View Full Version : LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites
One of the pics
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg
The rest at NASA
NASA Link (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html)
What's with the shadow for the LEM? Wrong side.
Lexion
07-17-2009, 02:52 PM
Shadow looks correct to me.
But....all I see are specks.
Blind,
Lex
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 02:54 PM
The shadows are fine. Imagine the sun is off to the left of the pic at a low angle.
But where's that awesome crystal clear imaging like what we've seen up until now?
/facepalm
Left? should be on the right as the shadows are to the left.
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 03:00 PM
No, sir.
Shadows cast within a crater are cast by the lip closest to the sun. The side furthest away from the sun would be lit up, depending on the angle of the sun at the time.
Now look at that image again.
Lexion
07-17-2009, 03:01 PM
Sun from the left.
Near side of the craters
are in shadow.
Far side is lit.
Lex
boycotteverything
07-17-2009, 03:01 PM
But where's that awesome crystal clear imaging like what we've seen up until now?Oh well- you caught em again. It's all just fakery. You and John go have a beer now and toast to your debunks.
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 03:03 PM
... or it could be that NASA did a shitty resize.
Perhaps that was a bit too dry for you.
Just seems like too much light on the floor, I could see the side being bright.
Glad we spent millions on this as we sure got our money's worth. I guess the tax payers deserve to watch the gov go broke. A bit dsappointing.
boycotteverything
07-17-2009, 03:32 PM
... or it could be that NASA did a shitty resize.
Perhaps that was a bit too dry for you.Oh shit, man. You and John have it your way. And- have lotsa fun!
pack3tg0st
07-17-2009, 05:17 PM
Friggan Awesome!
Of course.. this won't deter the "omfg it was faked" crew...
the LROC has 3 cameras... 1 wide angle (down to 100m resolution) and 2 narrow angle (down to 1 meter resolution).
Wonder if there are plans to snap photos of the apollo sites with the narrow angle cameras...
THAT would be fascinating... then, you could SEE the fuckin' footprint!
http://www.partnerstwodlaprzyszlosci.edu.pl/astronautyka/obrazki/audycje/moon%20footprint.jpg
narrow angle (down to 1 meter resolution)
When bigfoot made his lunar landing.
Even at 1 meter, how can they point out a science package that most likely was less than a meter in size (ok, just my guess).
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 06:27 PM
narrow angle (down to 1 meter resolution)
When bigfoot made his lunar landing.
Even at 1 meter, how can they point out a science package that most likely was less than a meter in size (ok, just my guess).
BE still doesn't get the joke, but oh well.
The OP picture is obviously the 1m camera. I'm guessing that the white blotch they indicate as the science package is mostly a reflection, which is what enabled it to be imaged at all. They knew what that white spotch was because they knew where they left it in relation to the lander.
The "no landing"-tards must be just shitting themselves. Anyone notice if they have commented yet?
EDIT: Nevermind, I just saw Pack's thread.
narrow angle (down to 1 meter resolution)
When bigfoot made his lunar landing.
Even at 1 meter, how can they point out a science package that most likely was less than a meter in size (ok, just my guess).
BE still doesn't get the joke, but oh well.
The OP picture is obviously the 1m camera. I'm guessing that the white blotch they indicate as the science package is mostly a reflection, which is what enabled it to be imaged at all. They knew what that white spotch was because they knew where they left it in relation to the lander.
The "no landing"-tards must be just shitting themselves. Anyone notice if they have commented yet?
EDIT: Nevermind, I just saw Pack's thread.
just for you cog......"Yawn"..........whats to comment on? .....good to see their Box Brownie still working :roll:
pack3tg0st
07-17-2009, 07:19 PM
Are you a moon hoaxer Kiwi?
GhostOfCaptSpaulding
07-17-2009, 07:24 PM
When bigfoot made his lunar landing.
[attachment=0:340uxpe5]mk_davis_pgf.gif[/attachment:340uxpe5]
Big Foot on the Moon (the far side...)
Are you a moon hoaxer Kiwi?
I have serious doubts Pac,.................the US has lied to its people for decades, the Soviet threat?, the need to beat them into space? ..........read below, funny way of dealing with the competition, question is why?
