LRO zooms in on Apollo 15 once again. Amazing Detail

reply to post by longjohnbritches


I would deny that a series of robots would be built for the express purpose of meticulously faking lunar landing sites, emulating rover tracks, planting flags, and bouncing around to create footprints. Then, it goes around collecting various rock and soil samples, drops some life support backpacks on the ground, goes into lunar orbit ALL THE WHILE talking to mission control and sending back telemetry data that the whole world was privy to.

Show me a robot that is capable of doing that. I doubt even Honda could come up with one

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Wernher von Braun was a rocket engineer with no training in geology.

He wouldn't have been able to identify an out-of-context moon rock if it was sitting on his desk.

Besides, the first lunar meteorite wasn't identified until ~10 years after Apollo, and only then by carefully comparing their chemical composition with retrieved Apollo samples.

Hi Saint
Whats up. Let me take a guess about where you gathered this critical information. Um, err
Oh, I think I got it. A group called NASA or perhaps some other US goverment agency. Am I right, am I right?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Your passion and interest in the subject is admirable.
Unfortunately your blind belief of what others feed you could be a sad awakening some day.I take issue with your pompous attitude when it comes to folks and or Hoaxers as you call them that disagree with your concept of reality.
The rocks of the moon are of the same composition as some of the rocks on earth. The moon may be a part of earth. The entire universe contains not one element that is not present right here on the planet earth.
What you said about the entry patina of moon meteors is a tough one (not really)
The burn/ heating could be scaled off like a fossil preparer would remove the excess matrix. The water content of earthly pumice and basalt could simply be removed to simulate regolith or what ever they tagged moon rocks as.
The tracks and junk in the NASA photos could all be produced by robots.
LAST but not least is the undisputable fact that rocks from the moon could and can be collected and brought to earth ROBOTICALLY.
Will you and can you deny my last statement?
Right, didn't think so.

edit on 11-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: well, undisputable needed an S in it

That is entirely false! You can take a teaspoon from anywhere on earth and find organic compounds of life building chains. What we have in over 850 pounds of moon samples show zero signs of life or even organic compounds that which only require a simple carbon atom bound to a hydrogen atom or two or three or four, if 4 that would be the most basic 'organic molecule' of CH4, methane and we find zero. So no sir the moon is not composed exactly as the earth is, not even close.

reply to post by NuminousCosmos


Good evening, no good morning Cosmos
Denying is not good enough.
You must ask yourelf what is possible.
Thats what the moon dreamers like me did in the 50's
Damn, then we grew up.

The fact that moon landing hoaxers haven't countered yet cognitively is there is a public record of lunar laser range reflecting measurements that began in July of 1969. Now ask yourself if NASA faked a manned landing to set those into place or they faked it all while an autonomous vehicle placed the mirror in place even though we know NASA never launched a rover for over a decade after the demise of Apollo.

Someone map that one out for me please.

reply to post by Illustronic


Hi Illustronic,
It's damn near a downybrook at 3am.
Dear sir I mentioned elements not life forms.
But do remember it took until present eternity for NASA to find the H2o on La Luna.
sleep tight

Originally posted by Illustronic
The fact that moon landing hoaxers haven't countered yet cognitively is there is a public record of lunar laser range reflecting measurements that began in July of 1969. Now ask yourself if NASA faked a manned landing to set those into place or they faked it all while an autonomous vehicle placed the mirror in place even though we know NASA never launched a rover for over a decade after the demise of Apollo.

Someone map that one out for me please.

I'll probably hate myself when I wake up but if some one needs directions I remember I was once lost also. Just a sleepy joke.
Anyway Cuba and the Vietnam war was draggin the country down. jFK put folks to work with a space program and paraded the countries BEST out and about to take thier minds off the murder and mayhem. The Military industrial complex made short work of him and his brother. The dude that allowed his demise was his political jounior. That guy screwed things up so bad the USA elected Nixon.
By cracky he stopped all the nonsense. ( the war and the fake apollo stuff)
well the rest is history as they say.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


LBJ was a power monger, he worked for who paid the most, quite simple, he was no Kennedy. Nixon was worth all his value then, maybe you didn't realize Nixon lost to Kennedy largely due to the advent of television, Kennedy was handsomer. But maybe we should criticize the soon to be released failed plan of Nixon's dream of putting China on the map, and now we get cheap hardware from slave labor. I believe it would have happened anyway, don't blame Nixon for it.

