New pics of the moon, Ah oh.. someone didn't do a good job with their air brush.

Would Stanley Kubrick leave his "mark" on the last Apollo 17 video?

compare yourself..
www.youtube.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Why did Apollo 17 do a space walk on the way to Earth, by the way?

[edit on 27-7-2009 by conar]

reply to post by conar

Why did Apollo 17 do a space walk on the way to Earth, by the way?

Why do you come here, flood the board with pictures and inane suggestions of "fakery" ("missing" LRV tracks, for instance, when it's already been explained to you THREE times), intending to somehow prove...WHAT??

THEN, ask a question like this =??? ATS is not your personal APollo Encyclopedia.

*sigh* BUT, anyway, here's your answer: The EVA on the return trip to Earth was standard on all Apollo missions. It was to retrieve film cannisters from the SM. As you may or may not recall, the only piece of hardware fromt he entire Saturn V vehicle that returned to Earth was the CM, with the crew inside. All the rest was jettisoned/left on the Moon.

Capiche??

Originally posted by conar
What about the Apollo 16 picture?
www.nasa.gov...

why is it that there is this ever looming background darkness in this picture and almost in all others too? moon is supposed to be an atmosphereless orb so there should be no clouds to drape the whole scenery? heard of infinite focus? its a common feature of almost all instamatic cameras we have here on earth. so why is there dark background or mantle in almost every photogenic moon shot? and why are they (LROC) still feeding us in greyscale? just asking...and those sillhouttes are they imposed or poorly brushed out? which is which?

[edit on 27-7-2009 by enkira]

Isn't it amazing that NASA could once and for all blow away the myth of the faked moon landing...... and this is what they dish up. Grainy...images that show nothing but an easily photoshopped dot and shadow.

You think they could have put a decent lens on the camera.... I've got an 18-300 they could have borrowed if they were tight for money

reply to post by Total Package


For the umpteenth time, TP, I will repeat again:

1) The primary mission of the LRO is NOT photographs, in visible light, of the resolution needed to allay the "Hoaxists" --- they ('hoaxists')aren't that important.

2) These are preliminary, the orbiter isn't in its lowest final orbit yet.

3) You mentioned some model digital camera you have. SO, here's your challenge: USE that camera to take a picture of something that is 150km away, and tell us how good the image is, please.

EDIT: AND, people who use Photoshop would be able to tell if an image had been manipulated BY Photoshop, yes?? Lots of very experienced professionals out there, intimately familiar with how to use the program. They would see telltales left over, in the raw data.

[edit on 27 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by enkira

why is it that there is this ever looming background darkness in this picture and almost in all others too?

It's known as the 'sky'.

... so why is there dark background or mantle in almost every photogenic moon shot?

'dark background'? See above. "mantle"?? Are you referring to distant hills in the background?

... and why are they (LROC) still feeding us in greyscale?

Well...that's the predominate color of the Moon. See my answer to TotalPackage above --- the LROC is not primarily designed to take nice pictures for for "Hoaxist's " pleasure, it is scientific and has multiple instrument packages of various sorts. This is easy to Google for yourself.

The camera is there to help them see the regions of interest, and correlate all of the science results to specific, observable terrain features for use in future missions, which might include landings in the areas of interest.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Total Package

 

For the umpteenth time, TP, I will repeat again:

1) The primary mission of the LRO is NOT photographs, in visible light, of the resolution needed to allay the "Hoaxists" --- they ('hoaxists')aren't that important.

Yet NASA and the nasa sympathisers and debunkers like Phil Plait from BadAstronomy proclaim that exact image as:

Physical, tangible evidence that human beings walked on the surface of the Moon.

Bad-Astronomy-Phil-P lait-hypocritical-over-proof-of-Moon-Landing.aspx

Originally posted by weedwhacker
2) These are preliminary, the orbiter isn't in its lowest final orbit yet.

