Taurus Littrow: A place that can [in] spire?

reply to post by theability


Lovely photo! This must've been taken near the end of mission, judging from the lack of shadows (Each landing took place

reply to post by Saint Exupery



I did do my checking and there is plenty of images, to many really to not have all the negatives to do thorough analysis.


And no problem, I hope I can offer more in the future!

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

I did do my checking and there is plenty of images, to many really to not have all the negatives to do thorough analysis.


And no problem, I hope I can offer more in the future!

Why not try this little exercise in Apollo imagery.
Show some of the astronauts in the western desert where you see their faces through there visors. Show some of them in their other training. Helmets on smiley faces.
Now out of the hundreds of supposedly on the moon photos try to find one that actually shows a man in any of those space suits. The best NASA can provide is deplorable.
Now there are a couple that show space suits with a fuzzy un recognizable earth in the background.
This is also way, way peculiar and unexplainable with out a lot of BS.
If you post these photos together you will see what I mean.
Spacesuits on the moon maybe, MEN no way.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Spacesuits on the moon maybe, MEN no way.

What?

Now you claim that there were empty spacesuits in Lunar EVA pictures and videos?

These ideas are getting "...curiouser and curiouser..." --(to steal from Lewis Carroll)--


Back to topic: Anyone see the links to other Apollo 17 landing site photos?

And, does anyone care to link the latest LRO photos? They are very enlightening, and prove the reality of Apollo.

Of course, in due time, there will be other photos as well. Either the Chinese, Japanese or Indians might be next, and finally no one will be able to cry "fake!" at NASA.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


YES PLEASE do include links I am all about data and research, excellent offer!

thanks!

reply to post by theability


Look for what is Not there and should be.
Not what NASA spoon feeds the mushrooms.

reply to post by theability


Well, i am just repeating these form my post, page 1. They're from the same site OP used, LPI:




Here's a view of the same area, from a telescope on Earth:



Here's the vertical view, straight down. Note what I said about the shadows, and how terrain features are discernible, even without an 'oblique' angle:




Again, all the Apollo Lunar landings were planned and timed to occur at local Lunar 'morning'. The most obvious reason was for better perspective, and orientation, since the longer shadows assist with that.

Also, the temperatures are most conducive, then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I really like this one (from a pilot's perspective, I can relate) because it's lower down, just a few kilometers above. Much as you would see from an airplane, over mountainous terrain on Earth:

reply to post by Donny 4 million



Again like I said to you previously:

Looking for Specifics is CALLED BIAS!!!! I am looking at the Project as a PROJECT.

Then reporting what is found. My sources, isn't only nasa dot gov!!!!!

OK!

reply to post by weedwhacker


A representational graphic of all landing sites (not a photo, of course):




A good link to source documents, specific to Apollo era. Easy to find, all in one place:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Lots more, from same site. You can spend a lot of time perusing it:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


There are other threads, right here at ATS, with much more, especially the recent LRO Apollo landing site images. Don't recall where they are, off the top of my head, been a few months since they were posted.

Maybe someone remembers?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes yes, the sun angle was very important to a number of things, one surface temperatures, would just be starting to reach a decent area for the lunar stay. Plus they wouldn't have the WASHED out effect of the forward schattering of the sunlight during landing.

Those images are pretty good. Though I have found alot of the AS15 and AS17 metric data seems to really catch the beauty of this area.


Thanks

reply to post by theability


Here are some of my favorites:

Apollo Image Atlas: An archive of all types of Apollo images, with links to the Ranger & Lunar Orbiter photos. This site is comprehensive, but the images are of mediocre quality.

Project Apollo Archive: Clicking on "Apollo Image Gallery" takes you to excellent quality images organized by flight and (alternatively) by magazine. All of the surface magazines are here in high-res, and many of the flight photos are there too. In addition, there are many interesting photos of astronaut training and spacecraft assembly.

Arizona State University's Apollo Image Archive has already been linked in this thread. Its interface is kind of funky, but this site makes all of the Metric (Mapping) Camera images from Apollos 15, 16 & 17 available in very high resolution.

Enjoy!

reply to post by theability


Just googled...








And, Apollo 17 LRO larger image, from the above link:




From another source, with labels:




And, enlarged:




[edit on 4 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Saint Exupery


I appreciate the links, yet I have all of the AS11 Flight including pages and HR Print Res images downloaded and on my home server, just to give you a clue how much I am on the AIA site. Thats like 1400 images with the webpage to go with it.

