Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo 17 Photography Stations Located To Within 50 cm On LROC Map

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+18 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
A team of planetary geodesists at the Technical University of Berlin have analyzed the features on the panoramic photographs taken by Apollo 17, mapped them onto high resolution photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and determined the exact selenographic coordinates from which they were taken with unprecedented precision.

Because there are no GPS satellites in orbit around the Moon (yet), it can be a very difficult problem to locate lunar features with great precision. Astronomers have developed a lunar grid based on the locations of the retro-reflectors left by American and Russian spacecraft as fixed points. The closer a feature is to one of these "mirrors," the more precisely can its position be described.

Writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, I. Haase, J. Oberst and an international team including one American and one Russian, have used geometry to pinpoint the locations of the Apollo 17 photography stations to within 50 centimeters on LROC images. This precision is made possible due to the high resolution of the LROC and the close proximity of Apollo 17's ALSEP.

To make a long story short, they identified specific features on Apollo 17 panoramas...



...and matched them up to features seen on LROC topographic maps:



www.agu.org...

This is an exceptional piece of geodesy,and presents yet another challenge to the Apollo Hoax crowd to explain.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
The genius Stanley Kubrick could have still pulled off that hoax.
Interesting information mate!
edit on 26-6-2012 by hesse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The studio set was of course modelled after a real photograph of the lunar surface, most likely taken by an unmanned probe. So it does not really come as a surprise that you find "real lunar features" in the studio set.

Kubrick isn't a moron but one of the best film makers of this period.

Present a harder challenge next time, please.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 



The studio set was of course modelled after a real photograph of the lunar surface, most likely taken by an unmanned probe. So it does not really come as a surprise that you find "real lunar features" in the studio set.


You miss the point entirely. The highest resolution photos at the time were from the Lunar Orbiter, which could resolve objects about 60 meters across. This team was able to identify objects less than a meter large. Furthermore, the Apollo 17 traverse covered an area measured in kilometers. That is an extremely large set to build, and an even harder set to light.

Edit to add: This is what they had to work with back in 1972:



www.hq.nasa.gov...

I'm sure you've seen the more recent images:



www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 26-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Even the Russians managed to land remote controlled spacecraft on the moon two full decades prior to the alledged Apollo landings.

So if the Russians could do it 20 years before that, what makes you think the US couldn't have sent a lander there in order to snap some pictures.

Just because the low resolution pictures os all *you* got from that period of time does not mean *they* hadn't access to nice scenic pictures of the planned landing site.

Now, what's your point again, exactly ?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by DJW001
 


Even the Russians managed to land remote controlled spacecraft on the moon two full decades prior to the alledged Apollo landings.

So if the Russians could do it 20 years before that, what makes you think the US couldn't have sent a lander there in order to snap some pictures.


Do you have any sources that talk about this alleged Russian Moon rover that you claim was sent there in 1949?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 



Even the Russians managed to land remote controlled spacecraft on the moon two full decades prior to the alledged Apollo landings.


So... you are under the impression that the Russians landed a remote control spacecraft on the Moon in 1952, five years before they launched Sputnik?


So if the Russians could do it 20 years before that, what makes you think the US couldn't have sent a lander there in order to snap some pictures.


The United States did send landers to the Moon... in the 1960s. The Surveyor missions were highly publicized. Here's an astronaut posing with one:




Just because the low resolution pictures os all *you* got from that period of time does not mean *they* hadn't access to nice scenic pictures of the planned landing site.


So what if they did? They would need to build an enormous set for those panoramas to work out the way they did... and they would have to build it in an gargantuan vacuum chamber.


Now, what's your point again, exactly ?


What part of "they would need to build an enormous set" are you not getting?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 




Even the Russians managed to land remote controlled spacecraft on the moon two full decades prior to the alledged Apollo landings.


Apollo 11 landed 7-20-69.

Two full decades before would place us in the 1949 time frame.

Sputnik was launched in 1957, I think?

You got a link to some verification that the Soviets had anything on the moon in 1949?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


Speaking of the Russians, their lander, Lunar 16 returned soil samples virtually identical to the soil samples returned by Apollo 12...

