Probe pictures Moon landing sites

Well,
They are still getting results from the retroreflectors placed on the Moon by at least three of the missions, 11, 14 and 15 as part of the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment which had its beginnings going back to 1962. By default the measurement readings are known to come from an Apollo landing site.
There is some confusion in that NASA does appear to use a Apollo 18 mission as part of Apollo/Soyuz projects, but they were not Moon landings, never-the-less it is called Apollo 18, and there were cosmonauts aboard Soyuz 19 both missions were simultaneous and they docked with each other.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

scroll down through the missions.

Gibson,

I think you missed his sarcasm there buddy...

It amazes me how we still discuss radiation as a reason we couldn't go to the moon. "The cameras couldn't work up on the moon" or "the astronauts would have fried".

We've send probes to Jupiter, which puts out so much radiation a human being would be cooked. Yet those probes worked fine. So why is it so impossible that we were able to create items that could survive the moon? Why is it SO impossible to think people landed on the moon? We've landed probes on moving asteroids. We have people up in the space station. Human beings have done space walks.

But land someone on a rock near earth? Absolutely impossible. Everything is a lie.

reply to post by DerekJR321


Absolutely! And Van Allen himself said that the radiation in the belts is survivable in the doses experienced by the Apollo crews.

reply to post by ioweagle


I'm rather indifferent to the moon landing conspiracy. There seems to be several reasons to fake it at the time yet there are several compelling pieces of evidence that we did land on it... namely video, audio, and eye witness accounts. So when I say this, keep in mind that I say this with no bias towards any particular side:

If these were pictures titled "proof of aliens", debunkers would have came on here already and said it was "photo artifacts", "tricks with lighting", or "Pareidolia". Just saying that these pictures don't look any better than many I've seen of crazy moon bases with fluffy space bear caves.

Again, I have no opinion and have no reason to not believe in these pictures, I just want you to look at them objectively and ask yourself what your opinion would be if you were told it was alien artifact evidence.

I never had much of an opinion on whether or not the moon landings were faked.There have been some movies which I have to admit people swear by. There is the hoax theory that the flag moved so it couldnt be the MOON.
In 1997 NASA said there was an atmosphere on the moon with an air comparable to 13,oooft here on earth. A few have climbed Everest without O2 assistance.

If you care to and can find on pdf (or pay $300). Look for the book "Penetration" by Ingo Swann... he tells of quite a tale that is presented as believe it or not....give it a read..then tell me what you think...then tell me if you change your mind about the moon....what I want to know is What is it that changed their minds about occupying it. Water you say was a problem.....hummmmm how does water get into the tank of an air compressor....water can be created out of thin air ...as that say....what did those guys see that made them stop

Thanks for posting OP but is that really the best pics NASA can take of the site??

Really?

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Kram09

The pictures clearly show the hardware left on the lunar surface by American astronauts in the 1960s and 70s, including Apollo 17's "Moon buggy".

No they don't.

If you can't see the Rover tracks or make out the Lander, you need a new computer I think

Being in denial is what I think most expect from the we did not land on the Moon crowd. No surprise here.

No kidding. Here we have orbiter pics that corroborate with surface pics, beautiful resolution, and yet...ATS says, "No." And THAT'S why ATS is not credible. Well, not ALL of ATS, but it gets pretty discouraging.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/829289a6900d.png[/atsimg]

Ground-based geophysics on the Moon

Only three/four geophones! Not going to be getting any decent resolution with those, but at least they made a start. also, i think back then they wouldn't have had wireless geophones so they would have had to deploy cables as well, and given time constraints etc, this makes sense.
Pretty cool how they created the seismic source.

reply to post by jimgibson10


top of the page on the left and and labled flag click it and you can flag or after flagging unflag the post if you so choose to star a post you click on one of the empty(not blue) stars and that will add a start to the persons post you like (note stars are located abvove each persons name and where as only one flag can be given you can start multiple posts in a thread that you agree with or what not hope i helped and ill be adding a star and flag for the op as well nice pictures alwas nice to see some history

can someone tell me why the shadow is off it the pictures? im 50/50 on the moon landing but i don't get why the shadow would move like this unless the pics was taking at different time maybe?

reply to post by ioweagle


Im curious if the items are still useable after all this time...

