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

Maybe some one would know this.
Are there comming and going frames of the lro images?
Or live feed images?
Why is there not a zoom attachment to the camera?

Originally posted by contemplator
I love the missing wheel tread marks in this pic. Maybe they picked it up, carried it to the spot and sat it down

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Try looking at photo AS16-116-18579 (the photo that was taken two frames after that one). The astronauts must have disturbed the soil directly behind the rover, but the tracks farther back are clearly visible.

Here is that picture with arrows indicating the visible tire tracks:
CLICK ON THE LINK TO THE PHOTO TO SEE THE WHOLE IMAGE
LINK TO PHOTO: files.abovetopsecret.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6ec5174f15b.jpg[/atsimg]


[edit on 7/27/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted 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

So...

Tracy's Rock is about 15 feet tall, and the base of Apollo 17's LEM is about 15 feet tall, and they are both casting equally long shadows.

Why are people not convinced that the base of the landers would in fact cast long shadows?



[edit on 7/27/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Maybe some one would know this.
Are there comming and going frames of the lro images?
Or live feed images?

Not really live, but as available:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...=pane&category=atlas

Why is there not a zoom attachment to the camera?

I suspect the stock answers generally given are:

1. Weight (Zoom = more glass)
2. The MAIN purpose of LRO was NOT to provide images as much as other forms of data.

You can read more about mission objectives and cameras here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu... (see pg 7)

reply to post by kinda kurious

This is true, kinda kurious.

I suppose a zoom lens or ultra-high-resolution "spy-satellite style" camera could have been added (at great expense), but no matter how good the camera was, someone would invariably say "why isn't it better?"

Others (and you) have stated -- but it bears repeating -- LRO's mission is NOT to take ultra-clear pictures of the Apollo sites to appease the hoax proponents. LRO's mission is to investigate the areas of the Moon to which NASA will be sending the next manned missions.

Those areas of interest are the poles (namely the South Pole) because parts of the poles are actually in sunlight all the time -- which is important for manned missions lasting close to two weeks.

That mission of LRO does not require being able to make out the lunar landers' legs in great detail. The photographic detail that the LRO's mission requires is less than that.

40 years later and they're throwing us this garbage? FUDGE off already!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
40 years later and they're throwing us this garbage? FUDGE off already!

They photographed something the size of a pick-up truck from orbit. I think that's pretty good.

I really love that some people are complaining that the resolution is too low and that nasa should take higher resolution pictures. For what purpose would they do that? The cameras high res enough for what they want to do so why would they spend thousands/millions more to get a better camera, just to put this theory to rest. I mean if nasa were actually bothered about disproving theories people have about them then they'd never get anything done!

Originally posted by Bluebelle

I really love that some people are complaining that the resolution is too low and that nasa should take higher resolution pictures. For what purpose would they do that? The cameras high res enough for what they want to do so why would they spend thousands/millions more to get a better camera, just to put this theory to rest. I mean if nasa were actually bothered about disproving theories people have about them then they'd never get anything done!

I invite you to swim out into the deep end of the logic pool.

1. This is a 'conspiracy' form.

2. NASA is notorious regarding credibility issues.

3. NASA finally admitted it "lost/recycled" original videotape of the first moon landing. (Ineptitude)

4. The newest version of the proposed Orion craft is far from a reality.
(It has been projected to potentially shake the astronauts to death on lift-off.) You'd think they could use some of the old data and technology to build upon. But, it has a few bugs:

www.gaetanomarano.it...

(SPECTACULAR VIDEO = EPIC FAIL)
gizmodo.com...

www.space.com...

www.alternatehistory.com...

www.redorbit.com...

5. Tax payers (i.e. the US Public) fund NASA. We are accustomed to
wasteful government. I'll gladly approve a million of my tax dollars for a big-honking Nikon to know for sure.

Regards...KK



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

reply to post by kinda kurious


Apollo had its share of failures, too.

1963 September 6
Apollo CM boilerplate destroyed during tests
At El Centro, Calif., CM boilerplate (BP) 3, a parachute test vehicle, was destroyed during tests simulating the new BP-6 configuration (without strakes or apex cover). Drogue parachute descent, disconnect, and pilot mortar fire appeared normal. However, one pilot parachute was cut by contact with the vehicle and its main parachute did not deploy. Because of harness damage, the remaining two main parachutes failed while reefed. Investigation of the BP-3 failure resulting in rigging and design changes on BP-6 and BP-19.

linky

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Why is there not a zoom attachment to the camera?

Zoom lens are very complex, and in a situation in which they have to control the temperature of the lens, a lens with many elements and moving parts would be much more difficult to make and much more easily affected by the temperature changes (for example).

reply to post by kinda kurious


Discussing conspiracies and theories doesnt mean its acceptable to just lose the majority of common sense in the process.
I just find it a little silly that some people seem to think that the reason the pictures arent at a high resolution like google earth is because nasa is trying to hide something. If they didnt want people to see anything then they wouldnt just tease people with pictures that could be something, but cant be confirmed either way.
And to be honest, the fact that they havent taken higher resolution pictures just goes to show they dont really give a toss whether people think its a hoax or not... and why should they?
Plus, nasa are obv going to have more pressing issues than disproving this whole hoax thing. And while you might be happy for them to spend a million + for a better camera (I would too if I lived in the US), the vast majority of people wouldnt.

