It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Apollo 17 site in higher resolution

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
remember
the real photo

www.universetoday.com...
That's not the "real" photo, that is another photo, taken with a lower resolution, when the probe was at a higher orbit.




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I remember my amazement at the new security cameras we were introduced to in 2001. We normally installed black and white or color cameras who's viewing areas were "directly" in front of the camera.
You could zoom, pan left and right or up or down, but the camera "saw" what was directly in front of it.
We've all seen them.
And just a little addition, the company I worked for did installs for high security areas, buildings, both private and government.
Then one day this "rep" shows up, with the cameras we're going to install at a government lab and testing facility.
The cameras come out of the boxes and theyre no larger than a silver dollar.
He talks and begins setting up and explains about the technology that we are about to see.
He suspended the camera and it was aimed at the floor.
It was amazing. The camera never moved, it saw in a complete 360 degree, it could change elevations and angles.
If its looking straight down it could drop the view and zoom in on your face and show your profile.
It could capture stills, blow them up for definition and clarity, zoom, pan, whatever! you wanted.
We never saw that anywhere before, didnt even know it existed.
When mounted it looks like caps on a sprinkler system.
It was 2001, government supplied.........
My point, it was already developed, already in use, it was so powerful in what it could do and so stealth.......
That it made me never again doubt that there's technology hidden away.
I have no doubt there is technology in place and in use that can SEE you from far far far away. No Doubt in my mind at all.
This guy and this system didnt play around in 2001. I dont do that work anymore but I learned alot when I did. And I trust myself.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I continue to be disturbed by the intentional (??)
ignorance that perpetrates these threads.

EVEN WHEN obvious things are put up, we get the idiot posts....YES!!! I said it! IDIOT posts (and I am not naming names....we all can see for ourselves...)

OK...I will get flamed for this....but I take the criticsm proudly....because SOMEONE needs to say it.

Flaming arrows to my chest...let the fly now.....



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I continue to be disturbed by the intentional (??)
ignorance that perpetrates these threads.

EVEN WHEN obvious things are put up, we get the idiot posts....YES!!! I said it! IDIOT posts (and I am not naming names....we all can see for ourselves...)

OK...I will get flamed for this....but I take the criticsm proudly....because SOMEONE needs to say it.

Flaming arrows to my chest...let the fly now.....


Aha!Umm now that you've posted this gem~ i completely understand!


jra

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SchmokehSchmokeh
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?


Because we didn't have pictures like these back in 2001 when that program aired. The LRO launched earlier this year.


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.


Was this studio several KM in size? Or able to act as a giant vacuum chamber and also some how affect gravity so that everything (and I mean everything, not just the astronauts) acted as if they were in 1/6th of Earths gravity?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
NASA taking pictures of their own moon crafts...

Let's let the criminals become their own lawyer, jury, and judge, shall we?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Well, unless you don't have another source of moon pictures which are that good in quality I think there's not too many options out there?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Call me paranoid but some areas of those pictures look "shifty" to me, almost have a 'cut and paste' look to some areas. S&F to the OP



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




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


Not an expert on photography. Need your help. If the cameras are above 50km above the moon surface, shouldn't the resolution be clearer based on the information below?

Thanks



Two narrow-angle cameras on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) will make high-resolution, black-and-white images of the surface, capturing images of the poles with resolutions down to 1 meter (about 3.3 feet). A third, wide-angle camera (WAC), will take color and ultraviolet images over the complete lunar surface at 100-meter (almost 330-foot) resolution. These images will show polar lighting conditions, identify potential resources and hazards, and aid selection of safe landing sites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC), developed at Arizona State University in Tempe.


www.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

The actual resolutions we are seeing of the Moon are better than 1 meter which means that each pixel of the image is 1 meter wide, an object one meter across will show as a single (unrecognizable) dot. The Narrow Angle Cameras (2) on the LRO are actually providing resolutions on the order of .5 meters. The Apollo Lunar Module descent stages (the part left on the Moon) are about 4.2 meters across, meaning that they cover about 8 pixels in the best images. The lens that produces these images is the equivalent of a 700mm telephoto lens.

GeoEye-1 orbits at a much higher altitude over the Earth than the LRO orbits over the Moon, it has to stay out of the atmosphere. But since it carries a more powerful camera (13.3 m), it is able to produce slightly higher resolution images at 680 km above the surface.

So why not put the same camera on the LRO? Weight and space. GeoEye-1 carries only its camera (and its supporting equipment). LRO carries two high resolution cameras, a wide angle camera, a cosmic ray telescope, a radiometer, an ultraviolet instrument, a neutron detector, a laser altimeter, and a radar instrument. LRO, with all it carries (instruments, communications, power, manuevering), weighs 1000 kg. GeoEye-1, with its single but powerful camera, weighs 1955 kg.

