Apollo Hardware Spotted!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
I could send you a photo of the golden spike from 1865 and I am sure I would impress you more.

I doubt it, but as I have no idea of what you are talking about, can you send me that photo? At least it could help me to understand why you think that would be more impressive. Thanks in advance.

It would be a picture of something we could both understand.

Does that mean that you do not understand the Moon photos? Is that it? Or do you not understand the idea behind taking those photos?

I guess your image is one of the moon from the LRO I don't see you mention that.

Does that mean that you did not read the first sentence?

I take these subjects seriously.
I have walked the wing tip of a U2 in the nam over forty years ago.
My dad sank Nazi subs almost 70 years ago and my younger brothers are still employed today trying to make this country better (the USA) and stronger.

Now is my turn to say "so what?"

.For the money son that photo is meaningless.

I think that the problem is that this mission (the LRO, and more specifically the LROC) was not made to show the Apollo landing sites, it looks like they thought of using it thinking that it would help convince some people that they really went to the Moon (it shows that they do not know ATS

), so they used the intermediate phase, before the start of the real data gathering mission, to show those places.

Considering that those photos are just an added "bonus", the money spent with them was very little when compared with the cost of the whole 12,000 GB of photos they are expecting to get from the primary mission.

NASA is the largest crap photo gallery I have ever seen. Period.

Then why do you keep on looking?

First let me say that the glass is always half full.
I look for and strive for better.
This thread is about Hardware on the moon.
I have seen none.
You should get on board with me and others to shake some bucks out of the Congressman's pants pockets so NASA can get some equipment capable of satisfying the intent of this thread.
I see from one of your previous posts you are not native born.
correct me if I am wrong.
The "Golden Spike" comment was an attempted example of early photos.
It was taken in the 1860's the day the trasn continental railway was completed.
North American Continent! Home of NASA!
Sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Pfft and you've done pretty well to prove hardware and structures yourself, haven't you mini me Exuberant1?

[Busted] NASA Tries to Conceal Lunar Structures?

[Exposed] Apollo image Indicative of Lunar Structures?

It seems photos from NASA are good enough when it suits your agenda huh?

reply to post by Exuberant1


Woooo what the blankety blank is that?
Is it a Hardware?
LROC image?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Yuppers.

I got it from NASA's LRO site.

The enlargement is from this LRO image of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site and descent stage of the LM.

Apollo 15
www.nasa.gov... :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4419a10898b8.jpg[/atsimg]

Evidence Enlarged:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a288171b375.jpg[/atsimg]




[edit on 8-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


How many times did you 'zoom' that photo?

Could you please use your incredible expertise to show us a GoogleEarth photo that is 'zoomed' in equally as much, for comparison?

Is it not true that ANY digital photo taken at a certain resolution will pixellate when 'blown up' too far?????

Because, wouldn't it occur with a picture, zoomed in too much?

You know this, surely. Why are you playing these games? Think it's funny???

Should I add about a dozen laughing smileys to make my point?????

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

How many times did you 'zoom' that photo?

This is the image NASA provided us with.
(Find them here - www.nasa.gov...)


You are upset that they don't contain the proof you were waiting for....

The descent stages of the all of the LMs look like this ( ).

Too bad for the NASA-huggers. Ah well, I guess we'll have to wait for the next probe.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

How many times did you 'zoom' that photo?

This is the image NASA provided us with.

You are upset that they don't contain the proof you were waiting for....

You didn't answer my question. You dodged. Common tactic of mini-exuberant.

You knowingly took the NASA image, one that is already at the optimal resolution, and intentionally messed it up, by pixellating it. I asked you, how many times was it 'zoomed' to get that effect? Asking again, because you refuse to answer, as it will reveal you as the charlatan you are.

As to "proof", only knuckleheads can't understand the preponderance of corroborating data, images, hardware, personal accounts, lunar samples...etc...that already overwhelmingly show the reality of Apollo.

The LROC images, being still only preliminary, are irrefutable to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty is their body.

My other question, also unaswered, is why do you continue to play this silly game?? DO YOU THINK it's funny?? Or, do you enjoy appearing foolish?







[edit on 8 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Are you sure that is the right cluster of pixels?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
All I am trying to make understood here is that the LRO camera could be better than it is.
It is possible!!!!!

