Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Probe pictures Moon landing sites

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Pictures of the "landing sites". LOL Those pictures show nothing. Even by their own admission now, NASA has presented pics and movies as authentic and later admitted they were staged. Just what about the Apollo Moon missions are we supposed to accept as genuine? Taken as a whole, their are far too many discrepancies with the official story to be accepted as presented.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Signals
 



is that really the best pics NASA can take of the site??


with the LRO yes. The cameras in orbit around mars & in orbit around earth are more powerfull.

The mission goals for the image camera were to be able to identify rocks bigger than 2 feet in diameter at potential landing sites. This camera acheives that goal beautifully. The mission goal was not to take the highest resolution images of the apollo sites to satisfy moon hoax conspiracy nut jobs.

The images of the apollo sites are just a by-product of the mission. But its always interesting to see them.
edit on 7-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


You're saying that the LRO does have very high resolution cameras so NASA can identify rocks 2ft in diameter, but also has a lower definition camera for the shots of the remnants of previous landings which is good enough, as attempting to discredit 'moon hoax conspiracy nut jobs' is not relevant to the mission?
I just read this at Wikipedia, note this last sentence about the LROC "The mission will return approximately 70–100 Terabytes of image data. It is expected that this photography will boost public acknowledgement of the validity of the landings, and further discredit Apollo conspiracy theories."
Wikipedia

Oops.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikeybiznaz
I never had much of an opinion on whether or not the moon landings were faked.There have been some movies which I have to admit people swear by. There is the hoax theory that the flag moved so it couldnt be the MOON.
In 1997 NASA said there was an atmosphere on the moon with an air comparable to 13,oooft here on earth. A few have climbed Everest without O2 assistance.

If you care to and can find on pdf (or pay $300). Look for the book "Penetration" by Ingo Swann... he tells of quite a tale that is presented as believe it or not....give it a read..then tell me what you think...then tell me if you change your mind about the moon....what I want to know is What is it that changed their minds about occupying it. Water you say was a problem.....hummmmm how does water get into the tank of an air compressor....water can be created out of thin air ...as that say....what did those guys see that made them stop


C'mon Mikey.....water can't be created out of thin air. And please post a link to where NASA stated in '97 that the atmosphere of the moon was equivalent to 13,000 feet. That would be entertaining, but I have a feeling it doesnt exist.

We need to start separating the sensationalist cases from the plausible cases in this great big topic we call "UFOs". Otherwise, we're never going to get anywhere.
edit on 7-9-2011 by dtrock78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78

Originally posted by mikeybiznaz
I never had much of an opinion on whether or not the moon landings were faked.There have been some movies which I have to admit people swear by. There is the hoax theory that the flag moved so it couldnt be the MOON.
In 1997 NASA said there was an atmosphere on the moon with an air comparable to 13,oooft here on earth. A few have climbed Everest without O2 assistance.

If you care to and can find on pdf (or pay $300). Look for the book "Penetration" by Ingo Swann... he tells of quite a tale that is presented as believe it or not....give it a read..then tell me what you think...then tell me if you change your mind about the moon....what I want to know is What is it that changed their minds about occupying it. Water you say was a problem.....hummmmm how does water get into the tank of an air compressor....water can be created out of thin air ...as that say....what did those guys see that made them stop


C'mon Mikey.....water can't be created out of thin air. And please post a link to where NASA stated in '97 that the atmosphere of the moon was equivalent to 13,000 feet. That would be entertaining, but I have a feeling it doesnt exist.

