Modest New Moon Images Leave NASA Elated... really?

Don't worry about the members in denial on this thread (yes always the same ones) - we know better.

The footage was very very very average for ..what year is it now...?...2009!

They NEVER give reasons why they do these low res images - they attempt to baffle you with their BS and make you look the other way - it's a NASA thing.

They should be ASHAMED with their recent pathetic images - and it's good people are actually talking about this more openly now - don't ever back down to those in denial or those with a clear agenda. Keep on them. keep demanding why the crap recent images for 2009.

All you have to do is youtube people who have gone to the effort and taken their own footage and images of the moon to CLEARLY see NASA are holding back sooooooooo much it is laughable now.

reply to post by LunarLooney1


You claim people are calling you 'ignorant? here's why:

...the pictures they show you after having them for months and fixing just the way you like them.

Now....please tell us again when the LCROSS/LRO mission launched from Earth. OK? We're waiting.....

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow

They should be ASHAMED with their recent pathetic images -

YOU should be ashamed at perpetuating, nay, applauding the continuation of this ignorance.

HOW MUCH CLEARER do people have to make it so that you, and Looney, can comprehend??

Do you know anything about photography? Do you understand the concept of focal length? If not, then I suggest there are plenty of places you can research and learn.

I'll try to make this easy....maybe too many people nowadays are so used to "point and shoot" or 'auto focus' cameras that they really, truly can't understand.

Dig out your trusty SLR manual camera...like my Minolta, for instance. Frame your subject, say you take a portrait from six feet away. Adjust focus. NOW, without touching the focus, point the camera at something 600 feet away. Know what you'll see? A lot of blurry image, might be artsy-fartsy, but won't be sharp detail.

Follow on, and imagine your camera focus adjustment is limited, in that it CANNOT focus to infinity, because your desire doesn't include the need for that capability. NOW you can achieve even better close-up results, because your camera is specialized, and will perform better than an 'all-purpose' camera.

Or, just continue to wallow in a pool of muddy insignificance, it's your reputation that's at stake.

Originally posted by LunarLooney1
Really? I can only laugh at your closed-minded respoce. You really believe they were testing the camera? I can take a clearer picture from here on Earth with my cheap equiptment. And so my question has been already answered when I asked for responces from "intelligent ATS members." NASA designs their strories front page for the nieve and gullable, now again I'll ask for intelligent responces from those who are not fooled by NASA's cover story.

You're obviously not one of the "intelligent ATS members."

It's response, not responce. It is naive, not nieve. It is equipment, not equiptment.

You're making us Pennsylvanians look bad. Stop it. I'll bet a million dollars you live in the T.

Anyway, NASA has better things to do than waste their time trying to make headlines. They have better things to do than to prove to a civilian, who knows nothing about jet propulsion or space flight, that they went to the moon. Why do we send a probe up there? Safety first.

reply to post by Schmidt1989


A civilian that pays taxes to a company that in all meaning of the words "tax payer funded" are actually working for that very civilian.

NASA have a lot to answer for - Jim Oberg for one

Repeat after me: NASA work for the civilians.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

A civilian that pays taxes to a company that in all meaning of the words "tax payer funded" are actually working for that very civilian.

NASA have a lot to answer for - Jim Oberg for one

Repeat after me: NASA work for the civilians.

Haha, Jim Oberg? Love his work, but theres nothing between him and NASA that makes me ever question anything. Like I said, NASA has better things to do with thir time, and Jim Oberg is big enough journalist who can write what he wants, when he wants.

He is one of the people responsible for my decision to major in journalism in college.

NASA doesnt HAVE to show you anything! And if I worked for them right now, I wouldnt show you either, with that attitude, OP, you sound like a spoiled brat! I want what I want WHEN I want it.
Sure, they have pictures that none of us will probably ever see, if you want to see them, then get a degree and go work for them. They sure arent going to waste their time on some drivel crap.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Don't worry about the members in denial on this thread (yes always the same ones) - we know better.

The footage was very very very average for ..what year is it now...?...2009!...

Yes. the footage was very average -- and that's because LCROSS is not equipped with a hi-res camera -- and that's because its mission does require a hi-res camera.

Putting hi-res on LCROSS would be a big waste of taxpayer money and would not enhance its mission (i.e., it would have been stupid to include one) -- and as a taxpayer, I'm happy they did not include one.

Did you really expect to see hi-res images from a non-hi res camera?


...and as I said in another post -- Taking pretty pictures was NOT the primary purpose of the fly-by. The purpose of the fly-by was to get a gravity assist from the Moon to put the spacecraft in the right orbit for impacting the Lunar South Pole in October.

The other spacecraft -- the LRO -- has the super hi-res camera, not the LCROSS.

By the way -- I found it quite interesting to be able to watch a live "video" feed (1 frame/sec) of the far side of the Moon. I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


[edit on 6/26/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

A civilian that pays taxes to a company that in all meaning of the words "tax payer funded" are actually working for that very civilian.

NASA have a lot to answer for - Jim Oberg for one

Repeat after me: NASA work for the civilians.

NASA Mission Statement
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond.


