It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Apollo 17 site in higher resolution

page: 2
34
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:20 AM

Uh, it couldn't be from 236,121 miles. The mean distance between the center of earth to the center of the moon is 238,857 miles! Photographing the moon from 236,121 miles away is like photographing it from near the center of the earth!

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:24 AM

Oh, I agree that sounds too far, especially considering we have have satellites about 25,000 miles up.

Just can't seem to find the right distance these pics are taken from.

Maybe I'm googling in the wrong keywords.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:39 AM

It is doubtful that there are satellites that can read license plates from Earth orbit. The highest resolution commercial satellite is Geo-Eye1 which is capable of providing .41 meter resolution. To read a license plate would require resolution of about .02 meters (or better). That's 25 times better than LROC. Considering distance (100+ miles) and atmospheric distortion...I don't think so.

To give you a rough idea of what .5 meter resolution means, have a look at this image at .8 meters:

mapmart.com...

[edit on 10/31/2009 by Phage]

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:41 AM

The satellite is about 380000 km away from us. It is about 50 km above the surface of the Moon.

[edit on 10/31/2009 by Phage]

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:40 AM
I dont see the flag. I dont see the Apollo landing site. All i can see are some dots. And someone says that these are the flag and the Apollo?

So if NASA says that some ordinary dots are a spacecraft and a flag, what are they gonna say about all the strange dots on the Moon and Mars photos that looks much more artificial than these? I know what they said - rocks, shadows etc.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:47 AM

Well those 'dots' are at the exact coordinates of the lunar landings.

So now that we have higher resolution you can compare landmarks that were photographed at the landing site with ones seen from the LRO, similar to what jra has done.

Bit hard to dispute that isn't it?

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:52 AM
If you practice Occam's Razor the way the debunker mob do it here on ATS, then:

What are the most likely options, that being a natural outcrop of the lunar landscape, or a spaceship from a nearby planet?

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem to you all!

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:55 AM

Nice photo btw!

I'm guessing Apollo Moon landing skeptics will simply say you can't trust anything NASA gives us

They'll call the NASA photos phony or not of the Moon, and say NASA cannot be trusted, and the next minute they'll use a NASA photo to claim a dome exists around a crater. Complete hypocrites is what they are!

[edit on 31-10-2009 by john124]

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:38 AM
This is getting annoying. Let me explain.

Over the last few years I have tried siding on the positive side of the moon landing and take it that it did happen. I suppose I accepted that you did need a bit of faith to accept that the moon landings did occur. However more recently more and more doubts are causing me to have doubts on this.

Most recently NASA informed us that they had either lost or destroyed the original footage. Amazingly though they came across some new footage for the 40th year anniversay. Convenient?

The dutch moon rock which was discovered to be nothing more than petrified wood. How many other countries will check out their moon rock gifts from US now?

Then we had the impact of the Lcross rocket which was odd to say the least.

Finally I have a backyard telecsope. I get a really good view of the moon with this. Its not something I view a lot as you don't expect to see much going on there. This is how I have grown up. Its the moon, nothing but dust. Nothing going on there. I took it outside recently to view something else. I wasn't haven't much luck so flicked it around to view the moon.

I have viewed the moon in the past not noticing anything in particular. I ended up watching it for hours. I noticed a very strange image on its surface. Its extremely hard to explain. It just didn't fit right. The only way I could explain it was like a giant flaw on it. Anyway I tried justyfing it as certain things.

I went inside and looked up many differnent pics and images. After a few hours I tried to dimiss it and went back out for one last look that night. Looking at it again I realised it couldn't be anyhthing i tried to image it to be. Sorry I can't explain this to you but I would have to show which I can't. This is really frustrating. ll I can say is it left me with a lot of doubts.

Then I come on here and see these pictures of the flag and lander. Afraid I'm not buying it. Some of the positive responses here sound like they were written by people behind the bloody images. I really feel crap like this is released just when they are trying to distract us from something else.

I now do tend to believe that most of the population of the planet is either too dumb to notice or too distracted by their own self-centered lives to give a crap.

'Darkness within darkness, the gateway to all mystery.'

Peace.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:08 AM
so i guess the 17th time was to the moon huh? this time for real? or fake? can we take a moment of silence cuz i want to stop this violence.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:04 AM

In this picture they say Apollo 17 but any tracks anywhere else are just rolling rocks. Lets face it they dish out the manure and we eat it.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Freezer
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...