We need to start separating the sensationalist cases from the plausible cases in this great big topic we call "UFOs". Otherwise, we're never going to get anywhere.
edit on 7-9-2011 by dtrock78 because: (no reason given)

where have you been living, under a rock?....how does water form in the tank of an air compressor...I used to work in a hardwood plywood plant in Oregon. At a time the plywood was going out the door as fast as it cound be made. We are talking $ 50.oo a sheet plywood and up. The units would be hot from the hotpress anyway the last procedure in packaging was to cover the unit with a plastic bag for protection..Condensation would form on the inside of the bag..units were hot and beyond bone dry.....YOU TELL ME mister argue with everybody how the moisture forms....its like what 6th grade science.....as for Moon atmosphere search engines were all over this stuff last year and now I cant find so I will work on it for ya....think about this Buz and Neil are getting ready to open hatch to go outside on moon. Hatch opens out and Buz couldnt get it open. Do you suppose they pumped cabin pressure to 0 before opening...this created a Vacuum in the cabin because there was a pressure from outside resulting in a vacuum sealed closed hatch.......link to follow does the moon have an atmosphere?
edit on 7-9-2011 by mikeybiznaz because: added link



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 




no they have one camera that takes all pictures... its clear you don't know much.

What makes you think NASA wrote that wiki entry? download the science papers on LRO and show me an entry where it states one of their mission goals is to discredit moon hoaxers by imaging the apollo sites. You wont find it because its not & never has been one of the missions goals.

here i even found the paper for you lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov... . If your lazy which i suspect you are ill even post the stated goals of the imaging equipment.



• Assessment of meter and smaller-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites
edit on 7-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mikeybiznaz
 


I'm not really sure if you're being serious or not, but I'll give you the layman's answer.

When air is taken "into" an air compressor, it's pressurized to several atmospheres relative to what it was at previously. Typical pressure at sea level is 15 psi. So when you raise the pressure to 120 psi, you are essentially squeezing the water out of the air. It is the same concept, much less extreme, that happens when a cold front (high pressure system) meets a warm front (low pressure system) - you get rain.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
SHOW ME HUMAN FOOTPRINTS

anyone can send a probe up/robot

the issue is did we make it out of the van allen belts

show us the human foot prints on the moon

this just raises more questions again



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   


I think you'll find we can and have passed through the Van Allen Belt. This guy explains it very well and lists his references at the bottom of the paper. Read, learn and accept the truth.
www.wwheaton.com...

And the wikipedia entry on the Van Allen Radiation Belt
en.wikipedia.org...

To the O.P great find. As we can all see, it still doesn't satisfy everyone.

(And could someone tell me how to star and flag please.)
reply to post by jimgibson10
 


Do you people even read before you respond? Please read the whole thing, and you will see we take the same stance more or less...

edit on 7-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Easily photoshopable. No evidence here. MSM story only, move along folks.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 




Originally posted by jimgibson10 Originally posted by TomServo Proof of Aliens!!! Cause humans sure didn't make those tracks! We cannot go to the moon. Humans cannot pass through the Van Allen Belt, because radiation will kill you, regardless of how much lead you have around you. Wait, no, that's a fake picture.... Honestly though... I am fully confident Apollo missions went to the moon. My dad has been a NASA electrical engineer for 38 years. Note: we have had the 'moon hoax' conversation many times, and there is not a doubt in my mind. I digress, I do not believe our first pictures brought back from the moon are real. I believe many of the pics and videos were shot it a Hollywood studio. When they passed through the Van Allen Belt, all film was exposed and rendered useless. However, in the middle of the space race, you have to prove you were there, right? edit on 6-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given) I think you'll find we can and have passed through the Van Allen Belt. This guy explains it very well and lists his references at the bottom of the paper. Read, learn and accept the truth. www.wwheaton.com... And the wikipedia entry on the Van Allen Radiation Belt en.wikipedia.org... To the O.P great find. As we can all see, it still doesn't satisfy everyone. There we have it, beyond all doubt, the scientific common sense analysis in the first link, quote "It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV." MuhahahWahahahahahahahaha.


Your recollection of my quote "It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV." is terrible. Pay attention people! If you are mocking "However, in the middle of the space race, you have to prove you were there, right?" is an entirely different statement. Please work on your reading comprehension before attempting to post a somewhat intelligible response. All i was saying, is that i believe we went, and provided a few extra details in response to conspiracy theorists. However, you completely misinterpreted that.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
For those of you who are complaining about not having a high-def copy of this...

