Zoom in on the moon: Astronomers create most detailed lunar landscape images ever seen (You can go u

page: 5
63
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Anyone else notice the inconsistencies in the shadowing especially at the bottom also im no geologist but should there be huge structures of any kind in the middle of massive impact craters??




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
So where are all the several mile high structures that Hoagland claims are there?

I never could see them in his photos either...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chooselove
Anyone else notice the inconsistencies in the shadowing especially at the bottom.


Of course there are inconsistencies in the shadows. This is not a single photograph. It is a mosaic of images taken at different times and stitched together by Arizona State University grad students. Errors are to be expected.


also im no geologist but should there be huge structures of any kind in the middle of massive impact craters??


Yes. Please tell me you're kidding. "Soylent Green is People" has already posted a video twice in this very thread showing how central uplift peaks form.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
This is pretty cool! I actually came across a feature which puzzles me (I hope I do this right):



At first I thought it was some kind of fissure like the smaller one seen on the left, but it looks more like a shadow. It's strange how it seems to engulf several rocks and run up onto a 'mountain'. Any ideas?


EDIT: Well darn, the picture got cropped, cutting out almost all of the 'anomaly'. Anyone know what I did wrong?
edit on 25-2-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Charizard
 


Try removing the "ats" at the beginning and end of the ATS picture ID-the one you cut and paste from your photo album area.

I hope that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


Yea well they dont want to zoom in too close - people might start looking for an American flag thats not there..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Movescamp
 





Is it a map of the whole sphere? Do you honestly believe that NASA, with all their advanced technology can't create software to cover things up better than a smudge?


I read a thread a long while ago about just such a software.

Well, actually it was a combination of automatic hardware and software that analysed each frame of film or each still and automatically (and very, very professionally) removed any objects that 'shouldn't be there'.

Very sophisticated kit apparently...hardly surprising news in the digital age of supercomputers and advanced algorithms, i know but there you go.

Anything released by a company known to be liars these days is/has to be suspect, by way of common sense if not proof.

Just visited the site...and some of you are getting excited about...this?

Blimey, it has a resolution of 145 meters per pixel! This is at the end of 2010 remember...even Clementine from way back in 1994 had a resolution of between 7 and 20 meters per pixel!

Or put another way, a tiny, cheap military moon probe, (and it was one of the cheapest lunar missions ever) from 16 years ago, had between just over 7X and 20X the image resolution of this 2010 probe!!

So, hardly something to jump up and down about is it!
edit on 25/2/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
So where are all the several mile high structures that Hoagland claims are there?

I never could see them in his photos either...


If you couldn't see them before, i'd say you're gonna have a hell of a job finding any in this thing.

Heavily sanitised and crappy resolution means you'll be lucky to find anything, let alone anything anomalous.

Can anyone else see the problem with having lunar probes and missions from the 1960's and 1970's (half a century ago) taking images of around a *half a meter* per pixel, and here we have this pile of crap made from images of 145 meters per pixel!!

Or put another way, almost 300X *less* or worse resolution in 2010/11, than that of 50 years ago!

Am i the only one that sees a problem with this fact?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


No, you aren't lonely with this.
That is the point, we don't have a decent photograph of anything.
I need to zoom in that pixel much more time, but...

Does anyone knows is there any raw hi resolution images of lunar surface?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
So there are no hidden buildings on the moon then .
If this was a real photos of the moon then someone has taken the buliding off the original photographs haven't they or do you still all believe that these are real untouched photographs of the MOON
edit on 25-2-2011 by dellbboytrotter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Actually, when I zoom in really far on a spot mid-left, there is a square that won't focus. I have a good computer, and everything else seems to focus immediately when I pan over it. I saw another square over to the right that won't focus as well. I'm not saying it's a coverup, but you wanted someone to tell you about a smudge. Well, there they are. Also, why would ET land and build bases on the side that we can see? If they've been attempting to stay hidden from us, then they would surely make it a point to build on the unseen side.

But thanks for posting anyway, I had fun.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Boreas
 

Yeah Really. Look at google earth. You could practicly read a liscence plate..almost. How come we can't get more details? Don't get me wrong these are awesome pics, but common. By the way are there any pics from the moon buggy out there. I would really like to see that.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Looks like the moon! Where was this taken like iceland or maldavia or something?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by chooselove
 


I'm not being a naysayer, but just answering your questions.
The inconsistencies in shadowing may be due to differently timed photos, and perhaps those 'structures' may be left over rock from meteor impact.
Don't worry, I want to believe it as well.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by Boreas
 

Yeah Really. Look at google earth. You could practicly read a liscence plate..almost. How come we can't get more details? Don't get me wrong these are awesome pics, but common.

The really close-up pictures on Google Earth come from aerial photography -- i.e., from airplanes.


By the way are there any pics from the moon buggy out there. I would really like to see that.

The object marked "LRV" in the photo below is the moon buggy:
news.softpedia.com...

edit on 2/25/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Great website of the moon BUT i prefer Google Earth - Click on Moon to zoom in.
Google Moon shows BOTH sides of the moon.
I read that the high quality Helium-3 is on the dark side of the moon.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
If you want to see buildings thousands of years old that was built on the moon ..

Look up the kepler crater ....Its got a huge city about 230 000 years old

here is the link to the real image



www.informantnews.org...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
That is a weird one


edit on 25-2-2011 by Grumman because: text



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumman
 


Great pic! Maybe that is swamp gas in that crater?
Can i find that on Google Moon? Coordinates?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I havent looked in google moon but I found it using the link the op put up on page one





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join