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.

 

Moon pics VS Vesta pics, Moon conspiracy?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Something has been bothering me ever since I saw the thread of NASA's new picture of the Moons north pole:

Original thread by tauristercus





Now we can clearly see (and it was discussed in the above thread) that the picture is a mosaic of various
pictures... you'll notice the cake like slices that make it up if you look closely.

When I saw the photo I just couldn't understand why a) We cant just get 1 good picture of the Moon's north pole,

Why slices?

And

b) Why can't we get some shots of it much closer? with a bit more detail? and I'm talking ground zero. Why?

Well it kind of popped out of my mind again and I didn't loose any sleep over it... until today.

After clicking on the crab nebula thread with the pulsar, I noticed something on the asteroid Vesta on

science.com that got me, once more, thinking about the photo of the moon's north pole.

Vesta on science.com




This photo was taken from NASA's Dawn spacecraft from 3200 miles away from the giant Asteroid and its huge

mountain, and yet the picture is not made up of a mosaic and the scale of the craters seems to imply NASA are

managing to picture it from, if not as close as the Moon's north pole, even closer.

How can this be?

The Moon is our closest celestial body, and yet NASA can get better pictures of an asteroid flying though Space

(on its way to photo Ceres next year) than it can of our beloved satellite??

There does seem to be something fishy about the quality of visual data we sheeple are trickled from TPTB

regarding the moon. Wouldn't you agree ATS'rs?

Rice and Peace.










edit on 7-10-2011 by Lagrimas because: grammar police




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
We don't have a better picture of the moon because we're not supposed to see all the alien cities there.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
No. I wouldn't agree.
You answered your own question.

This photo was taken from NASA's Dawn spacecraft from 3200 miles away from the giant Asteroid


The mosaic images were taken from a distance of about 31 miles (far too close to get it all in a single image) and the images are of far higher resolution than that of Vesta. The image of Vesta has a resolution of about 1 km/pixel. The images of the Moon's pole have a resolution of about 100 m/pixel, ten times better than the image of Vesta.
lunarnetworks.blogspot.com...

The higher resolution images of the Moon (from the NAC) have the same resolution as this image:
www.geoeye.com...

edit on 10/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Fair play phage.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
well if you want my opinion lots of things look way more "con"puter generated than real authentic photos



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   


When I saw the photo I just couldn't understand why a) We cant just get 1 good picture of the Moon's north pole,

Why slices?


Proximity, size. Physics 101 stuff. There are no fictitious satellites that can see a nat's eyelash from space, and we are talking about a spacecraft that had to achieve earth escape velocity.

All of the images can't possibly be taken with the same solar angle of light either. That would take many years to achieve, so we do the best we can to release the prototype before it is perfect. That is part of the whole NASA disclosure thing, ASAP. Who does it better or faster then, answer me that.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I liked your thread from a while ago that compared the LROC images to Google maps. I'm not sure many people are aware of the points you made on that thread, you do remember that thread don't you? Wouldn't be too off topic to bump that thread up for all of us to review again would it Phage?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 

It wasn't Google per say, it was a comparison to the best available satellite images. More or less (more, actually) than I said above.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well thanks and thanks. Still an informative thread, I simply did not get involved in at the time but did brows enough to get the gist. Something I have less patience to explain usually when I blurt out responses from the cuff at particular times. Well done.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
*cough*ahem*grumble*cough*

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


good stuff chadwickus...

Why do people think that there are conspiracies involving the moon then?

Alien structures? Tubes and the like? If its visible front and back and all?

Are all moon conspiracies debunked?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 


You could have trips to the moon for the public and there would still be moon conspiracies...



Did you see where you could select the north pole view? and then you can zoom in to the 0.5m resolution pretty much anywhere.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
the only logical explanation is the alien bases, they is no other way to explain it



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 


I will not say all of the 'moon conspiracies' are debunked, but I will time allowing, fight the good fight. It only seems rational to do so.

Folks, it actually did happen, face the facts and data. Don't use the internet to de-educate yourself. Crosscheck, it's now more difficult to access reputable data then when I had to go to the library in the early 60's to do a class report. Structure in schools today must be quite liberal in validations these days. Seems nowadays one can just spew out any kind of crap and get applause for their delivery, regardless of the facts.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Haha You've got a point


Yea Its a cool page thanks for the link.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


People want to believe in conspiracies because it elevates them from the mundane.

It crossed my mind that the photo of the north pole could be better and that got me thinking, but as Phage pointed

out right away, and correctly so, It was indeed just a mundane detail.

I dont know much about photography and the like and so Im not ashamed of my lack of knowledge but Im happy to

be corrected, as for Moon conspiracies It would be nice to think that we can make it through the VAB and that

we've had lots of secret manned missions in secret tech spacecrafts to far off undisclosed places...

I mean at least Jay Z gets to go to Mars doesn't he?



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Illustronic
 

It wasn't Google per say, it was a comparison to the best available satellite images. More or less (more, actually) than I said above.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

According to the urban dictionary "per say" is the incorrect spelling of "per se" and used by people who don't know it's proper use.
Really sorry to put my finger on this....!



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by silversurfer6161
 

Do you I think I used the term incorrectly then? (spelling aside)

edit on 10/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The term you have used doesn't exist but what you wanted to use is "per se" which is Latin.
This happens when we acquire some sort of "hearsay" knowledge, which I thought is absolutely impossible in your case but as Leonard Cohen said...."there is a crack in everything"...
Makes you more human and normal....and anyway, as I am German, we have that thing called 'Schadenfreude"!



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by silversurfer6161
 

The correct spelling of the term I used is "per se". Thank you for the correction.
The thread in question was not about Google maps, per se. It was about satellite images in general.
Did I use the term incorrectly? Or are you really going to pick on the spelling?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join