts?


Each of the Apollo missions (note plural) stayed for different lengths of time. Apollo 14 stayed on the surface for 33.5 hours, a bit over 9 of those hours were spent doing two EVA's. EVA 2 lasted about 4.5 hours. That's more than enough to to walk 1.3km to Cone crater and back.

The later missions spent even longer amounts of time. The longest being the last mission, Apollo 17 with a Lunar surface stay time of 75 hours.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
The LM looks perfectly squared and it's pixels don't match the surrounding pixels. As if it's been added in.


Well when you're looking at an object that's only a few pixels in size, of course it will look square. Since the pixels themselves are square.

I can also make out a very faint line that looks like it might be a seam line. Like you usually see in shots of the Moon where the images are seamed together to make the whole image.


I don't believe the images from the LRO's main camera are stitched together. They do however have vertical interlacing, perhaps that's what you're seeing.

I forgot to mention that I can't make out any footprints around the LM.


The soil in the area just above the LM in your image looks a bit darker to me. Also, have you seen the second image of the Apollo 14 site? The Sun angle is higher, so some details pop out more. link


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 11:58 PM by Komodo
reply to post by finemanm



The moon landings were real. We know that because independent scientist have been using the laser reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts for years to study the moon's orbit and rotation.



right like this one.. ?







[edit on 21-10-2009 by Komodo]

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Komodo]



reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 12:09 AM by Seiko
reply to post by nightmare_david



The one thing I find interesting about these two pics at first glance is that the shadow of the lunar module you point out as being square is cast to the right of the lm, yet all the moon rocks csst shadows to the left.

Am I observing this wrong?


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 03:27 AM by jra
reply to post by nightmare_david



I have a little problem with your enlargement. What method did you use for upsampling it? because you should be careful when doing such things. When you resample an image and use something like a bilinear or bicubic method, it interpolates the image. Adding new pixels with new values between the existing pixels. You're basically adding data that wasn't there to begin with.

I upsampled the image myself from the original .tif file using the "nearest neighbor" resampling method. It just copies the existing pixels that are already there and makes them look larger. 600% larger in this case.



This is how the original image looks when you zoom in really close to it. It looks rather different then your version. Plus I don't see any blending or blurring issues in it either.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by jra]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Newfound "super-Earth"
  Posted 9 days ago with 56 member flags
Enceladus Backlit by Saturn
  Posted 3 days ago with 50 member flags
Toronto teens send Lego man into space: video
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
  Posted 1 days ago with 24 member flags
Amazing new photo of Earth. The Blue Marble 2012
  Posted 13 days ago with 22 member flags
NASA Probe Captures 1st Video of Moon\'s Far Side
  Posted 10 days ago with 19 member flags

ATS Live North America is broadcasting in 4 minutes.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.