The purpose of LRO is to do a lot of science, not to provide eye candy. The purpose of GeoEye-1 is to provide eye candy. It costs about $10,000/kg to put something into orbit around the Earth (excluding costs of the "something" itself). It costs about $50,000/kg to put something into orbit around the Moon. GeoEye has commercial customers (including Google) who are paying for the pretty pictures. LRO has no one (but us) to pay for it.

We are getting a pretty good (science) bang for our buck with LRO. Unless of course, all you want are prettier pictures of rocks and craters.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

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


They pick and choose what they want to show at full resolution. And as you said, they wouldn't or "couldn't" show the crash site detonation at full resolution. In fact it should be better since the following craft showed the damage.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted 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?

I've gone over this is excruciating detail in other threads. The bottom line is that it's never as simple as slapping a "consumer grade HD cam" on a satellite to magically get more resolution out of it. You need larger optics as well, and in fact the full resolution of these images is far beyond anything an "HD camera" can offer. You can't just slap on bigger optics either. The bigger the optics, the bigger the camera, the bigger the camera/optics, the bigger the chassis, the greater the power demand, more thermal regulation needed, etc, etc. To get an earth spy satellite sized object into lunar orbit requires a Saturn V size booster. We just don't launch anything like that anymore. If you want to start building Ares V's, you may as well use them for manned missions and skip the "coke can spotting" missions.


By the way, anyone who says that dark dot is a flag is making a leap of faith.

Nonsense, we know exactly where the flag should have been. Had it appeared somewhere else we would have known something was wrong. It's not as simple as seeing a "dark dot" just anywhere; it must meet a very strict criteria and standard of evidence, which is why "faith" has nothing to do with it at all.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
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!

Considering it matches exactly with the images of the landing site taken during the mission itself, considering the shape of the LM descent stage matches, and considering that the location of the equipment left behind matches, it must be a spacecraft:
history.nasa.gov...
These images had a very high bar to pass to meet all the above criteria, a fact overlooked intentionally or unintentionally by many of the people posting. The fact is, it crossed that bar by showing that the landing sites do look exactly as they should. The difference between this and things like the "face" on mars is that as the resolution of images improves, the face on mars looks less and less like a face, while the landing sites continue to offer more and more confirmation of their reality.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Do people actually trust the image from NASA??? I did this in 3 minutes on Photoshop so imagine the resources they have! I mean puhleeeez...



[edit on 1-11-2009 by reasonable]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by reasonable]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


The picture in the OP is at 4 times enlargement.

Where is the original one?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

You can read about it here, with links to the original image that can be viewed on-line or downloaded in TIFF format and a YouTube video showing the image.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I'm not saying the picture isn't of the Apollo landing site, but I think it's funny that it takes 4 times of over-zooming this picture to make out fuzzy shapes that are, beyond any doubt, "plain as day", the LM, and a flag.

What a double standard.

When I was comparing the first LROC images to Google Earth satellite imagery, a few months ago, I said that I could clearly make out LM sized objects, like cars on GE, as opposed to the first LROC images, some said that I was over-zooming, and that I could only make out cars, because I knew it was a car.

Isn't this the exact same thing? Ngchunter?

The picture is overzoomed, and we can only make out the LM, because we "know" it's supposed to be the LM.

In one picture, it's just rocks, but in these pictures it's clearly the LM.

What a double standard indeed.

edit: ArMap, thanks for the link.







[edit on 1-11-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





Nonsense, we know exactly where the flag should have been. Had it appeared somewhere else we would have known something was wrong. It's not as simple as seeing a "dark dot" just anywhere; it must meet a very strict criteria and standard of evidence, which is why "faith" has nothing to do with it at all.


Duh, I wouldn't expect a picture from NASA with the alleged flag and LM on another alleged site on the moon.

"Faith" has everything to do with it, as you clearly demonstrate yourself.

You assume that some blurry pixels in a picture are a flag and the LM, because you have faith that NASA really landed there.

Not saying that they didn't, but, you are just assuming, can't tell anything from those pictures.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by reasonable
 


This is supposed to be your "proof"????

The "rover" you photoshopped in...you got the angle of the shadow wrong!

What in the heck is the point????

Apollo happened....get over it!


jra

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Continuing with analyzing the image that I started doing back on page 1. Here is the landing site. I've marked down some of the usual area's like the ALSEP, LRV, and the LM, but also a large 3 meter tall rock nicknamed "Geophone rock" which I consider to be a significant natural landmark that's featured in many of the surface photos near the landing site. I also marked down the approximate locations of three panoramic sequences in yellow.


(part of the image is cut off on the side, here's the whole image)

Links to the panorama's:
1: Landing site Pan
2: ALSEP Pan
3: Near Geophone pan

[edit on 1-11-2009 by jra]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join