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.

 

High resolution pictures of lunar landing sites

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Flags: 16
Stars: 703




When you can post a picture of guano on a windscreen and as long as you say best ufo evidence ever people on here will star & flag it ,good luck mate collect as many as possible




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I would have to disagree, the tracks do not look anywhere near the same.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Maybe if you took the time to check out the links I posted, before jumping down my throat, then you would see where I got the info from and therefore I know exactly how Google Earth works. Google Earth uses digital elevation model (DEM) data collected by NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission as well as data from other sources.

I didn't say that Google produces there own satellite photos, I was talking about the software Google Earth. I also stand by what I said. Nasa's photos are crap by comparison and still don't provide proof that we landed on the moon.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Alright-enough. I know what I am seeing but it only makes me want to yell what the heck? Okay, the pics show mulitiple man-made things on the moon-great.

Well, where are the photos from the objects that fell/landed after the first object was already there? You can't tell me that NASA only has the FAR away pics.

What did they do. shut all the cameras off as other craft moved towards the moon? Why isn't there photos from say, 100 yards up, a 1000? That would show the other fallen/landed items better? Was there cameras on the craft that were the first ones to fall in that area? Did we retreive them? did we ever make it to those other craft on subsequent visits?

Honestly, until we start getting better stuff from NASA, they aren't worth my time anymore. I think I can look at the moon from my back yard with a telescope and see better than the crap NASA lets out. How do they sleep at night-knowing the crock of .... they are playing on the US citizens and the world.

Like someone posted: NASA Sell Big, Show Small. I think it is high time we storm the NASA HQ and look at the records/evidence ourselves!!!! At the least, they need NEW management-selected by the people and not whoever is doing it now. Rant done!



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by kindred
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Maybe if you took the time to check out the links I posted, before jumping down my throat, then you would see where I got the info from and therefore I know exactly how Google Earth works. Google Earth uses digital elevation model (DEM) data collected by NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission as well as data from other sources.

I didn't say that Google produces there own satellite photoss, I was talking about the software Google Earth. I also stand by what I said. Nasa's photos are crap by comparison and still don't provide proof that we landed on the moon.



Look at whats underlined above
Look at whats underlined below


Originally posted by kindred
How is it that Google Earth can produce such excellent quality satellite photos, but Nasa's satellite photos always look crap by comparison.




Can you make your mind up also with the link to this picture.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

If you cant see the match re tracks etc SEE AN OPTICIAN QUICKLY



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


So your tiny telescope can resolve the Moon better than the Hubble BECAUSE if its better than the LRO then its better than the Hubble !we all better see your images because the Hubble can only resolve objects about 300ft across so making BS statements about what you can do when its LIES doesn't really help.

You said

I think I can look at the moon from my back yard with a telescope and see better than the crap NASA lets out.

You are not thinking correctly then are you!


You have mission logs maps and other data that details were landers and other equipment was so if its position matches the LRO pictures what does it mean. Also when this image half the DAC movie the Apollo 17 astronauts filmed leaving the moon matches the other half the LRO picture care to comment.

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sir, relax, take a pill. It was a general statement said in a joking way for pete sakes.

Could you please focus on what other part I wrote about about as to other cameras/shooting closer to the moon/retreived footage from the already down craft.

And yes, to me, my TINY little telescope is worth more to me than all that is out there. To me and my little backyard.
)



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72


What did they do. shut all the cameras off as other craft moved towards the moon? Why isn't there photos from say, 100 yards up, a 1000? That would show the other fallen/landed items better? Was there cameras on the craft that were the first ones to fall in that area? Did we retreive them? did we ever make it to those other craft on subsequent visits?



Can you expalin what you mean in the above statement? Its a bit disjointed dont you think. Check out a map showing the landing sites in fact here

www.fas.org...

At bit to far to walk then from one to another!


jra

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
Well, where are the photos from the objects that fell/landed after the first object was already there? You can't tell me that NASA only has the FAR away pics.


I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you try to reword it?


Why isn't there photos from say, 100 yards up, a 1000? That would show the other fallen/landed items better?


You're joking right? 100 yard orbit? I don't think so. Low Lunar orbits can be unstable due to the various mascons. Plus the speed one would have to be going to maintain such a low orbit would make everything a blur.


Was there cameras on the craft that were the first ones to fall in that area? Did we retreive them? did we ever make it to those other craft on subsequent visits?


Again, I don't know what you're refering to here. What 'crafts' are you referring to exactly.


Originally posted by kindred
The LRO's high orbit has probably got something to do with it, as it's orbiting the moon at between 50 to 218 kilometers of the surface, but why such a high orbit?