Yeah they could put 100 new hasseblads and hotwire them together. Who would pay for it then, you? That would increase the size of the probe dramatically and the expenses would go to heavens. Since the mission is more than accomplished with the current one that would raise a storm amongst those who decide the budget (congress). The camera that it currently has is very good quality.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


I think it is that frustration of us common folk that tends to push us to be Devil's advocate.....You see I have frequented hardware stores for about sixty years.
I was attracted to this thread to see some hardware.
I have seen none.

Why is the concept of relative size and camera resolution at distance foreign to you???

Let's see if this will help your perspective: There is a grayish/blackish colored SUV parked on a grayish hillside that is in your view from your front porch, but it's about 80 kilometers away. It's a BIG SUV, roughly the same size as the LM descent stage. It has a few panels of gold bling, but they're mostly on the sides not facing you directly.

Can you see this thing with your naked eyes?? Probably not, so you use a telephoto lens, givng you a better look, because you want to take its picture. Now, you have to compromise, because lugging a big, expensive, heavy camera and telephoto lens up to your front porch is difficult, because your house is up a steep, steep hill. (I'll ignore the fact that the LROC camera is also moving at several hundred km/hr, since that's not reproducible in my Earth example.)

Anyway, using the best lens you can afford, and be able to carry up to your porch, you get a picture of the SUV, but again, it is so far away, and small, you get what you get....and if you wait for early morning or late afternoon, you'll get a nice long shadow to help you spot it.

Now, if you wanna wait, I'm getting a line on a surplus Star Fleet type-A shuttlecraft, and I am making a short list of ATS members to take on the trip to see the "hardware" that is so darned important.....

Until then, you're not going to see the smaller details of the Apollo equipment, just as you won't see the smaller details of the SUV on the hillside.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
This thread is about Hardware on the moon.
I have seen none.

Yes, you are right, we cannot see anything clearly identifiable as "Apollo hardware" in those photos, only "pixel clusters" that are not much different from other "pixel clusters".

You should get on board with me and others to shake some bucks out of the Congressman's pants pockets so NASA can get some equipment capable of satisfying the intent of this thread.

Sorry, I cannot do that, and I don't think the congressmen will be impressed by a Portuguese asking them to give more money to NASA.

And in this sentence you showed what is the problem, the intent of this thread is not the intent of the mission, the mission's intent was never to show that the landing stage from the Apollo missions is still there, so most people will not get what they want from this mission because this mission has not that intent.

I see from one of your previous posts you are not native born.

I am native born, only a native born Portuguese.
I am Portuguese, born in Portugal.

correct me if I am wrong.

Always.

The "Golden Spike" comment was an attempted example of early photos.
It was taken in the 1860's the day the trasn continental railway was completed.
North American Continent! Home of NASA!
Sorry for the confusion.

I thought it could be that "spike" but, as a Portuguese, it means nothing to me, so I could be wrong.

Photos from another planet are more important to me than photos of historical events that, although important, were not even the most important of their time.

In the same way I don't find important photos from the launches or from the splash down, or the photos with the astronauts and the president, etc, etc. To me, a photo of some rocks on the Moon is much more important, specially if we can see something that helps identifying how that rock was created.

PS: I posted it yesterday on another thread, but I think I could post it also, the mission objectives for the LRO camera.

1) Assess meter- and smaller-scale features to facilitate safety analysis for potential lunar landing sites near polar resources, and elsewhere on the Moon.
2) Acquire multi-temporal synoptic imaging of the poles every orbit to characterize the polar illumination environment (100 m/pixel scale), identifying regions of permanent shadow and permanent or near-permanent illumination over a full year.

The other six "high-value data sets" are:

3) meter-scale mapping of regions of permanent or near-permanent illumination of polar massifs;
4) multiple co-registered observations of portions of potential landing sites and elsewhere for derivation of high-resolution topography through stereogrammetric and photometric stereo analyses;
5) global multispectral coverage in seven wavelengths (300-680 nm) to characterize lunar resources, in particular ilmenite;
6) a global 100.0 m/pixel basemap with incidence angles (60-80°) favorable for morphologic interpretations;
7) sub-meter imaging of a variety of geologic units to characterize physical properties, variability of the regolith, and key science questions;
8) meter-scale coverage overlapping with Apollo era panoramic images (1-2 m/pixel) to document the number of small impacts since 1971-1972, to ascertain hazards for future surface operations and interplanetary travel.

Source

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Are you sure that is the right cluster of pixels?

