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.

 

Camera captures historic lunar flags

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
This pic was posted on the LROC website recently and I am a big fan of this site,as it allows you to zoom in and generally scan the entire photo.Good stuff!
But this pic seems to be "treated";just pixels that look superimposed.
If you would call this an alien artifact,everybody would be yelling 'ROCKS"!
I am not convinced....but thats just me.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
I am sorry to the OP but even with my glasses and blowing up the image on my computer I still don't see the "clearly visible" flag .

Even the lander part looks more like an out of focus hollow point bullet head on.

As others have pointed out the flag looks like a black speck, no matter how hard/loud the moon landing "case closed" supporters rant.

I will keep my comments only on this presented evidence of the moon landings.

While I think it is probable we went to the moon, these pictures DO NOT help prove this at all.

The major issue I have, had, and harp on is that the pictures are poor quality even by the standard of the technology used for the moon landing.

NASA HAS ACCESS TO technology from the military and other types not commercially available to the public.

At minimum it is reasonable to presume they have photo technology in their spare parts/leftovers/unused AT LEAST EQUAL to what google maps use to give satellite photos of your house.

I can go on-line anytime and get photos so clear I can see and identify my make and model of mini-van, kids swingset (its a basic small model), and my chimney.

There main argument has been the size of the supposed equipment to take good photos.

Well thats BS
of the highest order.

1. They put a camera on the mars lander that takes (and we have been shown) STUNNING CLEAR COLOR photos of the martian mountains that have to be miles from the lander. Given all the other equipment and space limitations they seem to have done ok.

2. They make a big winney crying deal how they need PR due to lack of funding in the space program.

Then brag up the anniversary of the moon landing and how they are sending a probe up to take pictures of the landing sites.

Then give us pictures IMO even worse than from the 1970's.

Given the anniversary, technology available, and PR blitz as a whole HOW CAN A REASONABLE PERSON NOT HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT.

If this were a court of law these pictures would not even convince a grand jury to indite, and at a grand jury you can get an orange indited for ANYTHING.

I am not saying we did or did not go to the moon.

But those who use these photos to say "case closed" to anyone who questions the moon landing I have to ask who's wearing the tin foil hat?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
proof/pro͞of/
Noun:
Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
Adjective:
Able to withstand something damaging; resistant.
Verb:
Make (fabric) waterproof: "the tent is made from proofed nylon".
Synonyms:
noun. evidence - test - trial - demonstration - testimony
adjective. impermeable
verb. waterproof



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 

NASA Photo Analyst.


Well said mate. I share your frustrations regarding poor image quality & their (NASA) audacity in offering them up for public consumption.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I do not see a clearly defined anything that resembles a flag either but isn't it interesting that we are told by the msn that this is indeed the case.




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by raiders247
reply to post by mainidh
 


Bro we sent a rover to Mars before we ever saw a colored picture of the moon.


Well, was the mission critical to obtaining colour photos? You do realise that something important to the mission, is all that will be considered. Unless it is the result of an added value event, such as with the LCROSS mission.



Google street view is made possible by millions of panoramic photos taken by special vehicles that drive through cities. If we can send a rover to Mars, why not send 1 to the moon just to get some quality pics of where we supposedly landed? But instead we are forced to look at nonsense that even I can doctor up in the earliest version of photoshop.


Google street view is driven by someone with a drivers license. Not a nasa - or insert other space agency - authentic "Look at me I can fly into space, I'm an Astronaut!!!" card..



IMO, There are only 3 scenarios:

1. NASA has these photos and hasn't felt comfortable with the level of airbrushing thus far.

2. We never landed on the moon.

3. We landed there once and found out we shouldn't be there for whatever the reasons may be.


I'll leave that up to the reader. But if I were asked what horse I'd bet on.. it'd be #4 - we went there, nothing extraterrestrial was found, we left, and we made rocket science, rocket science FACT.

ARGH!
edit on 30-7-2012 by mainidh because: edit wrong quotes



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

I mean, seriously, I can't see anything on that picture.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
To all those non believers out there.

You need to look up the facts and physics of optics.

To see the Apollo sites with the detail you want (from Earth orbit) you would need a mirror or main lens about 300 feet in diameter.

The aerial views of you house from Google come from aircraft not sats. The government doesn't want to admit to high res space pictures.

The public gave up on the Moon 40 years ago. They care about VCRs DVDs and everything but the Moon. So why would any space agency spend billions to take high res pictures of something no one cares about?
The public has also lost interest in the ISS. Expect more conspiracies when they splash it 8 years from now.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 



I am sorry to the OP but even with my glasses and blowing up the image on my computer I still don't see the "clearly visible" flag .


It's the flag's shadow, actually. The flag itself is much too small to be resolved.


Even the lander part looks more like an out of focus hollow point bullet head on.


It is what it is.


As others have pointed out the flag looks like a black speck, no matter how hard/loud the moon landing "case closed" supporters rant.