NASA has posted on their main site the following picture (NOT high-def):

www.nasa.gov...

If you take a look at the URL, M168000580 is the filename of the original photo.

Now, take a look at lroc.sese.asu.edu...

There you will see files such as:
[IMG] M154872720LC_pyr.tif 16-Mar-2011 14:50 24M
[IMG] M154872720RC_pyr.tif 16-Mar-2011 14:23 25M

HOWEVER, these are not the original files.

The original image files are located at lroc.sese.asu.edu...

There you'll find the raw image files:
[ ] M154872720LC.IMG 16-Mar-2011 14:49 252M
[ ] M154872720RC.IMG 16-Mar-2011 14:22 252M


With that said...

Keep an eye on lroc.sese.asu.edu... for updates. When you see the file M168000580 get uploaded, that's the original file. Grab it, and you'll have your high def image.


FYI, in case you're wondering what this is...

Per lroc.sese.asu.edu...

LROC releases much more than just cool images, we also release technical and scientific data collected by LROC.


Also, please don't kill their bandwidth by downloading every .img file to try and find something cool. Some of the .img files are GIGABYTES in size.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLonePhantom
 


Can anyone actually download these? I've tried three different browsers, I get a page full of text data, and then they all crash.

Also, I see elsewhere that NASA has declared a no fly zone over all the Apollo landing sites etc, so these are going to be the only photographs ever.
Can anyone get these hi res ones and put them somewhere we can all see without it getting screwed up? We don't need the whole huge photo, just the interesting bits of the landing sites, equipment, etc.
edit on 7/9/2011 by Flyinghaggis because: Added no fly



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 




no they have one camera that takes all pictures... its clear you don't know much.

What makes you think NASA wrote that wiki entry? download the science papers on LRO and show me an entry where it states one of their mission goals is to discredit moon hoaxers by imaging the apollo sites. You wont find it because its not & never has been one of the missions goals.

here i even found the paper for you lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov... . If your lazy which i suspect you are ill even post the stated goals of the imaging equipment.



• Assessment of meter and smaller-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites
edit on 7-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for NASA link, which on p7 confirms the wikipedia info that LROC is THREE cameras.
Wikipedia
Under 'Payload' and "LROC", it says "LROC comprises a pair of narrow-angle cameras (NAC) and a single wide-angle camera (WAC)."
So it is not correct to say that one camera takes all pictures.

Also, "The mission will return approximately 70–100 Terabytes of image data. It is expected that this photography will boost public acknowledgement of the validity of the landings, and further discredit Apollo conspiracy theories.[4]"

Wikipedia reference their sources, so scrolling down [4] is, in fact, NASA

At the bottom of that there is a link to "The Great Moon Hoax" but I have not clicked it, as I can't abide hoaxes.

Hope this clarifies the issues you raised.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TomServo
reply to post by Flyinghaggis




Originally posted by jimgibson10 Originally posted by TomServo Proof of Aliens!!! Cause humans sure didn't make those tracks! We cannot go to the moon. Humans cannot pass through the Van Allen Belt, because radiation will kill you, regardless of how much lead you have around you. Wait, no, that's a fake picture.... Honestly though... I am fully confident Apollo missions went to the moon. My dad has been a NASA electrical engineer for 38 years. Note: we have had the 'moon hoax' conversation many times, and there is not a doubt in my mind. I digress, I do not believe our first pictures brought back from the moon are real. I believe many of the pics and videos were shot it a Hollywood studio. When they passed through the Van Allen Belt, all film was exposed and rendered useless. However, in the middle of the space race, you have to prove you were there, right? edit on 6-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given) I think you'll find we can and have passed through the Van Allen Belt. This guy explains it very well and lists his references at the bottom of the paper. Read, learn and accept the truth. www.wwheaton.com... And the wikipedia entry on the Van Allen Radiation Belt en.wikipedia.org... To the O.P great find. As we can all see, it still doesn't satisfy everyone. There we have it, beyond all doubt, the scientific common sense analysis in the first link, quote "It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV." MuhahahWahahahahahahahaha.