As far as LBJ goes he was a total tool. He manufactured presumed power by kneeling down to big industry and the military complex because that perception was viewed as 'his call'.

Just explain to me that given the 100 most important targets in Vietnam why LBJ decided to start with # 100 instead of #1?

Communism?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Wernher von Braun was a rocket engineer with no training in geology.

He wouldn't have been able to identify an out-of-context moon rock if it was sitting on his desk.

Besides, the first lunar meteorite wasn't identified until ~10 years after Apollo, and only then by carefully comparing their chemical composition with retrieved Apollo samples.

Hi Saint
Whats up. Let me take a guess about where you gathered this critical information. Um, err
Oh, I think I got it. A group called NASA or perhaps some other US goverment agency. Am I right, am I right?

Nope - You fail.

(Attempt to poison the well noted)

You are trying to connect two facts: 1.) Von Braun went to Antarctica, and 2.) Lunar meteorites have been found in Antarctica. Aside from the fact that both of these facts have to do with the southern continent, there is no actual connection between the two. The first happened in the 1960s. The second in the late '70s and onward (the lunar origin of the samples was not established until 1982).

I went to Florida once. Disney World is in Florida. By your logic, I went to Florida to visit Disney World. Not an unreasonable conclusion, and I wish it were so, but unfortunately, Disney World had not yet opened when I went there.

My information on Von Braun comes from books - most recently Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War. In the 40+ years since I first heard of the man, not only have I not found any indication that he ever had any training in geology, I have not found anything that even suggests he was interested in rocks. He never, so far as I have found, even suggested collecting geologic samples as a justification for going to the moon. He was always about the raw achievment of the goal. Since he personally could not go to the Moon (something he had dreamed of since he was 13), he went to Antarctica to see what life on an implacably hostile frontier would be like.

As for the meteorites, I remember when I first read about them in Sky & Telescope magazine in the early '80s. The Japanese National Institute of Polar Research collected some of the first samples. The Washington University in Saint Louis has also had a dedicated search effort in place.

Please research the facts for yourself.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

LBJ was a power monger, he worked for who paid the most, quite simple, he was no Kennedy. Nixon was worth all his value then, maybe you didn't realize Nixon lost to Kennedy largely due to the advent of television, Kennedy was handsomer. But maybe we should criticize the soon to be released failed plan of Nixon's dream of putting China on the map, and now we get cheap hardware from slave labor. I believe it would have happened anyway, don't blame Nixon for it.

As far as LBJ goes he was a total tool. He manufactured presumed power by kneeling down to big industry and the military complex because that perception was viewed as 'his call'.

Just explain to me that given the 100 most important targets in Vietnam why LBJ decided to start with # 100 instead of #1?

Communism?

edit on 11-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

I am glad I didn't crash yet.
Your quote above has alot of my setiment. Youngsters don't get it, yet when some do they can research it better than old farts like me.
Be this as it may. And it factors well with the moon photos in their history if one wants to follow the money, I think we should return to how those photos could be developed without a man or men on the moon.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


Saint,
Not to plesant with the FAIL stuff are you? Forget about Wherner as a rock hound. God almighty he was a captured puppet.
He was used and abused by his captors way beyond decency. He wasn't released from thier control until around 68 or 70 when most prisoners of war were let go within month of capture. You do know that Disney is 102 percent fantasy don't you?
I do commend your desire to grasp the reality of truth and knowledge.
Leting go of preconcived ideas is a slow difficult process sometimes.
I resist every chance I get.

You guys really crack me up NASA lowers the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to 15miles and this is the best crappy photo they can show? Google maps shows a better photo from 120 miles up pointing looking through the earths atmosphere I can see my car parked in the drive way. Moon is smaller no atmosphere craft is flying only 15 miles up and this is the best they can do LOL you have to be on crack to believe these photos. NASA lies left right up and down. Wast tax payers money damn craft cost 600 million but takes photos look like from a target 20 dollar telescope. Something is on the moon they don't want us to see that is why we only crappy ass photos of the moon. Mesas were throwing orbits off back in the 60s were discovered to be large metal objects were talking 70 miles per side buried under craters. Basically large under ground bases.

I would imagine that in the 40 yrs and more since the moon landing IF NASA was so interested in furthering their claims of the moon landing they could have easily got together a small orbiting satellite that would be able to send back exceptional pictures of the moon surface by now...