Nevertheless, there is something where something is supposed to be.


I will keep my comments only on this presented evidence of the moon landings.


Okay.


While I think it is probable we went to the moon, these pictures DO NOT help prove this at all.


I agree. I do not believe it was offered as proof, simply as something to say "gee whiz" over.


The major issue I have, had, and harp on is that the pictures are poor quality even by the standard of the technology used for the moon landing.


In what way are they poor quality?


NASA HAS ACCESS TO technology from the military and other types not commercially available to the public.


The imaging equipment used to produce the image under discussion is an example of such equipment. It is commercially available, but most people couldn't afford it.


At minimum it is reasonable to presume they have photo technology in their spare parts/leftovers/unused AT LEAST EQUAL to what google maps use to give satellite photos of your house.


Google uses NASA images for their large scale maps, and aerial photography for their closeups.


I can go on-line anytime and get photos so clear I can see and identify my make and model of mini-van, kids swingset (its a basic small model), and my chimney.


Photographs taken from several hundred meters in the air, as opposed to a hundred kilometers up.


There main argument has been the size of the supposed equipment to take good photos.


Not exactly; it is a question of the resolution of the imaging equipment.


Well thats BS of the highest order.

1. They put a camera on the mars lander that takes (and we have been shown) STUNNING CLEAR COLOR photos of the martian mountains that have to be miles from the lander. Given all the other equipment and space limitations they seem to have done ok.


First of all, those are not really color pictures; secondly, do those images resolve anything the size of a flag on those distant hills?


2. They make a big winney crying deal how they need PR due to lack of funding in the space program.


What does that have to do with the image you are discussing?


Then brag up the anniversary of the moon landing and how they are sending a probe up to take pictures of the landing sites.


Where do they say they are sending up a probe to take pictures of the Moon landing sites? I seem to have missed that. Please provide a link.


Then give us pictures IMO even worse than from the 1970's.


Which pictures from the 1970s? Prior to the Apollo missions, this was the quality of imagery from automated lunar probes:



There were no more American probes until 1990.


Given the anniversary, technology available, and PR blitz as a whole HOW CAN A REASONABLE PERSON NOT HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT.


I'm sure we can both agree that the quality of the imagery from the current LRO is superior to that of the original Lunar Orbiter series of the 1960s.


If this were a court of law these pictures would not even convince a grand jury to indite, and at a grand jury you can get an orange indited for ANYTHING.


I don't follow you. What would be the charge? Are you saying that NASA is presumed guilty of faking the Moon landings until proven innocent?


I am not saying we did or did not go to the moon.


You are just hinting we didn't.


But those who use these photos to say "case closed" to anyone who questions the moon landing I have to ask who's wearing the tin foil hat?


The case was closed long ago. There are mountains of hard evidence supporting the fact that men have walked on the Moon. This image is simply the latest addendum to that massive file.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


I wonder can we not have a satellite orbit the moon and essentially map it just like google earth?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by raiders247
 


I am one of those people that is on the fence. I think we could have and most likely did go to the moon, BUT I am not sure we actually went the first time we said we did.

I mean there was definitely enough motive to fake it with the great rivalry between the US and Soviets.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 



I wonder can we not have a satellite orbit the moon and essentially map it just like google earth?


That is what LRO is doing. Google maps uses aerial photographs and ground based photography as well as satellite photography.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Star and flag from liejunkie.

Nothing to really add but,

Take that moon landing hoaxers


Did you see a flag in that pic? I didn't and I highly doubt you did either. All I see is dark blob. Now, if in your world a dark blob equals an American Flag then either you are delusional of you possess super secret powers of sight.

The only thing this photo proves is that you can photograph dark blobs on the moon in low resolution!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Star and flag from liejunkie.

Nothing to really add but,

Take that moon landing hoaxers


Yes, because, wow! What a compelling piece of evidence!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
capicorn one !



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Is the shadow not where the flag is supposed to be? If it is not a shadow, then please fill me in on what it is.

Are there not tracks running all around the site?

Only the ignorant still want to cling to the moon landing hoax.

Where does that put you?

I see everything in order the way that Nasa said they left it. If you see something different then that is your problem.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


I believe those crazy boys from NASA actually went to the moon. But, I'm not seeing a flag in that image.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This is an old pic. We are still waiting for the oft promised pics of Apollo sites for proof. Apparently, every satellite sent to the moon is equipped with imaging technology from the fifties.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublimecraft
 


Hey Sublimecraft, its also news today on the BBC website here's the link.

www.bbc.co.uk...

[Edit It also has just been mentioned on BBC Radio 5 Live around 22:06 BST]


303

edit on 30/7/2012 by 303inMyBrain because: Heard it on the radiooooooooooooooooooo



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Star and flag from liejunkie.

Nothing to really add but,

Take that moon landing hoaxers


Take what? This proves nothing. I could create that with Photoshop in 5 minutes. The flag is a black blotch on a cratered surface. Why are you so gullible?




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join