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.

 

Does anybody else think that the NASA GRAIL's video of the Moon's far side is a CGI job?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


because antyconspiracy guys want pics or it didn't happen


Anyway..




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


because antyconspiracy guys want pics or it didn't happen


Anyway..


And NASA cares about "any conspiracy guys" oddball ideas...why, exactly?
So you don't think it's possible for a satellite to orbit the Moon either?
edit on 2/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 



Not to mention the usual lack of background stars, which suggests that if the video is authentic, it's been denoised and cleaned up to wipe out those bogeys that undermine NASA's cover up agenda.



Somehow you managed to overlook the two most obvious points. Given that almost the entire disk of the Moon is visible, the terrain is moving past very rapidly. Also, if it were on the far side of the Moon, it would be out of line of site communication with the Earth. Pity you didn't notice these facts because it might have lent substance to your post, rather than just mindlessly opining "it looks fake to me."

The images were recorded on the far side and transmitted to the Earth when the satellite regained communications. It's essentially a time lapse video. As for the lack of detail, what do you expect? You probably have a better camera in your laptop these days.

Edit to add: why can't you see stars in this picture of the Moon? When you work it out, you will understand why your statement is so silly:


edit on 5-2-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Originally posted by Hellhound604


The satellites will carry special cameras


Bottom line is: it is a student project, for middle-school children



Special? As in retarded or what?

don't know about the video...but...It just sounds rediculous. Oh...we're flying an orbiter to the moon...to do some gravity survey...let's not burden it with good cameras...we'll use those special ones. Who needs pictures anyway.


because there is already a hi-res satellite circling the moon, as I indicated in my post. Yes, I can imagine kids keeping interested in going laboriously through 64TB of data. How does kids learn chemistry, or physics at school? Do they start with string theory, or organic chemsitry? NO, they start with easy stuff, springs, falling balls, dissolving salt in water, etc.

The same here, IT IS A SCHOOL PROJECT, aimed for YOUNG KIDS. is it that hard to understand?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 

It should also be noted that the students are given the opportunity to select targets for the cameras. Very cool.
At that age I got to listen to a radio broadcast of John Glenn's re-entry.

moonkam.ucsd.edu...



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



At that age I got to listen to a radio broadcast of John Glenn's re-entry.


At least I got to watch Gemini launches live on a black and white TV.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by PriestOfAries
reply to post by sitchin
 


It's a whole lot easier to exit our atmosphere and track into orbit then to go to the moon. In the earths orbit there is at least some chance of help arriving. On the Moon none. Imagine the MASSIVE amount of Oxygen that you would have to take to the moon on a regular basis and the extreme danger of taking compressed Oxygen in mass amounts on a rocket into space. Talk to any truck driver who transports gases what Altitude change does to their cargo. It isn't all that simple down here let alone getting it into space.


Actually, in terms of delta-V, the hardest part is getting from the Earth's surface into orbit. Once you're there, the additional delta-V isn't as much as you might think. To look at real-world proof of this admittedly counter-intuitive concept, contrast the Saturn-V first stage (needed to lift the whole stack from ground to orbit) with the single J-2 engine on the S-IVB stage that inserted the craft into its transfer trajectory to the Moon.

As for the possibility of help arriving in Earth orbit and not arriving on the Moon, here's a simple question: What are we going to launch this hypothetical help with? Whether you're in Earth orbit, or on the Moon, you've really got the same options if and when an emergency hits. You either deal with said emergency with local resources (Apollo 13's classic 'fit the round peg in the square hole' air filter trick is a great example), abandon the vehicle or station that has the emergency (again, Apollo 13 demonstrated this by moving the crew into the LEM), or you die (Columbia, unfortunately). An orbital station gives you a bit better chance of safely abandoning the situation (get back in whatever capsule you came in, and go home), while a Lunar base has advantages as well...more local resources (never underestimate the value of simple dirt, or the ability to dig a hole in same), and radiation shielding, to name just two.

The oxygen issue isn't an issue either. There's a substantial amount of aluminum oxide in the lunar crust that could be chemically or electrically processed (solar power's free for the taking up there) to generate oxygen, as could underground or shadowed ice deposits. If we *did* have to ship large amounts of oxygen to the Moon, it wouldn't be in gaseous form...uncompressed, it takes too much volume, and compressed, the required tanks would be prohibitively heavy. We'd ship it just like we shipped large amounts of LOx to orbit (and to the Moon) in the 1960's and 70's. We'd chill it down to liquid, put it in insulated tanks, and launch.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Hellhound604
 

It should also be noted that the students are given the opportunity to select targets for the cameras. Very cool.
At that age I got to listen to a radio broadcast of John Glenn's re-entry.

moonkam.ucsd.edu...


Yes, it has a sister program, called Earthkam, that is placed upon the ISS that are also aimed at schools.
earthkam.ucsd.edu...