No doubt you have an answer for that moon faker conundrum too...
(Please don't say Russia and the US were in on it together, that would make you look like a chump)

edit on 26/6/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


Speaking of the Russians, their lander, Lunar 16 returned soil samples virtually identical to the soil samples returned by Apollo 12...

They must have taken the samples from the same 'movie set' that NASA did!



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Ha!

Kubrick really is a genius



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



Speaking of the Russians, their lander, Lunar 16 returned soil samples virtually identical to the soil samples returned by Apollo 12...


You can even legally buy some of it:

www.maxuta.biz...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I stand corrected, the first official lunar lander was Luna 9, landed on Moon in January 1966.

That is 8 years prior to Apollo 17.

So again: The Russians did land on the moon 8 years before Apollo 17, yet you still show low-resolution LRO photographs as evidence that they could not have had enough detail in order to fake the scene as they did. It's telling how you jump on this small lapsus instead of providing valid arguments against the idea that soviet pictures may have stood model when constructing the movie set.

Your argument is still invalid.

( Just to remind you what your argument is: You claim the current triangulations are proof of landing on the moon because the detail and position of the photographed objects could impossibly have been that precise, because all they had were low-resolution LRO pictures at that time. I'm telling you they're not because sources for higher reolution images did exist almost a decade before Apollo 17 )



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 

Do you think anyone has ever visited Antarctica?
I figure all the pics and films we have seen from there may have been filmed in Northern Canada. I haven't seen any solid proof that man has ever been there.
You should start a new conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 



I stand corrected, the first official lunar lander was Luna 9, landed on Moon in January 1966.

That is 8 years prior to Apollo 17.


Luna 9 landed in the Oceanus Procellarum, Apollo 17 landed at Taurus-Littrow in the lunar highlands. The Luna 9 pictures would have nothing to do with Apollo.


So again: The Russians did land on the moon 8 years before Apollo 17, yet you still show low-resolution LRO photographs as evidence that they could not have had enough detail in order to fake the scene as they did. It's telling how you jump on this small lapsus instead of providing valid arguments against the idea that soviet pictures may have stood model when constructing the movie set.


Again, the Soviet photographs are irrelevant. The Lunar Orbiter was the best that anyone had at the time. It had a complicated system that took photographs on long strips of film, scanned them and beamed the data back to Earth. How could Soviet photos of the lowlands hundreds of kilometers away help design a set of the lunar highlands in such detail?


Your argument is still invalid.


Why?


( Just to remind you what your argument is: You claim the current triangulations are proof of landing on the moon because the detail and position of the photographed objects could impossibly have been that precise, because all they had were low-resolution LRO pictures at that time. I'm telling you they're not because sources for higher reolution images did exist almost a decade before Apollo 17 )


Not exactly. What I am saying is that the location of the ALSEP is known with great precision, which allows the location of each photography station to be located very precisely as well. In order for the landmarks that are easily identifiable both on the panoramas and the high resolution LRO images to be done on a set, the set would need to be immense, and feature a degree of detail that could not have been obtained by any optical system then in existence. It is for you to prove that such a gigantic set could be constructed secretly, and that there were imaging systems in orbit around the Moon with better resolution than the Lunar Orbiter. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Awesome. I now believe we landed on the moon.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
This is an exceptional piece of geodesy,and presents yet another challenge to the Apollo Hoax crowd to explain.

Not least of which is the challenge of having the article in question behind a paywall. They want 25 dollars for access. Just a FYI.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 



Not least of which is the challenge of having the article in question behind a paywall. They want 25 dollars for access. Just a FYI.


Try clicking on "HTML Version." If that doesn't work, I'll find some secondary sources later.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

The link leads me directly to a login page with nothing else visible. No worries, it was more an observation than a criticism. I doubt I'll understand much of it at all but I'm sure others might be interested.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by DJW001
 


Even the Russians managed to land remote controlled spacecraft on the moon two full decades prior to the alledged Apollo landings.

So if the Russians could do it 20 years before that, what makes you think the US couldn't have sent a lander there in order to snap some pictures.

Just because the low resolution pictures os all *you* got from that period of time does not mean *they* hadn't access to nice scenic pictures of the planned landing site.

Now, what's your point again, exactly ?



And you sir, have completely made your argument invalid by spewing off at the mouth and pulling this bogus facts right out of your a**.






top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join