China Just Released True Color HD Photos Of The Moon

The panorama-maker extraordinaire, Andrew Bodrov, used the newly-released images to create these beautiful 360-degree panoramas: www.360cities.net...

originally posted by: tonycodes
So they wait 3 years to release the pics. If nothing crazy is on the moon, there's no reason to wait that long, even if it's China. They need 3 years to actually proofread the photos.

They released some of these images soon after they landed, but not all of them were in the hi-res format as these newly-released ones.

The day they landed, they released these images, but they were pictures taken of a TV monitor that was displaying the images:
www.universetoday.com...
news.xinhuanet.com...

A few weeks later, they released these:
www.ecns.cn...
www.ecns.cn...
www.ecns.cn...
www.ecns.cn...
www.ecns.cn...
www.ecns.cn...

And these a little later -- which some people stitched together to make panoramas:
www.universetoday.com...
www.universetoday.com...

a reply to: wildespace

something wrong with my vision? Or your monitor is not very well calibrated. Then I am correct if Apollo mission found these rocks.. ok

the colors are only visible if you zoom in the original picture, I only took a crop from the spot that looks like debris.

You must zoom in the original copy.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

We've been through this, you're wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat it you are still wrong. There are many photographs of the sun in cislunar space, you just refuse to accept them and move the goalposts

.

OK, one last try, where are these photographs of the Sun taken from cislunar space, or interplanetary space?

They will eventually have a telescope on the lunar far side, which will prove you completely wrong when they post photos of it in bright sunlight.

I look forward to the day, if it happens before I'm 6 feet under, which I doubt.

a reply to: Swills

damn, they couldn't pack a better 360 cam? wtf.

a reply to: reddragon2015

The pictures are edited and cropped (Megapixels = 4.6 Megapixels), downed to 72 dpi as well, so we cannot create crops from them, normally all pro and semi-pro cameras give 350 dpi as a standard.

Take this link 29a.ch...

click OPEN FORENSICALLY and (after you save the chinese images into your computer, drug and drop inside!!) you can see all the manipulations they may done.
after you drop the image inside, click (clone detection) and it will highlight the spots that look similar in the picture with other spots and you can adjust the level of detail. Then click NOISE and the darkness is just black color! No noise at all.. Meta data is also removed.

Overall, I believe NASA more than the chinese, because you may find some forgotten elements from the things they changed.

a reply to: GaryN

I see absolutely no point in yet again spending my time trawling the internet for photographs that you will find some way of pretending don't satisfy whatever criteria you have decided are important today for them to count as what you asked for. It's been done ad nauseam in your other threads.

China will have a lunar far side probe within the next few years, I look forward to your retractions.

I also look forward to your explanation as to why, if the moon's surface is lit only by Earthshine, we can have a full moon. You kind of missed that bit when you quoted my post.

a reply to: Ploutonas

What would be the point or reason for manipulating rocks in photos taken on the Moon? (Besides one's conspiracy and paranoia-ridden mind, that is)

By the way, the published images aren't the end-all result. People at the Unmanned Spaceflight Forum are using the raw data to create their own results: www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

I especially like this one:



There's also an exhausting analysis comparing the landscape features seen in Chinese images with the ones from LRO images from orbit.

Chinese sent a lander and a rover to the Moon and took some pictures, get over it.

Other people are also compiling panoramas from the photos:

www.360cities.net...

Sadly they are using images of Earth from satellite images to make them look nicer, like this one:

www.nasa.gov...

along with other technical errors like the Earth being in the wrong place.

a reply to: GaryN

I never quite understood your argument about a human eye not being able to detect sunlight or starlight from space.

If I were in space somewhere between Earth and Mars, and photons of sunlight were reaching my eye at about 400 to 700 nm wavelengths on the EM spectrum, why wouldn't my eye detect those photons, while if I were on Earth my eyes would detect EM wavelengths of 400 to 700 nm reaching it?

What's different about that 400 to 700 nm EM radiation in space that makes it unable to be detected by the receptors in a human eye?

If not sunlight, then what about a light bulb? Would light from a flashlight be visible if I shined it in my eyes in space? If not, then why not?

a reply to: Box of Rain

I never quite understood your argument about a human eye not being able to detect sunlight or starlight from space.

Well I think the number of astronauts, starting with Armstrong, who have said that it is totally black out there should ring some alarm bells, but the masses are too busy with other stuff to even think about it. From Earth orbit, when looking away from Earth, nothing is visible. This is well known by the USA, Russia, and the Chinese and Japanese, and India too no doubt, so there is a conspiracy of silence.

If I were in space somewhere between Earth and Mars, and photons of sunlight were reaching my eye at about 400 to 700 nm wavelengths on the EM spectrum, why wouldn't my eye detect those photons, while if I were on Earth my eyes would detect EM wavelengths of 400 to 700 nm reaching it?


What's different about that 400 to 700 nm EM radiation in space that makes it unable to be detected by the receptors in a human eye?

Photons are a tricky subject, nobody knows what light really is, though the spiral E/M packet model might be the closest to reality. The EM radiation travelling the vacuum is not the type our eyes can detect due to the nature of the wavefront of the radiation. Our eyes can not focus it, and Hubble uses complex optics including gratings and phase plates and special software and processing to enable it to be able to create an image that makes any sense to our eyes.

If not sunlight, then what about a light bulb? Would light from a flashlight be visible if I shined it in my eyes in space? If not, then why not?