As for the Apollo Image archive I don't spend as much time there, some, yet they have very selective choices for imagery.


I hope in the future they will have the whole project digitized, though i was researching about Metric images recently and a RAW TIFF SCAN of a normal metric image is 1.37 GB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you image the storage space needed for that, WOW!

I do have to say I enjoy everything about The Apollo Missions.

Thanks Again!

reply to post by weedwhacker


I must be honest, I have been blinded by the original photography of Apollo that I have not looked at a single new Lunar mission.

The Imagery that was released from Clementine was so Pathetic I gave up on the new missions ever releasing anything worthy to look at. I know that clemintine was DOD, but still they obfuscation that was implemented was saddening.

I guess at some point I should pull my head out of Apollo imagery and look at the new!

But I have to say, nothing, in the world beats Apollo!



[edit on 4-4-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Why not try this little exercise in Apollo imagery... out of the hundreds of supposedly on the moon photos try to find one that actually shows a man in any of those space suits.

Ho-hum.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1711b905f29.jpg[/atsimg]
Neil Armstrong

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d92daae29a2d.jpg[/atsimg]
Edwin Aldrin

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3cc44272b7de.jpg[/atsimg]
Harrison Schmitt

The last is from this video segment.

Now there are a couple that show space suits with a fuzzy un recognizable earth in the background.

Well, Duh! If you focus on a figure in the near foreground, how hard is it to understand that objects in the far background will be out of focus?

Spacesuits on the moon maybe, MEN no way.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0230436c8c82.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Saint Exupery]

Originally posted by theabilityAs for the Apollo Image archive I don't spend as much time there, some, yet they have very selective choices for imagery.

7,177 High resolution scans is "selective"?

I hope in the future they will have the whole project digitized,

That was the Image Archive's intent, however it hasn't been updated in almost a year. Since it is a university site, I suspect the volunteers doing it either moved on or lost interest. It happens.

... though i was researching about Metric images recently and a RAW TIFF SCAN of a normal metric image is 1.37 GB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you image the storage space needed for that, WOW!

No kidding! I wonder how big the Pancam images would have been?

reply to post by Saint Exupery

7,177 High resolution scans is "selective"?

Let me explain, out of the Hasselblad Images of Apollo 17, there was like 5000 plus of them.

How many of this ON orbit crew obervation images are available on the Image archive? Not many.

That was the Image Archive's intent, however it hasn't been updated in almost a year. Since it is a university site, I suspect the volunteers doing it either moved on or lost interest. It happens.

I haven't engage such a project so I would never fault them for losing interest.

No kidding! I wonder how big the Pancam images would have been?

Well the negative as I am sure your familiar with, is 5 inches x 42.5 inches?

I am going to look for some details, but I am guessing the Tiff scans of that would be a few 100GB to Terabytes in size.

On a quest to see, and find out.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


Your first photo isn't in focus no matter what.
But is about the best I have seen. Do you have a link for it?
Your # 2 photo could be anything in that helmet.
I appreciate you bringing them up as I have not seen them.
#3 is pretty poor but better than #1 in focus.
You do know that it is also possible to make those photos right here on earth also.
You are aware of that triple palm fact are you not???
And it IS possible to photograph a recognizable earth and a man's face, if he is on the moon The excuse for earth clarity on the photos that exist is cloud cover.
Phage and jra have told me that the sun would burn there eyes out without their visors down. Did any of these guys suffer eye damage that you are aware of?

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Phage and jra have told me that the sun would burn there eyes out without their visors down.

Optics is well understood and so is coatings to filter out such light that you speak of, UV as well as IR.

The Windows of the LM and CSM had these coatings, so why wouldn't the Surface modility units helmets?

It isn't so hard as you say, to actually do these things!

Yet again, on the surface, there is NO refraction, or schattering of the light, so unless your Looking directly at the sun no light would hit the retina, and the temp issues for short term exposure to direct radiation of the suns energy, would have to permiate, By radiation, through polycarbonate, [which is a horrible transporter of HEAT!] then into the spacesuit by CONDUCTION. Which the EMU is designed for, the transport and expulsion of excess heat.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Phage and jra have told me that the sun would burn there eyes out without their visors down.

I don't recall saying anything remotely like that, ever. And I completely disagree that the Sun would "burn there eyes out". The astronauts raised the gold visor a number of times. If done for an extended period of time it could cause some eye damage. But doing it for a little while is no big deal.