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

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by grubblesnert
Fun bantering with you.

My pleasure - Anytime - Any place.
Now wheres your photos that you - "feel are doctored, that you say are out there" -

Now your getting me brother!

Concerning photos....."I got news for you, that ain't happenin' anytime soon" (taken from one of my earlier responses)
I threw my initial question out there to see if I would get a response. Man! I struck paydirt!!

Peace and keep on posting my friend (I mean that )

P.S. The "Heavy Delta" launch yesterday was cool. It shakes the windows of my house alot like the old Saturns, well almost. Hope you get to see one sometime.

reply to post by grubblesnert


Yes I looked hard. I looked absolutely everywhere. I have seen all corners of the web. Didn't find these pictures you were talking about. So where are they?

to the "unmanned rover" crowd;

how do you explain the cataratcs in the apollo astro's ? LEO lololol

please show a 1970 era proba that could have brought back big muley......

face it, apllo was real. even van allen has said the radiation would not be a problem. no radiation problem, = men on the moon

it was so much easier to hit a predictable moving target than to keep 800,000 people quiet

think about it. not one deathbed confession. not 1

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Yes I looked hard. I looked absolutely everywhere. I have seen all corners of the web. Didn't find these pictures you were talking about. So where are they?

Thank you for reporting in! Keep up the excellent work. The next step is to carryout your Yahoo and google searchs (you did try Yahoo didnt you?) for the love of cheese and rice dont forget Yahoo!
Anyway like I was saying:
1. Thank you for reporting in.
2. keep up the excellent work..
3 for the love of cheese and rice dont forget Yahoo!

And..... dont stop. I feel your getting close. I myself would have pictures posted all over this place except my "n" key is messed up and I wont get a new one for nearly another week or so. I mean try to google " ASA doctored photos" and see what you find it's down right aggravating. (so once again, keep up the excellent work)

The prize may still be yours! prove my argument wrong and you will be the winner!
I have faith in you! Don't let everyone down. Others are monitoring our corespondence (I would assume) and are awaiting the results of your efforts. As you are probably are already aware. Your reputation and credibility could possibly be compromised if you are unsuccesful in scouring the "Worldwide interweb" and retrieving this information.
Dont loose heart, keep on the straight and narrow
and, Always look on the sunny side
Most importantly keep looking!

Originally posted by grubblesnert
I mean try to google " ASA doctored photos" and see what you find it's down right aggravating.

No hits there. Well plenty of hits but nothing that hasn't been debunked already.

The prize may still be yours! prove my argument wrong and you will be the winner!

Well actually it kinda goes the other way around. You made the claim so you need to provide the evidence for it. The burden of proof lies solely on you. So untill you do that it's kinda hard to prove you wrong.

I have faith in you! Don't let everyone down...

I dont think that'll help me but whatever.

No proof - check
Immature comments - check

It's best to just ignore him/her completely no matter how much you want to 'bite'.
Let the civil people (on bother sides of the discussion) continue without their input.

Originally posted by ziplock9000
No proof - check
Immature comments - check

It's best to just ignore him/her completely no matter how much you want to 'bite'.
Let the civil people (on bother sides of the discussion) continue without their input.

This is a great piece of advice.
If no one would "bite" at my non-sense I would have nothing to respond to and subsequently be a non-issue.
Keep feeding me rediculous replies and I will follow the subject at hand twith rediculous responses all the way to its conclusion.
E.G. the whole "n" key thing...think about it. Rediculous!
Shall we conclude this everyone?

Originally posted by grubblesnert

E.G. the whole "n" key thing...think about it. Rediculous!
Shall we conclude this everyone?

A suggestion throw away the spade, the whole is dug deep enough for you.
Just some freindly advice I think you should conclude it before you cannot crawl out from it

Just my two english pounds worth.

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by grubblesnert

E.G. the whole "n" key thing...think about it. Rediculous!
Shall we conclude this everyone?

A suggestion throw away the spade, the whole is dug deep enough for you.
Just some freindly advice I think you should conclude it before you cannot crawl out from it

Just my two english pounds worth.

You are among those I referenced.
I stand behind my "n" key disability and take exception at your disregard for my special condition sir!
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn AH!! see what I mean! You caused that! Stuck againnnnnnnnnnnnn!

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by grubblesnert

E.G. the whole "n" key thing...think about it. Rediculous!
Shall we conclude this everyone?

A suggestion throw away the spade, the whole is dug deep enough for you.
Just some freindly advice I think you should conclude it before you cannot crawl out from it

Just my two english pounds worth.