Of course a light bulb would be visible for the same distance that it is on Earth. If you use a parabolic reflector the light is visible for a much greater distance, as with the tracking lights they had on the Apollo missions. The light is of the type our eyes can focus, waves if you like, and not the spirals that are what travel through space until they interact with matter.

upload.wikimedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

And for OBM, the full moon is not visible from outside of the atmosphere at visible wavelengths and there is no proof that it is, your attempts to find me a photo of ANYTHING other than the Earth from cislunar space have failed completely because there is nothing to see. That is why there has never been an amateur telescope in space, the optics of an off-the-shelf telescope, as with our eyes, can not focus the wavefront.
Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
www.drewexmachina.com...

originally posted by: GaryN
And for OBM, the full moon is not visible from outside of the atmosphere at visible wavelengths and there is no proof that it is, your attempts to find me a photo of ANYTHING other than the Earth from cislunar space have failed completely because there is nothing to see.

Uh-huh - how do you explain the Soviet images of a nice full lunar far side (no earthshine there)? Or indeed near - Zond 8's are particularly good:

mentallandscape.com...

Or Lunar Orbiter's images:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Photographed by a camera onto film and complete coverage of the lunar far side where there is no Earthshine.

Or the multiple Apollo images taken from lunar orbit, or the photographs of stars that I have repeatedly referred you to on my own website:

onebigmonkey.com...

Particularly Apollo 15's image of Saturn, Venus and Mars in the same shot, and Apollo 17's images of Jupiter.

That is why there has never been an amateur telescope in space, the optics of an off-the-shelf telescope, as with our eyes, can not focus the wavefront.
Vintage Micro: The Amateur Space Telescope
www.drewexmachina.com...

No it isn't. Read the article properly. The issue wasn't the inability to see stars, it was the lack of a space vehicle.

And once again, Armstrong's comments about black skies in cislunar space does not mean there are no stars. He specifically mentioned them during the mission, as you well know.

All of these have been pointed out to you many times. Your inability to comprehend them doesn't mean they aren't true.

originally posted by: GaryN

Of course a light bulb would be visible for the same distance that it is on Earth. If you use a parabolic reflector the light is visible for a much greater distance, as with the tracking lights they had on the Apollo missions. The light is of the type our eyes can focus, waves if you like, and not the spirals that are what travel through space until they interact with matter.

upload.wikimedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

That doesn't really help me.

Forget the parabolic mirror in the flashlight; what about just an incandescent light bulb? In fact, let's remove as many variables as possible to simplify the question...

...If I were suddenly transported into space, naked, and with a battery-powered incandescent light bulb in my hand, and I were to look at that light bulb, would I (for the fleeting few moments before dying) be able to see the non-polarized/non-zero orbital angular momentum light of the glowing filaments of that light bulb? Also, would I be able to see light from that bulb lighting up my hand (reflecting from my hand back to my eyes)?

If not, then why not?

If yes, then why would I see the EM wavelengths of light from the light bulb (somewhere between 400 and 700 nm wavelengths of EM radiation), but NOT be able to see (according to you) the same 400 and 700 nm wavelengths of EM radiation of the Sun? What's the difference?

a reply to: GaryN

Well I think the number of astronauts, starting with Armstrong, who have said that it is totally black out there should ring some alarm bells, but the masses are too busy with other stuff to even think about it.

Actually this is what he said...

In an August 12, 1969, Apollo 11 post-flight press conference, astronaut Neil Armstrong states, "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."[6][7] Stars were visible with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

At least quote him right.

You couldn't see them from the daylight side because of the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
At least quote him right.

You couldn't see them from the daylight side because of the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

True.

And Michael Collins (who orbited the Moon while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lit surface) unambiguously said that he could see stars while on the night side of the Moon. He said that he couldn't recall how many stars were visible on the daylight side, but he was clear about the night side.

In his autobiography "Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys," Collins wrote about his experience as the command module passed behind to the night side of the Moon, and left him in complete isolation (not even able to communicate with Earth for some of that time, due to the Moon being in the way):

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation.

I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

So Michael Collins did see stars. Not when the brightly lit Moon was mostly in his field of view, but he did when his eyes were in darkness.

NASA Got Sick of all that Conspiracy Thing and Released over 10,000 Photos from the Apollo Moon Mission

Dunno if its old news... but i hope this will put the critics to rest!

originally posted by: combatmaster
NASA Got Sick of all that Conspiracy Thing and Released over 10,000 Photos from the Apollo Moon Mission

Dunno if its old news... but i hope this will put the critics to rest!

I think almost all (if not all) of those images had been released to the public before, but that collection is the first time NASA has ever officially put them all in one place (and sorted) on the web before.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Indeed.

As the owner of that particular archive has said, all he was doing was collecting high resolution images from various places and making a more organised collection from them. It isn't an official NASA archive. All of the photos have been on the web for many many years and in print for decades before that.

originally posted by: Box of Rain
Forget the parabolic mirror in the flashlight; what about just an incandescent light bulb? In fact, let's remove as many variables as possible to simplify the question...

It should also be pointed out that a parabolic reflector would still not affect the orbital angular momentum (OAM) of light (the "spirals" as Gary N called it). The light would need to pass through a polarization filter and/or a diffraction grating to affect its OAM. So the light coming from the flashlight with parabolic reflector still has an OAM.

originally posted by: awareness10
The Moon is located in the 4th Dimension. No stars multiple shadows facing different directions. Creepy..

Correct you are; space is the 4th dimension as any point in space without mass can be zero(no need for an x or y axis that depend on having mass) and it expands at all depths or 3D Z axis's simultaneously where mass forms spherical in nature as everything tries to achieve an atomic equilibrium... it's just natural though not really creepy... although it's action may be "spooky at a distance".