Around the same time in the '60s and '70s, the West (or rather the United States and Germany) resurrected Edwin Gay's 1918 proposal to mellow the Bolsheviks, and this proposal now became "bridges for peace" to provide a rational explanation for the massive transfers of Western technology that were required to fulfill Soviet programs. The United States appears, in historical perspective, to have been almost desperate in its attempts to help the Soviets in space. Of course, if the Soviets did not succeed in space, there could be no "competing" American space program and many politicians, bureaucrats, and politically oriented scientists were determined — for their own good reasons — that there had to be a major American space effort. There also had to be U.S. assistance for the Soviet space program.
In the ten years between December 1959 and December 1969, the United States made eighteen approaches to the USSR for space "cooperations."
In December 1959, NASA Administrator R. Keith Glennan offered assistance in tracking Soviet manned flights. On March 7, 1962 President Kennedy proposed an exchange of information from tracking and data-acquisition stations, and on September 20, 1963 President Kennery proposed joint exploration of the moon, an offer later repeated by President Johnson. On December 8, 1964 the administration proposed an exchange of teams to visit deep-space tracking and data-acquisition facilities. On May 3, 1965 NASA suggested joint communications tests via the Soviet Molnlya I. On August 25, 1965 NASA asked the Soviet Academy of Sciences to send a representative to the Gemini VI launch, and on November 16, NASA inquired about joint Molnlya I communications tests. Four U.S. offers were made in 1966; in January NASA inquired about Venus probes; on March 24, and May 23 Administrator James Webb suggested that the Soviets propose subjects for discussion; and in September Ambassador Arthur Goldberg again raised the question of tracking coverage by the United States for Soviet missiles.
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 08:43 PM
If you don't believe the United States went to the Moon, why even believe that the Soviets were as advanced as they claimed?
Why weren't they just faking it to make themselves look better than the United States?
There's no end to that logic.
There's equal proof of the claims made by both nations.
If you don't believe the United States went to the Moon, why even believe that the Soviets were as advanced as they claimed?
something smell fishy?.....relax, its just the red herrings thawing out 8)
the moon shot was a cover?......for what?.... they desperately wanted to get into space, why?
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 09:11 PM
Because perhaps Kennedy saw the writing on the wall as far as the machinations of the military/industrial complex in Viet Nam and wanted to give them something else to do?
If you don't believe the United States went to the Moon, why even believe that the Soviets were as advanced as they claimed?
Why weren't they just faking it to make themselves look better than the United States?
There's no end to that logic.
There's equal proof of the claims made by both nations.
read a piece the other day (trying to find it :roll: ) which says the telemetry and all re-entry equations for one of the Russian missions , was done on a hand-held German calculator
you keep losing sight of the big picture Cog, it is proven,.....FACT...... without the USA having an enemy, a threat to the free west,...the vast rivers of cash needed to finance your "Defence" from the enemy you "Created" would not be available, and meantime, a select few powerful organizations are clipping both ends of the ticket, sell those "enemies" the know-how to fight, sell them the hardware to kill your own soldiers, then turn around and take US taxpayers money to provide a defence,.....
nice work if you can get it :)
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 09:19 PM
I'm going to employ one of BE's frequently used forum devices.
Because perhaps Kennedy saw the writing on the wall as far as the machinations of the military/industrial complex in Viet Nam and wanted to give them something else to do?
boycotteverything
07-17-2009, 09:21 PM
not bad
boycotteverything
07-17-2009, 09:23 PM
but i rather think that Jack Kennedy was attempting to refocus the human game. new frontiers and all that rot.... pip pip..
boycotteverything
07-17-2009, 09:24 PM
(christ- i loved that guy...)
Because perhaps Kennedy saw the writing on the wall as far as the machinations of the military/industrial complex in Viet Nam and wanted to give them something else to do?
what he thought doesnt matter,......the missiles to Cuba? you guys showed them how to build them, sold them the gear, then provided the transport
the US president has no power........Kennedy was no exception, its all a side-show, how can it not be when the behind the scenes actions of the industrialists are now common knowledge?
Cogburn
07-17-2009, 09:26 PM
but i rather think that Jack Kennedy was attempting to refocus the human game. new frontiers and all that rot.... pip pip..
Considering the man said quite plainly that he was going to oppose those things that comprise 70% of the topics on this forum... and then he was murdered...
... you get no argument from me or Occam.
Kennedy was a slut,............go Jack