That's right... and lets see how good the photos are then.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
3) You mentioned some model digital camera you have. SO, here's your challenge: USE that camera to take a picture of something that is 150km away, and tell us how good the image is, please.

Actually it's a lens not a digital camera. Of course I can't take a photo... nobody can... that's the problem... there is no evidence apart from relying on potentially photoshopped grainy photos from the source accused of faking the photos in the first place.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
EDIT: AND, people who use Photoshop would be able to tell if an image had been manipulated BY Photoshop, yes?? Lots of very experienced professionals out there, intimately familiar with how to use the program. They would see telltales left over, in the raw data.

It's extremely difficult to tell if an image has been manipulated by photoshop when it is as poor quality as this.

Here is a close up of the so called "Lunar Module". You can basically count the squares in the image... that's how poor the quality of the photo is..... a 10 year old using only Microsoft Paint with the 1 pixel brush could have coloured in the squares and made it look like that photo does and you could never tell.

Ironically this image is considered "Proof" to the debunkers out there like Mr Bad Astronomy.... who have spent so long debunking moon landing anomolies and conspiracies.... that he considers this evidence.

It's pathetic when the skeptics make the rules and then don't play by them when it suits their agenda.



[edit on 27-7-2009 by Total Package]

reply to post by Total Package


I won't bother to respond to the rest of your post, as it is obviously uncecessary.

However, you seem to have misunderstood my point about you taking a picture of something from 150km away. I obviously didn't mean the Moon, I meant use YOUR equipment (It's a lens, OK) and shoot something here on Earth, that is 150km away and about 9 meters wide, and see how much detail you can get.

Actually it's a lens not a digital camera. Of course I can't take a photo... nobody can... that's the problem...

Unless the above statement meant something else?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Total Package

 

I won't bother to respond to the rest of your post, as it is obviously uncecessary.

However, you seem to have misunderstood my point about you taking a picture of something from 150km away. I obviously didn't mean the Moon, I meant use YOUR equipment (It's a lens, OK) and shoot something here on Earth, that is 150km away and about 9 meters wide, and see how much detail you can get.

Actually it's a lens not a digital camera. Of course I can't take a photo... nobody can... that's the problem...

Unless the above statement meant something else?

Actually ironically I am currently waiting for my 11 inch Celestron to arrive.... which is one of the bigger telescopes you can buy.... but even that is only going to get me this close to the moon. That's kinda my point though.... nobody can prove it only NASA can... and they seem hell bent on not proving it.



[edit on 27-7-2009 by Total Package]

As some know, I often have a split personality regarding this topic.
Often curious, sometimes satisfied.

Regarding the height of lander remnants, I humbly submit the following in order to deduce size and shadow.

Looks like the base is about 10 to 12 feet tall. Seems like the shadow is quite large given scale in context. No?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa2add215894.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d0a89c8534f3.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

Don't tase me bro's.

Regards...KK


[edit on 27-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Yes, KK. We knew that.

This is why the best way to spot the LM is when the Sun is very low on the horizon, makes the shadow longer. Certainly you've see this effect, even here on Earth?

Desert Dog

I like this one, too. Very 'spacy':

Jujitsu Jack

[edit on 27 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Pappie54

 

"The scientist".

Ron Stewart, "scientist".
The same Ron Stewart who makes aliens appear out of nothing?
The Ron Stewart who developed PPP (Penetrating Photographic Process)?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That Ron Stewart? Scientist?

Yes Phage PPP is the biggest load of bull since dinosaurs s**t on the earth!
Had a look at some of the PPP examples, scientist Watching to much CSI I would say, The resolution is on the LRO pics and if you zoom in you end up at 1.5 mtr/ pixel for most to see the landers which are only a few pixels across that UFO site is quite literally TUNED TO THE MOON

reply to post by weedwhacker


Right WW, comprendo. But your images were taken from a slightly lower altitude.