Did the Americans go to the moon.....well they might not only have been to the moon the could have been colonizing it and also could be there working the moon for their own nefarious purposes as we speak...

when people in power are the only ones with access to such a thing what ever makes people believe a word they have to say to us about the subject when it was and is meant to be so secretive.

I watched the moon landing with such amazement.....i remember parents letting the kids stay up late to watch the landings. (me included)

The moon is an amazing feature....look at the way it is peppered with so many craters...yet the earth...a much larger mass does not seem to get struck so much.....was it from its violent past....also....just a question.....with all the astronomers focused on the moon one would think and impact would have been caught by now...

Another thing that comes to mind...the protected side that faces the earth.....why is it so impacted.....i guess all the impacts would have missed earth and flew by the side so to speak to strike the moon...these are just thoughts which i am sure can be reasonably answered i have no doubt.

position is interesting also.....the perfect position to allow full eclipses of the sun to take place......little further out and no full eclipse.....why is that.....almost like it is in the preferred place for such an occurrence....there seems to really be nothing natural about the moon ...it's size....and it's position in our sky's.....It almost seems to be a product that was purposefully placed there....to me.

Now Nasa in their infinite wisdom now say the changed orbit to 15mi up and say this is the best they can do and have the public go oh wow...we believe it all and it all makes perfect sense to us....well none of it makes perfect sense to me....as we just seen some incredible images from the Chinese of the moon surface.....and this is the best NASA could come up with....some agenda to try to prove to the public they were actually there...what are they trying to cover up.....is this to brainwash the public as the chinese get closer to discovering something.

Oh well .....just some insane writing from a complete moon skeptic.....The whole moon is the conspiracy...as the Moon itself is not natural...and unexplainable....it was put where it is for a reason.....it is not a natural orbiting satellite in my personal opinion.

[

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Saint Exupery

Saint,
Not to plesant with the FAIL stuff are you?

You guessed that I was parroting the NASA line. You failed to guess correctly. It's a simple statement of fact.

Forget about Wherner as a rock hound.

Does that mean that you retract this statement?

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
They could be the rocks von Braun brought back from Antarctica when he went down there looking for them.

God almighty he was a captured puppet.
He was used and abused by his captors way beyond decency. He wasn't released from thier control until around 68 or 70 when most prisoners of war were let go within month of capture.

(Citation Needed)

You do know that Disney is 102 percent fantasy don't you?

Relevance?

I do commend your desire to grasp the reality of truth and knowledge.

Thank you!

Leting go of preconcived ideas is a slow difficult process sometimes.
I resist every chance I get.

I noticed. Please keep trying.

reply to post by plube


No, the frivolous expense of a mission solely for the purpose of launching a camera to "prove" something that's already been proven? That is insane. The claims of an Apollo-era "hoax" are ridiculous, and were only believed by a small contingent of incredibly gullible (or stupid) people.

The LRO and LCROSS missions gave this opportunity, as a side benefit....because the LRO was designed to photograph in detail, and to obtain a complete image and map of the surface, for future reference and planning.

.....with all the astronomers focused on the moon one would think and impact would have been caught by now...

The period of heavy meteor and asteroid bombardment was long, long ago. Early in the formation of the Solar System. And, as we now are constantly monitoring for incoming objects (those that are deemed a potential threat to hit Earth), then any of those same approaching objects could well strike the Moon. The Moon (and Earth) are pelted with tiny objects, all the time. "Shooting Stars" we call them, as they burn up in our atmosphere. But, these are micro-meteors, the size of dust, or sand. (and smaller) Any that hit the Moon would simply not make much of a show.

Another thing that comes to mind...the protected side that faces the earth.....why is it so impacted.....i guess all the impacts would have missed earth and flew by the side so to speak to strike the moon...these are just thoughts which i am sure can be reasonably answered i have no doubt.

The near side of the Moon is not "protected" by the Earth.

Look:



That is to scale, to represent the relative sizes and distance of both the Earth and Moon. The yellow animated line is depicting the speed of light, to scale.

You can see that the Earth is by no means a "shield" that can protect the Moon's near side.

....the perfect position to allow full eclipses of the sun to take place......little further out and no full eclipse.....why is that.....