Another thought as well... there really would be no need to have high res pictures of the moon at the moment. Think how much money they would spend getting a new camera, taking the pictures etc.. just for us to look at a place that is basically just a few cliffs and some craters!

Originally posted by Bluebelle
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Discussing conspiracies and theories doesnt mean its acceptable to just lose the majority of common sense in the process.

Yes 'wild' theories should not be considered unless they have a shred of common sense. (I am certainly glad that Galileo and Copernicus didn't subscribe to that notion.)

Another thought as well... there really would be no need to have high res pictures of the moon at the moment. Think how much money they would spend getting a new camera, taking the pictures etc.. just for us to look at a place that is basically just a few cliffs and some craters!

A few cliffs and some craters.

Caution: Beware of money scams in the form of Nigerian officials who promise you millions to emigrate to your country.

Regards...KK

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

reply to post by kinda kurious


Oh yes, I meant apart from the moonbases, spacecraft refuelling points and theme park of course.


Well what reason would nasa possibly have to take high res pictures of the moon so its more on the level of google earth? The pictures they have taken are good enough for what they are doing so why bother taking even better one's just to disprove a theory.
And as someone else said, even if they had taken better one's, people still wouldnt be satisfied. The rocks that had previously been thought of as being man-made would be shown to be just rocks. And then people would just move onto scrutinizing smaller rocks which arent in high enough detail to determine what they are. Honestly it would get to the point where people would be like 'hey guys look at this picture of the moon, is that a teaspoon?'

Originally posted by Bluebelle
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Discussing conspiracies and theories doesnt mean its acceptable to just lose the majority of common sense in the process.
I just find it a little silly that some people seem to think that the reason the pictures arent at a high resolution like google earth is because nasa is trying to hide something. If they didnt want people to see anything then they wouldnt just tease people with pictures that could be something, but cant be confirmed either way.

Are you for real? The NASA misinformationalists like Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy are writing articles in Discovery Magazine saying it's "Proof" we landed on the moon. Now you are going to have the majority of the uneducated who just believe anything these misinformationalists tell them without checking it out themselves... so they are going to be "Oh so we did go...." and ridiculing anyone who still says we didn't go. That's exactly what NASA want.

Originally posted by Bluebelle
And to be honest, the fact that they havent taken higher resolution pictures just goes to show they dont really give a toss whether people think its a hoax or not... and why should they?

So you think NASA giving us more grainy images is further proof they really don't care about the hoax? Nice thinking..... how about it's grainy because they are covering it up and they know even fuzzy dots and shadows on a screen would be enough for some NASA sympathisers to start coming up with whacky theories like "This shows NASA don't give a toss about the hoax".

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Plus, nasa are obv going to have more pressing issues than disproving this whole hoax thing. And while you might be happy for them to spend a million + for a better camera (I would too if I lived in the US), the vast majority of people wouldnt.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe most of the world would not want NASA to go to the moon with a High Definition camera.... and finally take those images and videos we never got to see 40 years ago of what the moon really looks like? It's the cosmic equivalent of taking a camera down to see how the titanic looked in 1914... Nothing will have changed. Hell they could even sell the High Definition footage on Blu-Ray and half the world would buy a copy.... would probably pay for the mission itself. Are you seriously telling me the vast majority of people would prefer the LRO orbiting the moon taking fuzzy images instead? Riiiiiiiight.

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Another thought as well... there really would be no need to have high res pictures of the moon at the moment. Think how much money they would spend getting a new camera, taking the pictures etc.. just for us to look at a place that is basically just a few cliffs and some craters!

As above. Bull#. Most of the world would want to see High Resolution images of the moon.... the lunar module etc. It would probably be the first time since the Space Shuttle launched that the general public would actually be excited for a mission.

For you to think otherwise is just you trying to justify in your own mind why NASA aren't doing it.

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

Just for grins, I've been researching the new Orion.

Here is a prototype for new "Rover-type truck" being tested in Moses Lake, Washington.

I have simply converted Color image to B&W. Wow those rolling hills in background
are impressive and so is dirt.

Source: www.orionspacecraft.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4b154d2a659.jpg[/atsimg]

I don't know anything about Moses Lake, but will research.

Yeah I know, grasping at straws.

Regards...KK

EDIT TO ADD: corresponding video & article.




Article: Nice quotes about similarity to lunar surface.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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??

Flooding the boards? Look who is talking how do you get time to flood every single Moon thread? Let others get a chance to post, man. Your arguments are most of the time as good as the next guy's, you post links of pictures ON EARTH to explain...

You explained the missing rover tracks (not 3 times?) by linking some pics of a car in mid-air
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And what with all the !!!!! in that post, desperate much?

Interesting picture, unfortunately it really seems to show nothing, there are probably a hudred similar shadows on the moon that create the same sort of shadow,

I'm pretty sure there are telescopes availible that would be able to see close ups of the landing sites.

Anyone know where to find coordinates of any landing on the moon?

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?

PPP?

Hey, steady up....

That's one of my all time favourite threads!

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


It has been said many, many times, there is not telescope, on Earth or in orbit, that has the capability of showing the Apollo landing sites with anything close to the LRO photos released by NASA.

Wikipedia is a good place to start looking for information about the different landing sites of the Apollo missions or of other unmanned missions.