I was just reckoning that since we now know the hieight of lander base,
and we know the scale of LRO resolution ( 1 meter per pixel or something?) then we could somehow calculate size. (The link to the diagram is provided which also shows 'top view' dimensions)

I was hoping some smart person could use that data to make some educated guesses on height of structure casting shadow from altitude/magnification of LRO.

Heck, I barely remember Pythagoreans theorem but seem to recall he had a square root.



[edit on 27-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Well....I think people are doing that, to estimate the heights of unknown objects, by measuring their shadow length, and knowing the angle of the Sun (light source).

It is really just geometry, trigonometry, and the simple right triangle.

All three inside angle of any triangle always total 180 degrees.

Given that we know one angle, it is 90 degrees, the other two angles can be determined by knowing the lengths of the sides. Conversely, if we know the angles, then we can calculate the side lengths.

This is where Pythagorus helps: The Sum of the squares of length of the two sides equals the square of the length of the hypotenus.

In the case of the LRO pics, we will say the LM is X high (based on the drawing, 10.5 to 11 feet --- or use meters). So, measuring the shadow length will give us the other leg, and then the hypotenus length --- the angles fall into place, and of course the Sun's angle can also be measured astronomically.

Anyway, this can be used to estimate heights of unknown objects, nearby, illuminated by the same Sun angle, just by measuring the shadow length.

Ya know, and I forget who it was, someone had estimated the circumference of the Earth LONG before the Ancient Greeks developed their incredible mathematics skills. He used a stick, in the sand, and measured the shadows. I'm sure it's in Wiki somewhere....

EDIT: because the slope of the terrain surface is a factor to, can cause distortion in the shadow length. But, good math can correct, IF the terrain slope is known.

[edit on 27 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Good one, there is no way something of that height could cast a shadow over a mile long which there is no doubt, that shadow is in that range. Hence there is no way that is the shadow of the lander.

reply to post by Pappie54


The shadow isn't a mile long.

You can check that area against a number of different photographs of the moon and you can identify the crater to the right as Little West Crater. Using known data about this crater we can determine that the height of the object that is casting the shadow is around about 3m; the same as the decent portion of the Lunar Lander.

Why do you think the shadow is a mile long?

Since we are exploring shadows, here is the LRO image of A17.

To the left is an 'equally' long shadow. (The two "X" marks are identical in size for reference.)

Another "short" 12' pointed object close by? (Oh yeah, uneven terrain.)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/804f7cc5223c.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

(click link under image for larger size.)

As a reminder, according to site:

these first images came before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by Pappie54

Good one, there is no way something of that height could cast a shadow over a mile long which there is no doubt, that shadow is in that range.

What the heck are you going on about, Pappie???

The Eagle landed approximately 50 kilometers from the closest highland material and approximately 400 meters west of a sharp rimmed blocky crater about 180 meters in diameter.

Apollo 11

SO, to get a sense of scale, the biggish crater mentioned above (NOT in the picture in your OP) is 180 meters diameter. That's 590 feet, for the metric-challenged. The crater IN your OP picture, to the West of the lander (picture is inverted, North is down) is much, much smaller than 180 meters. BECAUSE the 180m crater is 400m away, and not in that photo.

Where do you get a "mile long" shadow, and have "no doubt"???

[edit on 27 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by kinda kurious


That was covered by ArMaP or Phage (or both). It's a rock outcrop, near the landing site. Hang on, I'll hunt for it.

edit:
It's discussed in one of the other threads, but they've all gotten so big, I got tired of huntin'

If I recall, they had a photo of the rock, it was big (obviously) and somewhat pointed on top (Someone brought it up, wondering what the pointed shadow was...)

2nd edit:
Didn't find the ATS posts, but this picture of Tracy's Rock, from EVA2 is the beast:
Tracy's Rock

I think it was over in "Tortilla Flat":

Apollo 17 EVA overview



[edit on 27 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker Hang on, I'll hunt for it.

WW, I am hanging on like a loose tooth brother.

Since you are using your 'big-gun-life-line' I might need to summon Zorgon.