The LRO orbits the Moon at about 36km - 65km actually. Its commissioning orbit was higher however.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
looks photo shopped a bad one to.

heres how the original looked like
retrothing.typepad.com...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


I quite agree and always thought that they can't take pictures of the moon because of the high reflection of light it gives off. Also it would of been better to get pictures from Kaguya when Japan had its satellite orbiting the moon.

as a skeptic would also say, "HOAX!"



[edit on 28-4-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
For a little perspective, this image of San Diego is taken from Earth orbit and has a surface resolution of 50cm, just about the same as the LROC images of the Apollo landing sites. The descent stage of the LM is about the size of a van. Of course, it doesn't have a windscreen.

www.geoeye.com...


jra

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
heres how the original looked like
retrothing.typepad.com...


Those were taken when the LRO was in its commissioning orbit, which was at a much higher altitude than what it's at now.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
looks photo shopped a bad one to.

heres how the original looked like
retrothing.typepad.com...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


I quite agree and always thought that they can't take pictures of the moon because of the high reflection of light it gives off. Also it would of been better to get pictures from Kaguya when Japan had its satellite orbiting the moon.

as a skeptic would also say, "HOAX!"



[edit on 28-4-2010 by dragnet53]





Cant photograph the Moon good one thought you were serious for a second, what you were


We have seen members on here posting pictures they have taken care to explain



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
looks photo shopped a bad one to.

heres how the original looked like
retrothing.typepad.com...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]


I quite agree and always thought that they can't take pictures of the moon because of the high reflection of light it gives off. Also it would of been better to get pictures from Kaguya when Japan had its satellite orbiting the moon.

as a skeptic would also say, "HOAX!"



[edit on 28-4-2010 by dragnet53]





Cant photograph the Moon good one thought you were serious for a second, what you were


We have seen members on here posting pictures they have taken care to explain


If Hubble can't take pictures of the solar-lit surface of the moon, then how can the LHO or whatever you spell it? But yet skeptics said Kaguya couldn't take pictures of the moon landing sites because it would be like a spec of dirt, but yet Kaguya was designed to scan the whole planet to the fullest detail for computer rendering.

Just things that make you go hmmmm....

Kaguya Earth Rising



[edit on 29-4-2010 by dragnet53]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Anyone can post pictures claiming it provides proof. Where's the original photos or the links to the website you got it off? For all I know you could of photoshopped that picture yourself.


JRA - Yes as of April 2010 the LRO has gone into a lower orbit, but the pictures posted were taken from a higher orbit.

I'm guessing it will be a while before we see these new pictures, after all it'll probably take some time for Nasa technicians to get to grips with the new Adobe Photoshop CS 5.


Question: What do you get if you open up a NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image of the Apollo moon landing sites with a Hex editor?



Answer: Adobe Photoshop.

Sorry couldn't resist. Looks like Nasa are still using Adobe Photoshop CS3.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by kindred]


jra

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
If Hubble can't take pictures of the solar-lit surface of the moon...


But it can.

hubblesite.org...


...then how can the LHO or whatever you spell it?


LRO. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. And because that's its whole purpose.


But yet skeptics said Kaguya couldn't take pictures of the moon landing sites because it would be like a spec of dirt, but yet Kaguya was designed to scan the whole planet to the fullest detail for computer rendering.


Kaguya's Terrain Camera was only capable of 10m/pixel which isn't enough to see any leftover hardware. The LRO has a 50cm/pixel resolution.


Originally posted by kindred
JRA - Yes as of April 2010 the LRO has gone into a lower orbit, but the pictures posted were taken from a higher orbit.


No, it was sept 15th, 2009 when the LRO when into its mission orbit.


I'm guessing it will be a while before we see these new pictures...


What new pictures are you referring to exactly?


Question: What do you get if you open up a NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image of the Apollo moon landing sites with a Hex editor?


What image did you open up? Was it in the original EDR format?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


As you see fro jra's post above YOU have NO understanding of the cameras on LRO and KAGUYA.

LRO 50CM/PIXEL KAGUYA 10M/PIXEL you lose again as LRO has 20 times the resolution


Also why dont you find out if what you are going to quote is actually BS before you do, you know like your comment about Hubble



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I stand corrected I read the info about the orbit wrong. Looking at various websites, there doesn't appear to be that much difference between pictures taken at 100km and those taken at 50km. I'm still not impressed with the quality of these pictures. I was expecting a lot more from this probe.


Apollo Landing site pictures. 100km
lroc.sese.asu.edu.../archives/76-LROCs-First-Look-at-the-Apollo-Landing-Sites.html#extended

50km Pictures
www.collectspace.com...

www.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

EDF raw images
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join