Yes.

I am quite sure.

You may check for yourself with the image linked to two posts back (www.nasa.gov... ) .

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Thanks, I already checked, by reducing your image.

The problem is that I wrote that, forgot to hit the "reply" button and only noticed after lunch, so I posted it more than 30 minutes latter than I wanted. At that time there were already several posts that made it noticeable that it was the right bunch of pixels.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
What you are saying is--- in order to appreciate NASA imagery, you should be of the brain surgeon caliber.
You see that leaves a whole lot of people just sitting around in the waiting room.

Hospitals don't do CAT scans that the people in the waiting room can interpret, and NASA doesn't send a probe to the Moon just so the average citizem can see Apollo hardware. LRO was sent there so the people at NASA could find new landing sites for the next wave of Moon Astronauts (among some other mission goals).

So I guess it's off to med school for me.
Oh wait. I will just donate that money directly to the NASA imagery department instead.
Then they can get a better camera and then everybody can get into the OR with you.

The camera is good -- almost as good as the commercial satellite imagery circling the Earth right now. It's the best camera ever sent to the Moon and one of the best cameras ever sent beyond Earth's orbit. I think it's second only to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's HiRISE (ngchunter -- is that true?)

More importantly, it's good enough to carry out the scientific mission it's supposed to do. Anything more would have been a waste of money. I want my tax dollars to be used by NASA efficiently (or as efficiently as we can hope from any government organization )

I want my NASA tax dollars spent on science and manned space exploration. I don't want my tax dollars spent on cameras that are much better than they need to be just to show me "pretty pictures" of Apollo hardware. A pretty picture of Apollo sites would be a nice bonus, but I don't want them building a camera specifically for that purpose.

[edit on 8/8/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I am not ngchunter but yes, only HiRISE has a better resolution, but it also has a bigger telescope, after all its orbit is at an altitude of 300 km while LRO will orbit at 50 km.

I also think that I have read somewhere that the camera is made in the same way as the one on HiRISE.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The enlargement is from this LRO image of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site and descent stage of the LM.

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to enlarge the Apollo 15 site to such ridiculous levels? It wouldn't have anything to do with it being at a lower resolution than the other four sites would it?

Why not enlarge the Apollo 14 site at least? It has a better resolution (1m/pixel vs 1.5m/pixel). Although, I know with the trails leading from the LM to the ALSEP and back make it more challenging to deny.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ad2d7ebb9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ArMaP
I am not ngchunter but yes, only HiRISE has a better resolution, but it also has a bigger telescope, after all its orbit is at an altitude of 300 km while LRO will orbit at 50 km.

I also think that I have read somewhere that the camera is made in the same way as the one on HiRISE.

Thanks!

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The enlargement is from this LRO image of the alleged Apollo 15 landing site and descent stage of the LM.

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to enlarge the Apollo 15 site to such ridiculous levels? It wouldn't have anything to do with it being at a lower resolution than the other four sites would it?

Why not enlarge the Apollo 14 site at least? It has a better resolution (1m/pixel vs 1.5m/pixel). Although, I know with the trails leading from the LM to the ALSEP and back make it more challenging to deny.

Yes -- the path made by the walking astronauts to the ALSEP instruments is very clear and obvious.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Yes -- the path made by the walking astronauts to the ALSEP instruments is very clear and obvious.

The path could have been photoshopped in afterward - just like the LM. The 'tracks' could even have been created with an unmanned rover or from the Earth with lasers from White Sands (SELENE Project).
And apparently only the Apollo 14 astronauts left tracks anyways...

But you believe whatever makes you comfortable.


Edit: Hehe, Photoshop - more like MS paint.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Yes -- the path made by the walking astronauts to the ALSEP instruments is very clear and obvious.

The path could have been photoshopped in afterward - just like the LM. The 'tracks' could even have been created with an unmanned rover or from the Earth with lasers from the White Sands (SELENE Project).

You know i gotta ask what would that rover look like a bunch of boots attached to a wheel? Oh and let us not forget the lasers Being able to hit the moon and leave footprints my god you cant be serious. Ive seen some of your posts i know your smarter than that please lets try to remain in the real world shall we!

Originally posted by dragonridr


You know i gotta ask what would that rover look like a bunch of boots attached to a wheel?

Do you see any clearly distinguishable boot prints in this image?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ad2d7ebb9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

No, there aren't any boot prints.