NASA Vision
To understand and protect our home planet, To explore the Universe and search for life, and To inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can.

Do you see anywhere in their mission statement where it says provide cool screen savers? As far as the camera it is designed to work at a designated altitude just like are spy satellites they don't have the satellite change lenses then you deal with possibility of failure of focusing mechanism. In space exploration the simpler the better. When this hits its proper orbit they will get some amazing pictures. All i see here is a couple of people trying to say there is a conspiracy without even having enough common sense to know how photography works!

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

A civilian that pays taxes to a company that in all meaning of the words "tax payer funded" are actually working for that very civilian.

NASA have a lot to answer for - Jim Oberg for one

Repeat after me: NASA work for the civilians.

NASA Mission Statement
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond.


NASA Vision
To understand and protect our home planet, To explore the Universe and search for life, and To inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can.

Do you see anywhere in their mission statement where it says provide cool screen savers? As far as the camera it is designed to work at a designated altitude just like are spy satellites they don't have the satellite change lenses then you deal with possibility of failure of focusing mechanism. In space exploration the simpler the better. When this hits its proper orbit they will get some amazing pictures. All i see here is a couple of people trying to say there is a conspiracy without even having enough common sense to know how photography works!

If I were a moderator I would've applauded that.

GREAT post. Thank you.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
They NEVER give reasons why they do these low res images - they attempt to baffle you with their BS and make you look the other way - it's a NASA thing.

Oh really? And what have Phage, ngchunter, Kandinsky weedwhacker and SGiP all been trying to explain here? The reasons why the images aren't high res.

The only ones who are trying to baffle us with BS are the ones who continue to spread there ignorance and refuse to even try to understand why the probes and the equipment work the way they do.

So where can I get the images that have been called "classified" on the Moon?

Is there a reason for images of the Moon being "classified"?

I know I should bow and scrape to the almighty NASA and their eternal efforts to bring us commoners the best they can do!

Oh those classified images are DoD, not NASA? That means NASA is in the clear due to the fact the Moon is owned by them, and they can explode or do whatever they want to their Moon - because after all we work for NASA nott he other way around.

By the way what about the UFO in the recent Moon flyby...how come they never explained that? Oh maybe it's "classified". I mean what would commoners like myself need to know about what they know about 'their' Moon?

Actually I challenge anyone that works for NASA to a debate on this site:

The topic " Do NASA Lie?"

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Actually I challenge anyone that works for NASA to a debate on this site:

The topic " Do NASA Lie?"

Or... DoES NASA lie? If we can take a second to appreciate the English language.

Anyway, why all the hate on NASA? Or have you forgotten that there is an ESA, CSA, JAXA, CNSA, AEB, BNSC, ISRO, RKA, etc.

The list really goes on. Why would all the world's space programs hide all the same information?

reply to post by Schmidt1989


No that's fine you can have Does NASA lie?,

I'll stick with DO NASA LIE?

So no takers I guess? Jim? Jim?

Edit to add the definition of the word "LIE" because you're such a wiz with words:

"lie
1  /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
Use LIE in a Sentence
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
Origin:
bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE lēogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON ljūga, Goth liugan

Synonyms:
1. prevarication, falsification. See falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms:
1. truth."


[edit on 26-6-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

Of course NASA tells porkies, the trick is knowing when they are lieing and when they are telling the truth. Does NASA lie.. . Do NASA lie. . ! Is this really what you've been reduced to?
With this level of debate it's no wonder they getaway with deceiving us. . .

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Of course NASA tells porkies, the trick is knowing when they are lieing and when they are telling the truth. Does NASA lie.. . Do NASA lie. . ! Is this really what you've been reduced to?
With this level of debate it's no wonder they getaway with deceiving us. . .

I am too human and I agree with you. My emotions seem to be getting the better of me - sorry about that. frustration.

But I'll still debate

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Schmidt1989

 

No that's fine you can have Does NASA lie?,

I'll stick with DO NASA LIE?

So no takers I guess? Jim? Jim?

Edit to add the definition of the word "LIE" because you're such a wiz with words:

"lie
1  /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
Use LIE in a Sentence
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
Origin:
bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE lēogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON ljūga, Goth liugan

Synonyms:
1. prevarication, falsification. See falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.

Antonyms:
1. truth."

[edit on 26-6-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

I don't know if lie is the right term and say more like misinterpret data. NASA for now is at the top of space exploration.Every other space agency on the planet likes to disprove NASA latest contender in this fight was India trying to prove NASA was wrong about there climate data.

Trust me if any space agency out there could prove NASA wrong they will. The United states isn't the only country thats taken photos of the moon and soon we wont be the only country thats been to the moon. Contenders currently are china and India and even japan has talked about it , china will go India still iffy. As for your distrust of NASA thats fine but in reality they are not the only source of information merely the only one you seem to know about.

There are tracks on the moon that looks like a potato.
Some times with an added e for the Vice Presidents.
And this Mars Mission will do what.
Not into space exploration but will work on earth form more than potatoes.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


What Mars mission?

We are talking about a Moon mission.