LROC: First look at the Apollo landing sites

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f425090bfe48.png[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8622df0b5bc2.png[/atsimg]

LROC: Apollo Landing sites

It's what people have been waiting for...will it be enough? These resolution images are usually enough to convince some that there are bases all over the Moon. Will it be enough to convince them that we really have been to the moon? Let's see...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Kandinsky


Great! let see...

- Those are not real images of course, how can we know those are not CGI?
- Obviously, they placed those object there beforehand, they had 40 years to do it after all!
- I can't see anything, it could be a lot of things, why i have to believe those tiny, almost invisible objects are ours?

And so on..

Pick one

By the way, thanks for the pics, S&F.

Kai

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Kaifan]

Add: the link is not working for me, some strange characters on the url..



[edit on 17-7-2009 by Kaifan]

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) on board the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) was afforded its first of many opportunities to image the six Apollo landing sites July 11 through 15 with its high resolution Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs). These early images show the Lunar Module descent stages left behind by the departing astronauts. LRO’s current elliptical orbit (40 x 199 km), with the low portion of the orbit (perilune) over the south pole, resulted in image scales near the equator ranging from 1.0 meter per pixel (Apollo 16) to 1.4 meter per pixel (Apollo 17) (3.3 feet and 4.4 feet respectively).

LROC's First look at the Apollo Landing Sites

The forthcoming images of other Apollo sites should help to focus people on what matters...current exploration. The 'hoax' theories detract from what those and other missions have accomplished.

ATS beats the MSM to the news again

NGCHunter's thread that got there first.

reply to post by Kaifan
You make some good points...people will see what they want to. We all do it. Some guys post pixellated proof of bases and cities...some believe and some don't. The media has caught up and is using terms like 'definitive proof.' In two years, we'll still be discussing if the Apollo landings happened....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/543647d8b7f6.jpg[/atsimg]

God bless technology, this is a JUMP
I already see what is going to be written: the images are faked etc.
Well, i won't be a part of the discussion that will take place about the alleged Moon Hoax. Because mankind has been on the moon, PHYSICALLY. So have fun with it but without me: i don0t just believe but KNOW that we have been there.
Thanks

How about that foot print trail.
Guess von Braun's rockets are the only way to travel.

reply to post by internos


To really KNOW that we were PHYSICALLY there are you implying you have been there yourself?

I believe we went....with ET help. They mixed real with fake photos to confuse everyone. They even perpetrated the hoax themselves. Think layers of an onion.

Are these pics real? Hell I don't know - what do you think?

Originally posted by Kaifan
Obviously, they placed those object there beforehand, they had 40 years to do it after all!

This may be my favorite one. The contradiction is astonishing; they'll claim we never went to the moon but somehow managed to place things out it to reinforce the hoax. Uh huh...

Originally posted by Kaifan
- I can't see anything, it could be a lot of things, why i have to believe those tiny, almost invisible objects are ours?

But this is a close second. The same people who will claim they can see a factory in a blur, telling you what kind of operations go on there or a city in a smudge, telling you the exact population, will tell us they can't see anything.

reply to post by Kaifan


www.nasa.gov...

that link works...

here are full resolution links

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Kaifan
Obviously, they placed those object there beforehand, they had 40 years to do it after all!

This may be my favorite one. The contradiction is astonishing; they'll claim we never went to the moon but somehow managed to place things out it to reinforce the hoax. Uh huh...

Originally posted by Kaifan
- I can't see anything, it could be a lot of things, why i have to believe those tiny, almost invisible objects are ours?

But this is a close second. The same people who will claim they can see a factory in a blur, telling you what kind of operations go on there or a city in a smudge, telling you the exact population, will tell us they can't see anything.

What's funny is the skeptics and debunkers that cry foul over small - illegible images of "UFOs" - yet when the shoe is on the other foot - they claim lo resolution images as 'proof'. Tad hypocritical if you ask me

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by internos

 

They mixed real with fake photos to confuse everyone. They even perpetrated the hoax themselves. Think layers of an onion.

