Apollo 17 site in higher resolution, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times

Topic started on 30-10-2009 @ 12:07 PM by darkbluesky

This was captured after the LRO moved into a lower orbit in September.

I did a search of ATS but didn't find anything for this. I apologize if there is are already a thread.

I'm guessing Apollo Moon landing skeptics will simply say you can't trust anything NASA gives us, but I thought I'd put this image out for discussion.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 12:50 PM by grey580

Very cool.

Though if we can see that well on the moon. why aren't there more photos of the lunar surface at that resulution.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 01:02 PM by ChemBreather

Originally posted by grey580
Very cool.

Though if we can see that well on the moon. why aren't there more photos of the lunar surface at that resulution.

They want us to see the Flag, or a Dot as I like to call it ..

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 01:03 PM by ngchunter

reply to post by grey580

There are, but as stated the satellite that captured this, LRO, just finished establishing its mission orbit where it can obtain photos at this resolution. Here's some more images at half meter resolution:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...
wms.lroc.asu.edu...

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 01:17 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by darkbluesky

Three cheers and a standing ovation for posting!

Funny how, despite the better resolution (because, as pointed out by 'ngc', the LRO is now in its established lower orbit...the preliminary photos released were, well...preliminary)...

Funny how there are STILL detractors...making fun of the flag, whichis the smallest darn thing up there, and seen from top-down...yet ignoring the LUNAR MODULE which is sitting there plain as day!!!

Also, the preliminary pics were taken obviously when the Sun was at a lower angle than in these pics. Yet, even without the added assistance of the longer shadows cast by a low Sun angle, we can still see very clearly.

Kudos!!!

As the spacecraft continues to orbit (It is in a Polar orbit) there are sure to be more photos of other Apollo sites at varying times of Lunar 'day'....for greater details.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 06:43 PM by jra

Originally posted by ChemBreather
They want us to see the Flag, or a Dot as I like to call it

The fact that it even shows up as a few pixels is impressive. I figured it wouldn't have been visible at all. Perhaps the nylon flag is still intact and is casting a shadow. Many suspected that the flag would have disintegrated by now.

Anyway, I've been having fun exploring this image. I've been trying to find all the geology stations by referencing the post-flight maps and photos taken on the surface. I'll crop out a few for anyone interested.

Station 6 EVA 3:

You can see some lines showing where the astronauts walked around the large boulder. Here's a photo taken from the north end of it, facing south. (AS17-140-21495).

Station 7 EVA 3:

Again you can see some disturbance in the surface from where the astronauts walked. I also marked where I believe the Rover parked and where a panoramic sequence was taken. Here are some individual photos from the pan. All photos face southward. AS17-146-22347, AS17-146-22348, AS17-146-22351

Well I'll stop there for now.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 06:51 PM by Camilo1

Thanks for the pic

But seriously, that could be anything...

"plain as day", ha, ha, ha!!!!!

C.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:02 PM by serbsta

Originally posted by Camilo1
Thanks for the pic

But seriously, that could be anything...

"plain as day", ha, ha, ha!!!!!

C.

Really? Anything?

Ok, so what does that Lunar module look like to you?

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:06 PM by xSMOKING_GUNx

Originally posted by Camilo1
Thanks for the pic

But seriously, that could be anything...

"plain as day", ha, ha, ha!!!!!

C.

Agreed.

Not only that, so many people are convinced that some moon photograpy is doctored and edited to remove objects, why not edit photographs of the surface to add and include things to try and make people believe the official story?

Just a thought.

Regards S_G

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 10:29 PM by Odessy

so we can see this "thing" but couldn't see the lunar detonations?
yeah right...

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 10:40 PM by Vodo34861

Oh man it looks like that flag is waving in the wind still!!!

Great photos, i just wish they didn't have to go through a filter before we got to see them. I mean why does the transmission from that satellite has to be encoded?

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 11:13 PM by Anubis3.14

LOL, so we are meant to believe a spec on the moon is a flag, but the face on mars, which is very clear , is not a face, its a normal formation. How much BS do you need to be fed before you (the sheeple) wake up and see your being lied to?

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 11:30 PM by optigon

I tend to think that we did go to the moon, but for very different reasons from what we were told. But, the photo by the OP doesn't prove anything. This is on par with all of the anomalous photos of the moon that many say look like bases, and structures. The difference being, NASA and pseudo-skeptics buy into this image in a heartbeat while denouncing other photos, that more clearly depict possible artificial structures, as all being illusions of light and shadow. I guess there are many people who still just love their little NASA, despite it's shoddy credibility. Personally, I find it more prudent to remain skeptical of their claims.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 11:31 PM by Fedge

Guys, its NASA.
Seriously how can you debunk their other pics showing strange stuff and bowing before those ones.
Get a logic.
Any NASA picture should be viewed as an entertainment only.

edit: synchronicity optigon heh !

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Fedge]

[edit on 30-10-2009 by Fedge]

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 11:39 PM by Agent_USA_Supporter

thats a photoshop trick

I dare anyone with photoshop skills to try it.

remember
the real photo

www.universetoday.com...

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 12:00 AM by Chadwickus

reply to post by Anubis3.14

Mars face Comparisons

Do I need to say more?

Or do you somehow believe that the fuzzy, out of focus photo from 1976 is clearer than that from 1998 or 2001?

[edit on 31/10/09 by Chadwickus]

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 12:19 AM by Springheel Jack

Qh my god, Darkbluesky, you sir have made my year! Those LRO images are completely unimaginably fantastic! I have waited my whole life to see the moon in that kind of crisp clear resolution! Great Job!!!

I cannot believe we finally can view the moon as close as we'll get to what the Apollo astronauts saw on the way down! I need to figure out how to save those to my comp for more thorough viewing. Wow I hope there is plenty more coming! Thank you kind sir, star and flag for you!

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 12:23 AM by Freezer

Agreed, no point in taking any of NASA's images seriously. Anything interesting is photoshopped out. Look at the lcross impact footage, I mean does anyone believe that is a real video? We have consumer grade hd cameras which yield 100x better clarity than that garbage NASA tried to pass off as real. With all the great optics of today, are we to believe this is the best NASA can do? A black and white, grainy, blurry video which looks like something shot in the 50's...

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 12:35 AM by dubiousone

reply to post by ngchunter

If there are satellites that can read license plates from earth orbit, assuming that's not a myth, why is half-meter resolution the best imagery we have of the moon?

By the way, anyone who says that dark dot is a flag is making a leap of faith. You certainly aren't seeing anything that even remotely resembles a flag. You believe it's a flag because you've been told that's what it is. That's called faith.

[edit on 10/31/2009 by dubiousone]

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 12:37 AM by jam321

How far from the moon is the LRO taking pics?

here it says 380,000 km or 236,121 miles. Is this correct?

Seeing pictures from a spacecraft orbiting the moon some 380000 km away from us seems a bit more real to me after understanding the basics of the LROC imagers

www.astronutics.com...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^