The bottom line is that all of the images that I have seen on those hoax websites that are purported to have masked areas, airbrushed, or other photo effects done to them are NOT scans of the original raw images from NASA, but rather 2nd hand images (sometimes even 3rd or 4th hand images) taken from other sources (and sometimes even from NASA.

If an image is not meant for scientific research, but rather meant for public consumption, of course the photo could have been "prettied-up", possibly even by NASA. However, the raw unadulterated images are still publicly available from NASA, also.

A great example of this would be the image of Buzz Aldrin in this earlier post from ATS member St. Exupery:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Yes correct i have studied the ins and outs of NASA and all the apollo missions etc
I cannot find a single one of the original images doctored.

It is these charlatan sites, sucking in the masses who are gullible enough to follow
such shepherd material.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Thing is it doesn't take long for one to debunk these charlatans claims if one looks
to debunk them.Keep up the good work buddy,saw you on a few threads etc.

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

DJW, was 60 meters really the best resolution they had for Apollo 17?

Pete Conrad, February 6th 1971 ABC News, stated that his mission had maps with 1 meter resolution. Pete also says that Apollo 14 is working with maps that are of 2 meter resolution. Is the commander of Apollo 12 right or wrong?

One of the difficult things here is, I think, is to get a, a, map before you go. We had some of the best photography of our landing site which had a resolution of about 1 meter. Now the resolution they've been working from (refers to Apollo 14) has a resolution of about 2 meters."

Pete's quote is within the first 3 minutes of this video segment, a nice archive on youtube.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
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.

DJW, was 60 meters really the best resolution they had for Apollo 17?

Actually, except for a small corner (on the lower-left in this image - west is up), the Lunar Orbiter missions did not image the Taurus-Littrow Valley at all. It was not even on the list of candidate landing sites until early 1970 - after the Lunar Orbiter missions had concluded.
Apollo 15 imaged the valley at medium resolution (~7m) using the Mapping (Metric) Camera...

AS15-M-0970
AS15-M-0971
AS15-M-0972
AS15-M-0973
AS15-M-1112
AS15-M-1113
AS15-M-1114
AS15-M-1402
AS15-M-1402
AS15-M-1403
AS15-M-1404

...and at high-resolution (~1-2m) using the Panoramic camera:

AS15-P-9552
AS15-P-9554
AS15-P-9557
AS15-P-9559

Landing & EVA maps were made from these images.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Pete Conrad, February 6th 1971 ABC News, stated that his mission had maps with 1 meter resolution. Pete also says that Apollo 14 is working with maps that are of 2 meter resolution. Is the commander of Apollo 12 right or wrong?

Conrad was right.
Lunar Orbiter 1 and Lunar Orbiter 3 took high-resolution (~1m) images of the area where Apollo 12 would land. Here is a zoomable version of 3137-h2b (south is up) that includes "Surveyor Crater" half-way down and 1/4 in from the left. Surveyor 3 is barely visible as a white dot. You can compare this with last years LROC image of the same area at 0.24m/pixel resolution (north is up). Surveyor Crater and the Apollo 12 landing site are just over half-way down, in the middle.

All of the Lunar Orbiter images are available here. and Arizona State University is adding versions with their zoomable interface here.

Originally posted by DJW001
I'm sure you've seen the more recent images:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

looks like images of the maps they made forty years ago


Apollo 14 landing site


Back of Apollo 14 landing site

I will believe men landed on the moon, when you can proof to me that men can build a device that is capable of taking them there....

vvv

reply to post by Ove38

looks like images of the maps they made forty years ago

Except the images you posted are from 2010:

Apollo 14 Landing Site

The surface plate from the Apollo 14 lunar simulator finally arrived, a bit tricky to ship safely. Very exciting…

From Lunar Legacies: “The plate is made of modeling paste over contoured fiberglass and contains an exact high-relief replica of the lunar surface at the Apollo 14 landing site, the surface over which the simulator camera panned over to simulate a lunar surface approach and landing. Using various lighting and filtering techniques, this plate was made to look like the actual landing site with the expected lighting conditions and view for the astronauts looking out the LM simulator windows. The plate shows the landmark craters Doublet and Triplet used by the Apollo 14 crew to determine their landing target. There are various small nicks and scuffs, mostly from the camera ramming the plate after a power blip in the LMS, and the plate weighs about 10-12 pounds. This plate was one of several used in the Simulator for training, and is very possibly the only one salvaged after the Apollo program.”

www.flickr.com...

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

I will believe men landed on the moon, when you can proof to me that men can build a device that is capable of taking them there....

What you believe was man landing on the moon, was in fact filmed in a simulator on earth.