Are these pics real? Hell I don't know - what do you think?

This is a hard work at NASA...
But sometime, something, slipped out!

Will somebody explain to me why we have such crappy images...STILL....

For somebody that is on the fence about issues like this....these images, IMO do not clarify anything....

Originally posted by Overload
Will somebody explain to me why we have such crappy images...STILL....

For somebody that is on the fence about issues like this....these images, IMO do not clarify anything....

Thats from a guy that cant tell when google earth uses pictures from aircraft

The LRO wasn't sent up to PROVE they landed on the Moon 40 yrs ago was it BUT lets just say if all the landing sites have evidence of Apollo missions that match with photos taken of the terrain on the missions it is sort helps does it not along with the fact we have proof that all the other hoax objections no stars ,the shadow problems,the flag waving etc are bull cookies,we went there its that simple.

Myself and others on here have posted many time re this mission and the resolution of the cameras max 0.5mtr/ pixel
so if you guys aren't bright enough to work out what the images might look like thats not our problem!

[edit on 20-7-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by wmd_2008]

Why are you able to see footprints in one picture, but I see no rover tracks.

I was going to match them up with the videos and see if they matched.

I guess a footprint is bigger than a rover track

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Why are you able to see footprints in one picture, but I see no rover tracks.

I was going to match them up with the videos and see if they matched.

I guess a footprint is bigger than a rover track

Thats what I was thinking. If they are giving us these photos, where are the rover pics? The rovers them selves are large enough to show up, espeically if their lowly 'footprints' do...So the tracks would definatly show up.

That would really give us the ability to match things up with the videos.

reply to post by breakingdradles



yeah i was looking for rover tracks too , rovers were on apollo 15,16 & 17. But i cant find the frickin landing sites on the hi res pictures. Better to look at a wider peice of ground the rover travelled quite far especially on apollo 17. Tracks may be visible in other areas.

Who knows maybe theres just a bigger contrast in colour of the dust at the A14 site or its deeper or something :/


[edit on 20-7-2009 by yeti101]

Yeah, they did this on a soundstage somewhere.



The ceiling must have been higher than the Sears tower.

For the record, I am a "fence-sitter" regarding Moon Landing Hoax. (That is how I found ATS over 2 years ago.) Everytime I take one-step forward, believing how we went there, I am forced to take two-steps back considering new theories or NASA's admission regarding 'losing' original tapes of telecast.

I am hopeful the final orbit and enhanced resolution pictures can put this to rest for me.

Below is a down and dirty overlay I did with an image from OP and another layout of A11 landing site. At least, in this case, NASA is consistent.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b65209a0e91.jpg[/atsimg]

Overlay Source

( Zorgon made some compelling arguments regarding the poor quality of the initial pix as compared to Google Earth images in another thread.)

[edit on 20-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by wmd_2008



Lets get something strait here...

If I were to take the exact same image resolution and try to "prove" something was on the moon be it a craft or structure or whatever....It would get debunked because of lack of image quality, and people would say it could be anything.....

So now NASA is using the very same image quality to "prove" the landing sites and I am supposed to believe that is good enough????

I am not saying we went there or not, what I am doing is merely pointing to the bar in which something can be proved. In all fairness, for somebody to say this image quality is good enough to prove NASA was there, but the very same image quality is NOT good enough to prove things are on the moon is ridicules.


[sigh]

Edit: Nasa is using these images to prove..... or rather confirm


[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Overload]

reply to post by Overload


no these pictures arn't out to prove anything. There is much better photo/movie evidence from the time to prove we landed on the moon.

this is what the LRO is there to do.

The LRO objectives are to finding safe landing sites, locate potential resources, characterize the radiation environment, and demonstrate new technology

not prove we landed on the moon.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by yeti101]