Pure accident of chance. And, the orbit of the Moon (all orbits, in fact) is an ellipse. It is not the same exact distance away, and thus Solar eclipses vary a great deal in the "coverage" of the Moon over the disc of the Sun.

The "Total Eclipse" occurs in some cases, but when the relationships of distances are different, and the Moon is farther from Earth, then it is called an "Annular Eclipse".

Here:

A total eclipse occurs when the dark silhouette of the Moon completely obscures the intensely bright light of the Sun, allowing the much fainter solar corona to be visible. During any one eclipse, totality occurs at best only in a narrow track on the surface of the Earth.

An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon.

en.wikipedia.org...

.....It almost seems to be a product that was purposefully placed there....to me.

Well, as shown above, it's not "perfect". And, it is pure chance. A billion years ago, had we evolved then, the Moon was much closer...so its apparent size was greater than the apparent size of the Sun.

A billion years from now (were we to evolve then), the Moon will be farther away, and never cause a total eclipse.

Now Nasa in their infinite wisdom now say the changed orbit to 15mi up and say this is the best they can do and have the public go oh wow...

Up above, you were crying about not having decent pictures from a dedicated NASA mission just for that purpose...and now, they did something to actually get the best possible they can, and still you complain??

A 15 mile-high orbit is NOT sustainable. AND, it is physically impossible for it to go any lower, without crashing. I think people need to learn more about the science of orbits, and how they work.

....as we just seen some incredible images from the Chinese of the moon surface.....

Oh, did we? Source?

.....is this to brainwash the public as the chinese get closer to discovering something.

Do you not see how illogical that sentence is? Read it again.

...as the Moon itself is not natural...and unexplainable....it was put where it is for a reason.....it is not a natural orbiting satellite in my personal opinion.

That is a bit like saying that one has a "personal opinion" that there are fairies in the garden.....even though ALL of the science, and all the logic and reason have proven that not to be the case.

reply to post by Tachyeon


No.

Google maps shows a better photo from 120 miles up pointing looking through the earths atmosphere I can see my car parked in the drive way.

That there shows that you misunderstand how Google Map acquires their images.

When you can see your car in the driveway, it is because the photo was taken by aircraft. The smallest resolution by satellite in Earth orbit (that is available for public viewing) is about the same as the LRO resolution. About 0.5 meters per pixel. So, the purely satellite photos can show automobiles, but not to the detail you get when you "zoom in" further, and Google Maps switches to the aircraft photo images. Taken form only a few thousand feet altitude.

Look it up.

Wast tax payers money damn craft cost 600 million but takes photos look like from a target 20 dollar telescope. Something is on the moon they don't want us to see that is why we only crappy ass photos of the moon. Mesas were throwing orbits off back in the 60s were discovered to be large metal objects were talking 70 miles per side buried under craters.

Rubbish.

The mission of LRO was to photograph and map the surface in detail. It is doing what it is designed to do. Every mission has to be a compromise, since NASA has such a tiny budget. Less than 1/2 of one cent of the full U.S. budget goes to NASA.

Do you even know how large the LM is?? And, it's the biggest object left from Apollo. Why not look it up, and learn for yourself?

Then, get your camera and find a similar-sized object here on Earth, and go 15 miles away, and take a picture.

And, no.....the variations in gravity are not due to "large metal objects 70 miles on a side"....the Mascons, as they're called, are just areas of denser Lunar crust material. The Earth has many places similar, where the crust is more dense, and has a bit higher gravity....tiny differences, to us....we can't feel it. You need sensitive instruments to measure it.

NASA's current GRAIL mission is up there now, to map the Mascons. Really, this is all readily available to learn, if one does research first, before spouting off and writing nonsense.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


YOu are still attempting to bang on about the Lunar samples, and trying to claim that they are meteorites??

What you said about the entry patina of moon meteors is a tough one (not really)
The burn/ heating could be scaled off like a fossil preparer would remove the excess matrix...

Firstly.....it would be obvious if a Lunar meteorite that was found on Earth had been "scraped" to remove signs of a patina of heating from entry through the atmosphere!! Do you think every geologist in the World is too stupid to notice something like that?


Secondly....I went to the trouble of posting a video that showed, from the Meteoritical Society's own records, a list of ALL the meteorites found on Earth, where they were found, and there weights (masses).

Why don't you view it again?:

www.youtube.com...

Go to 2:55.