Maybe there is also a conspiracy there, using cheap cameras to take pictures of the earth. They must be trying to hide something, right?

edit on 5/2/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


As for emergencies in space, Apollo 11 had an emergency, but not many people knows about it (Circuit breaker broke), Apollo 12 lost the fuel cells, and almost all guidance went down after being struck twice by lightning on the way up. Apollo 12 made it to the moon, despite the fact that some instrumentation remained out of order after they recovered from the lightning strikes, and everybody knows about Apollo 13. All these emergencies have been coped with. Apollo 11's one is almost not even worth mentioning, but if they didn't keep a cool head, it might have been disastrous, same with Apollo 12.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Just a small point. The absence of visible stars is not evidence of fakery, that's what space looks like mostly within the solar system, and certainly when the cameras have to cope with the light from the Sun. The OP has been misled by too many SF films.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


because antyconspiracy guys want pics or it didn't happen


Anyway..


Whereas conspiracy fundamentalists don't need *any* evidence to believe it happened.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Still waiting...this thread was based on the fact the Op believes that the dark side of the moon is CGI/hoaxed by NASA and their evidence for this ...is the claim that amateur astronomers have photographed mysterious things on that side of the moon.

Where is this evidence and also...how the hell did they photograph that side of the moon when no one else on this planet can see it?




only one face of the Moon, the "near side", is visible to us. The dark side or far side is permanently rotated away from our planet.

Why Do We Only See One Side of the Moon?



edit on 5-2-2012 by kerazeesicko because: CUZ I CAN



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard
 





Not to mention the usual lack of background stars, which suggests that if the video is authentic, it's been denoised and cleaned up to wipe out those bogeys that undermine NASA's cover up agenda.


There are no stars in the vid? Pay close attention from :10-:15. Are you sure there are none?
And your response to the question of how is it possible to film the far side of the moon from Earth



Ask John Lenard Walson how is it possible!

is cause for great concern. Could you answer that question please.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
this is ridiculous, i mean you are now arguing about conspiricy theroies this thread was created on the premise, that the images were computer generated.

i dont believe this, crap about moon towers, but lets look at this from a distance, are you telling me they hired the most boring voiced female on the planet. to narrate a video and videos, with the soul purpose of educating kids?

i mean maybe, but it will fail, her voice is painful, sounds like a mans.

but the fact is its most likely a real video, it just does look slightly edited, certain anomalies in the picture on the right side, along with light differences.

this is no pyramid, with an all seeing, eye were going to take over the world, thats ridiculous. you think they would do that at some point people would not revolt. if history has taught us anything. its that man will revolt. hel accept so much, but revolutions always come if you push him. in the fact one of the only governments with no revolutions, is nazi germany, and they were only in power for 10 years?

this is just a video saying there probaly is nothing up there, but why does it look so shat, the quality.

micheal bays moon in transformers, looks like a* work next to this video.

oh wait what were seeing here is a bunch of regular guys, on computers can create better images, than high paid, extremley smart scientists, and engineers, in fact supposedly they tell you some of americas greatest minds have at some point worked at nasa..

but michael bays tech guys can make it look better

looks like nationalsocialists need micheal bays help



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
And NASA cares about "any conspiracy guys" oddball ideas...why, exactly?


Because they desperately need all the PR they can get... at least 'conspiracy guys' still care



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
NASA does do more than take photos you know...


yeah they do...

Bomb the Moon
Blow up Comets for sport
Deliberately smash spacecraft into things (cosmic litterbugs)
Find Arsenic lifeforms in a puddle but its shown later they jumped the gun
Deliberately attempt to hide the Airplane Safety study they were commissioned to do until Congress orders them to release it while they were trying to shred documents..
Send Jack Booted goons to harass an old lady over a moon rock (I didn't even know NASA had Cops/Agents)

Shall I go on?



And yeah I can document all that and more... and you know it

edit on 5-2-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001why can't you see stars in this picture of the Moon? When you work it out, you will understand why your statement is so silly:


Well after you explain why we CAN see stars in this one... then you will see why I think you explanation is so silly

I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...

I looked around for some time to find a film like the following video from NASA. This one is perfect because not only does it show stars, but has what I wanted most, a recognizable constellation so there is no question that we are seeing stars.

Now what makes this film also useful is that it is filmed with the low resolution black and white camera and even when the camera points at the bright moon, you can still clearly see the stars.

The constellation is Orion, a very recognizable feature indeed and you can even see four stars in the sword



Orion for comparison...



OH and BTW just ignore the door shaped UFO zipping by.... this post is about the stars









edit on 5-2-2012 by zorgon because: Moon Pixies are REAL




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of years things might change).



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of years things might change).


yeah well when your on the Moon the Moon isn't up there


besides NASA says if you remove the atmosphere on Earth the sky would look like the picture below...


Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini.
apod.nasa.gov...

So NASA's right hand says one thing while it's left says another...

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

edit on 5-2-2012 by zorgon because: Moon Pixies are REAL




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Hellhound604
as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of years things might change).


yeah well when your on the Moon the Moon isn't up there


besides NASA says if you remove the atmosphere on Earth the sky would look like the picture below...


Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini.
apod.nasa.gov...

So NASA's right hand says one thing while it's left says another...

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

edit on 5-2-2012 by zorgon because: Moon Pixies are REAL



If you are outside the atmosphere, as long as the sun or the moon are in view, you still wouldn't see anything. As for no stars on the moon, if a single part of the moon that is in view, reflects the sun, you won't see stars. In darkness, no sun, no moon in view, how long does your exposure time (at ASA 200) have to be, to get images of the stars? a couple of seconds. I suggest taking an elementary course in photography, then you will know how exposure times versus light intensity works.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join