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.

 

PHOTO: The Moon, Like You've Never Seen It Before

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
That is just spectacular! Thanks for sharing




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
....but why are all the pictures so far away, why cant we see close up ? With all the tech that we have we should be able to see within a few meters above the surface by now.


Well, it is mainly because a lot of deluded people would start seeing cans of cola, space ships and futuristic power plants from star trek between the piles of rock, and it's like saving them from their own imagination.

If you see something that shines like metal and has a shape of a head on the beach, you run to it, pick it up, and say 'damn it was just a rock, but it looks just like a head, awesome' and you throw it away. If you see something like that on a picture of a place you will never be able to go and check for yourself you start to write books and articles about it. It's kinda sad, but it's like that.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Here you can find the full res .TIFF image:

PIA00404 (Save Link As)

Original Source



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reevster
Yes its a nice picture....but why are all the pictures so far away, why cant we see close up ? With all the tech that we have we should be able to see within a few meters above the surface by now.


*sigh*

Look at this picture:

.

And then ask, "Yes its a nice picture....but why are all the pictures so far away, why cant we see close up ? With all the tech that we have we should be able to see within a few meters above the surface by now."

Because it is not the intent of the person creating this particular image, that's why.

If you want close-ups, why don't you look for close-ups?

Here's a whole lot of Ranger photographs that have been available for ~45 years.

Here are several hundred Lunar Orbiter photographs that have been around more than 40 years.

And Here are high-quality scans of the more than 7,000 Apollo Mapping Camera images, with average resolutions of better than 10m/pixel.

The Apollo Panoramic Camera took even better photos, and the LRO pictures are the best ever taken.

Why did you think that close-up photos were not available?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Saint Exupery]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Saint Exupery]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Saint Exupery]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patenciq

If you see something that shines like metal and has a shape of a head on the beach, you run to it, pick it up, and say 'damn it was just a rock, but it looks just like a head, awesome' and you throw it away. If you see something like that on a picture of a place you will never be able to go and check for yourself you start to write books and articles about it. It's kinda sad, but it's like that.



There exists more than one human.

Richard Hoagland isn't everyone.

There are plenty of anomaly hunters who have found all manner of artificial looking stuff on the moon, and only a very small percentage have written books about their discoveries.

Many give their work away for free - that's what I do, that's what Pegasus does. Check the link in my signature to visit an extensive non-profit archive of information and images pertaining to the Moon (and a good many other things).



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
Here you can find the full res .TIFF image:

PIA00404 (Save Link As)

Original Source


Just so everyone knows, this is a 13 mb file.

Go to the source to get a smaller one.


Hey Majorion!

Fancy seeing you here. How about you swing one by to watchzeitgeistnow's thread and post some lunar anomalies with us. I've filled it up with plenty of mine and Mike's. You have some sweet Lunar Orbiter images that would do nicely. (I think WZG is making a new video of the anoms we post)


www.abovetopsecret.com...


*You should post that blue rocket that you and my brother found in Tsiolkovsky. That'll get everyone's minds going.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If you think that is spectacular, then check this one out.

www.rc-astro.com...

BTW, S&F


Cool picture. Thanks.

anyone have an idea what the double line is at the top that terminates in a round object?

Its in the smaller bluish region at about due north.


The link breaks, too long maybe so just c&p

www.rc-astro.com/php/phpthumb/cache/phpThumb_cache_rc-astro.com_src23aa76c4547151e1f4b07914e6f87912_par0ddf367c5f01d9ba090bf356b6761f52_dat1208720371. jpeg

[edit on 26-12-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
So... is that a picture of the southern side of the moon?
sure has allot of dents.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
the moon is so sick lol i mean look how beautiful that # is



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Why wont people get over the whole 'why dont we see these pictures in better quality' thing? It seems all common sense seems to fly out the window when people are looking at pictures of the moon. And more annoyingly, why do people try and use google earth as a frame of reference to what they think we should be able to see on the moon?

I'd really love someone to come up with any justification for spending millions/billions of tax payers money, just to have pictures that are on par with google earth. Well, even then they wouldnt be that great. There's a significant amount of areas on google earth where there isnt enough detail to tell whether you're looking at a town or just some big grey blob.

That said, great picture. S+F


[edit on 29/12/09 by Bluebelle]



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join