"Between 1912 and 1964, a total of FOUR meteorites were discovered in Antarctica."

And, none of them resemble Moon rocks, at all.

93 meteorites were found between 1912 and 1917, in other places. Over half of those were found in Texas and California. Why send Von Brahn to Antarctica?? NO Lunar meteorites were known to be there.

In 1969 a Japanese research team found NINE meteorites in Antarctica. In 1973, another expedition found TWELVE more, in about the same location.

And, none of those 21 could be considered, nor passed off as, "Moon rocks".

Just watch, the video shows the list of meteorites, with their weights too. Add it up. Not even close to the amount brought back by the six Apollo missions.

Do the proper research......I have.

Originally posted by plube
I would imagine that in the 40 yrs and more since the moon landing IF NASA was so interested in furthering their claims of the moon landing they could have easily got together a small orbiting satellite that would be able to send back exceptional pictures of the moon surface by now...

Did the Americans go to the moon.....well they might not only have been to the moon the could have been colonizing it and also could be there working the moon for their own nefarious purposes as we speak...

when people in power are the only ones with access to such a thing what ever makes people believe a word they have to say to us about the subject when it was and is meant to be so secretive.

I watched the moon landing with such amazement.....i remember parents letting the kids stay up late to watch the landings. (me included)

The moon is an amazing feature....look at the way it is peppered with so many craters...yet the earth...a much larger mass does not seem to get struck so much.....was it from its violent past....also....just a question.....with all the astronomers focused on the moon one would think and impact would have been caught by now...

Another thing that comes to mind...the protected side that faces the earth.....why is it so impacted.....i guess all the impacts would have missed earth and flew by the side so to speak to strike the moon...these are just thoughts which i am sure can be reasonably answered i have no doubt.

position is interesting also.....the perfect position to allow full eclipses of the sun to take place......little further out and no full eclipse.....why is that.....almost like it is in the preferred place for such an occurrence....there seems to really be nothing natural about the moon ...it's size....and it's position in our sky's.....It almost seems to be a product that was purposefully placed there....to me.

Now Nasa in their infinite wisdom now say the changed orbit to 15mi up and say this is the best they can do and have the public go oh wow...we believe it all and it all makes perfect sense to us....well none of it makes perfect sense to me....as we just seen some incredible images from the Chinese of the moon surface.....and this is the best NASA could come up with....some agenda to try to prove to the public they were actually there...what are they trying to cover up.....is this to brainwash the public as the chinese get closer to discovering something.

Oh well .....just some insane writing from a complete moon skeptic.....The whole moon is the conspiracy...as the Moon itself is not natural...and unexplainable....it was put where it is for a reason.....it is not a natural orbiting satellite in my personal opinion.

A couple of things, first we can watch live lunar impacts and anyone with an 8-inch telescope or better can watch them also. The site monitors impacts from space rock as small as softballs, or about a pound, of which would never impact earth due to our atmosphere. Also because our planet is alive, tectonically, impacts on earth get weathered over while the scars of impacts on the moon can last billions of years.

Because of the tidal lock, ancient large impacts on the moon when it was still rather molten shifted the large molten lava mare to the side facing the earth for the large part, and the moon cooled leaving most of the mare facing us.

Oh, and the LRO camera has 20X the resolution of the Chang'e-2's camera, there just aren't any cars on the moon to image or other recognizable features there like there is on earth. Google doesn't shoot its own images, AeroWest, DigitalGlobe, GeoContent, Cnes/Spot Image, NASA and Terra Metrics does. Those are the various suppliers of images. The satellite images aren't any better than LROC's, the high resolution images are from airplanes. The LRO's primary mission isn't to image Apollo moon landing sites, I don't believe NASA is interested in spending large sums of money to pacify moon landing hoax believers, now that would be an epic waste of money to verify something they already very well know.

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Since everyone seems so blunt in asking for proof and whatnot.
What about the fact that if man could travel to the moon for the last 40 years,couldn't someone have just recently put those tracks there for the cameras prior to the LRO missions? Why couldn't robots make those tracks also.
There are lots of NASA robots in space.

This photo top half taken as Apollo 17 left the Moon so its almost 40 yrs old bottom half taken by LRO they match is that simple enough for you!!!

reply to post by plube


I think you should came back when YOU actually understand what photographic resolution means YOU say Chinese pictures are better LRO'S res destroys them!