Your recollection of my quote "It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV." is terrible. Pay attention people! If you are mocking "However, in the middle of the space race, you have to prove you were there, right?" is an entirely different statement. Please work on your reading comprehension before attempting to post a somewhat intelligible response. All i was saying, is that i believe we went, and provided a few extra details in response to conspiracy theorists. However, you completely misinterpreted that.


You're right, the reference to TV is terrible, but it is not of my creation as I merely quoted it to highlight an 'expert' opinion which was set as proof but actually proves nothing imho in light of the rumours of Hollywood created faked film footage wrt the moon landings and the hoax theories thus generated.

Speaking of hoaxes, you have credited me with the work of other people by losing some of the [ quote] and [/quote ] markers, and the Link thus running several posts together and turning them into gibberish in your reply.

Thus you have managed to confuse yourself, as only the following few words were mine:- "There we have it, beyond all doubt, the scientific common sense analysis in the first link, quote "It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV." MuhahahWahahahahahahahaha"

I hope this clarifies the matter.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 


It might help if you right click, save as...

Personally, I don't have the bandwidth to download any of the 100+ mb files, as my wife would get rather upset it would destroy her netflix streaming.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 


There are only a few single point conspiracy theories that I find plausible, JFK, bits of 911 and the moon landing.

I know the issues about the radiation in which some physicists say it was not possible but others say it was possible with the space suits etc.

Also the perfect camera angles and lighting for some of the still photos are apparently to good and the astronauts could not maneuver them so well in their space suits. But at the same time the astronauts practiced taking still shoots before the mission.
Then there is the multiple light sources and shadows which seem very odd but again some experts have said that there is proof that it came from one light source (look this up as I cannot articulate this as I am not a natural scientist).

But there is something about the whole project that is just dodgy.

I mean i don’t believe the governments full participation in 911 because i don’t really think they would kill 3000 people.

But the moon landing killed no one and the political motivation was there, to beat Russia to the moon and even Russia opted out because they didn’t think that is was possible or safe in the end.

The thing with this conspiracy is how did they keep everyone involved at Nasa quiet?
How do you ever keep anyone in a conspiracy quiet?
Those parts still baffle me



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The simple answer is, they didn't....

Keep in mind, back during this time period the Cold War (and spying) was at its peak. There was very little either the CIA of KGB didnt know about the other within a matter of weeks. Something this big, this intense, involving this many people, wouldve been impossible.

Again, people putting too much faith in their government. Having worked with state and federal agencies for 10 years, I can tell you this - you're giving them too much credit. You're in luck if they can successfully transfer your phone call to another department on the first try. Let alone stage an elaborate prank with thousands of wrokers and the international media there at every turn.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 


the reference [4] on the wiki page is a reference to nasa talking about what the LROC will be capable of seeing. Its not a reference to nasa saying they expect the mission to "further discredit Apollo conspiracy theories" The link doesn't even say anything about that!

If you cant even figure out what wiki is referencing no wonder you cant understand space missions.
edit on 9-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Flyinghaggis
 


the reference [4] on the wiki page is a reference to nasa talking about what the LROC will be capable of seeing. Its not a reference to nasa saying they expect the mission to "further discredit Apollo conspiracy theories" The link doesn't even say anything about that!
Actually the link says:

secure.wikimedia.org...

In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them...


That's not the first time I've checked a link in Wikipedia only to find the source doesn't really support exactly what was claimed in the paraphrasing by the wiki author.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


thanks , sometimes i feel like i'm in the twilight zone when i visit this website.






top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join