Hopefully this will also silence the "we've never been to the moon" contingent.

Nice find.

Originally posted by Fisherr
can someone tell me why the shadow is off it the pictures? im 50/50 on the moon landing but i don't get why the shadow would move like this unless the pics was taking at different time maybe?

That would do it! Shadows move on the Moon in the same way as they do on earth and for the same reason.

Originally posted by Fisherr
can someone tell me why the shadow is off it the pictures? im 50/50 on the moon landing but i don't get why the shadow would move like this unless the pics was taking at different time maybe?

why didn't you read the caption that went with the montage??

Figure 2. Resolution comparison between nominal orbit images of the Apollo 17 landing site (a, b) sampled at 50 cm, and the new low orbit image (c; 27 cm x 56 cm pixel size) sampled at 25 cm [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].

2 different sets of pictures - from high orbit, and comparing them with the "new" pictures from low orbit taken at a completely different time.

Shesh!

reply to post by Blaine91555


Thank you Blaine for taking the time and trouble to show the images, I have at times begun to wonder as to why we were never presented with good quality images, and now with these images taken at a lower altitude I have to say that this puts to bed the hoax discussions. Obviously it will start a whole new set of conspiracy theorists, but I don't care for that.

What's great is that we could lower the orbit to capture such good quality images.
I see footprints and tracks of the buggy.
Of course it could all be photoshopped, but I really don't think so: Other orbiters could now go to this location and take their own independent images... there's just no way that anyone would release images like this that were photoshopped because they lay themselves open if other orbiters take images at these locations.

What is of course very sad is that with the state of the economy - that it's unlikely that my kids will see live video footage of any new moon landings any time soon =(

askbaby OUT - and happy.

Can someone post the full resolution picture, or a link to it? I can’t seem to get it to work. I know they are large files, so ATS my not allow them to be hosted here, but even a link to the full res picture would be nice. Maybe it is my viewer software? But for some reason I can’t seem to get them. What software do others use to view the full size pictures on a PC?

Ive never doubted the moon landings, even for a moment.
If man didnt land there, then obviously some1 else did.
Nice find op.

Originally posted by jimgibson10

Originally posted by TomServo
Proof of Aliens!!! Cause humans sure didn't make those tracks! We cannot go to the moon. Humans cannot pass through the Van Allen Belt, because radiation will kill you, regardless of how much lead you have around you.

Wait, no, that's a fake picture....

Honestly though... I am fully confident Apollo missions went to the moon. My dad has been a NASA electrical engineer for 38 years. Note: we have had the 'moon hoax' conversation many times, and there is not a doubt in my mind. I digress, I do not believe our first pictures brought back from the moon are real. I believe many of the pics and videos were shot it a Hollywood studio. When they passed through the Van Allen Belt, all film was exposed and rendered useless. However, in the middle of the space race, you have to prove you were there, right?

edit on 6-9-2011 by TomServo because: (no reason given)

I think you'll find we can and have passed through the Van Allen Belt. This guy explains it very well and lists his references at the bottom of the paper. Read, learn and accept the truth.
www.wwheaton.com...

And the wikipedia entry on the Van Allen Radiation Belt
en.wikipedia.org...

To the O.P great find. As we can all see, it still doesn't satisfy everyone.

There we have it, beyond all doubt, the scientific common sense analysis in the first link, quote
"It has to be possible to go to the moon because we....all saw it on TV."
MuhahahWahahahahahahahaha.

That's a good proof.... because only human being can left so much garbage behind where it pass.

reply to post by Signals

is that really the best pics NASA can take of the site??

with the LRO yes. The cameras in orbit around mars & in orbit around earth are more powerfull.

The mission goals for the image camera were to be able to identify rocks bigger than 2 feet in diameter at potential landing sites. This camera acheives that goal beautifully. The mission goal was not to take the highest resolution images of the apollo sites to satisfy moon hoax conspiracy nut jobs.

The images of the apollo sites are just a by-product of the mission. But its always interesting to see them.