You're not taking into account the limitations of what can be done in space. For one, streaming HD quality footage live wouldn't be possible. They don't have a high speed connection like you do at home. Plus there were about 9 different camera's on LCROSS that they were streaming data from at various times. They don't have the bandwidth to handle such a large amount of data.

Secondly, most consumer hardware probably wouldn't last in the vacuum of space for long. Electronics generate heat and need to get rid of it some how since there is no air for them to conduct into. Plus electronics are more susceptible to damage by radiation, so it needs to be properly shielded or designed to handle that environment for a longer period. All the equipment was bought 'off the shelf'. You can look up the companies that made these camera's. They're all specialized scientific equipment manufacturers. I don't see there being some conspiracy with the quality of the equipment, just limitations of what you can do realistically.

Originally posted by dubiousone
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.

There is more to go on than just faith, like Chadwickus also explained. All the documentation seems match up with these satellite images thus far. We know where things are supposed to be due to photos and video. For example, it's known that the flag was planted north of the LM. Photos, video and written documentation support this. We also know the size and shape of the descent module and how big each pixel represents in the original image, so we can perform measurements to see if the sizes match.

Also here is a still taken from the 16mm film DAC footage during Apollo 17's ascent from the surface, 37 years ago. I've cropped and rotated it to match it with the recent image taken from the LRO.

It looks like a pretty good match.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:13 AM
Is this the first time that NASA and not one of us has pointed at a grainy, blurry photo of the moon and declared "Look, it's not a rock!"

I think we should all debunk them and refuse to believe them without further evidence. I say we start a petition to demand that an HD camera be flown to the moon on the next misson and we be given a live feed as it orbit the moon a few times before crashing. Then they can prove the Apollo landings happened, and prove that there's absolutely no other moon structures or moond bases anywhere on the surface of the moon. It's a win win situation for them.

Unless they've been sending dodgy low res cameras up there because they've got something to hide?

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by itstheendoftheworldaswekn
Most recently NASA informed us that they had either lost or destroyed the original footage. Amazingly though they came across some new footage for the 40th year anniversay. Convenient?

No, they didn't come across new footage. They took the best quality copy they had of the footage available and tried to clean it up and bring out as much detail as they could, as a special thing to do for the 40th anniversary. Just like when really old movies are re-released and get remastered. (sharpen and brighten the picture, etc).

The dutch moon rock which was discovered to be nothing more than petrified wood. How many other countries will check out their moon rock gifts from US now?

The petrified wood, which was a private gift from a US ambassador to the Prime Minister in 1969, was never claimed to be a Lunar rock by NASA, that was a misunderstanding on the part of the former Dutch Prime Minister and the Museum itself. Any professional geologist could easily tell the difference between a piece of petrified wood and a Lunar rock, so it would be a horrible thing to use, if one were purposely using it as a fake. There is a museum in the Netherlands that has an actual Lunar sample, from Apollo 17. Which was given to them by NASA in 1972. I believe most Countries received samples in 1972 and not in 1969 as there wouldn't have been much to go around right after the first landing.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:50 AM

Thank you 'ngchunter' for finding those hi-res pics. I've all but given up on looking at lunar photos because they just remind me how I need to wear my reading glasses more often.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:49 AM

Originally posted by ngchunter

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...

Obviously fakes.. they look more like greyscale close ups of orange peel. You don't expect us to believe they would offer us such quality images of the moon?

You're dreaming...

*

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:17 AM
Hey now, you're making all the moon hoax crowd feel uncomfortable with your facts and stuff.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:23 AM

I think the obvious reason for that is there are no other sources to get ANY pictures at all. And of course people claim that not everything is getting censored, c'moon it's not that black and white as you say it is.

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:14 AM
From an entirely laymens perspective i have a question please.If this LCROSS mission was to determine if water was present & i think India (?) jumped in with supposed confirmation of exactly that & at really #e timing for NASA,was any actual evidence cited to affirm their claim?To me,msmedia focus just seemed to harp on about the almighty plume-kinda like so what india our mission will do all that too plus be real cool to see!So top that.I mean surely Indias rockets/crafts have got the odd camera or two onboard.Have they not?

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:20 AM

Does anyone remember the Fox special they had on whether or not we really went to the moon? Why would they air something like that when you have pictures like these?

It is a known fact that there was a government film studio in Houston around the same time as the Apollo missions though. It's almost as if NASA had a contingency in case they were not able to land on the moon.

34