It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Firstly; there are over 3,000 satellites in orbit; yet you very rarely see ANY in NASA footage. Some say this is orbital heights; which is true to a certain extent; but not when you are looking outwards at the curvature of the Earth; where you should easily see these METALLIC REFLECTIVE OBJECTS in circular orbits. The space shuttle 'orbits' are relative to the orbits of the satellites; yet you don't see them.
How does the same part of the moon always stay facing Earth, if the moon is spherical? Is it not subject to the gravitational orbits of other bodies in the solar system? It should rotate; even if only slightly. But it never does. Just 'wobbles'; which means the side facing Earth is HEAVIER than the opposite side.
Like a bottom-heavy ship; sitting in a dock; moving with the motion of the waves, the lighter side is pulled around by the (so-called) gravity of the orbits; which gives the heavy bottom the wobble movement.
The Apollo 11 landing was received and broadcast; through a TELESCOPIC SATELLITE DISH located in Australia. The problem with this? Australia was on the EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD TO THE MOON at the time when they supposedly broadcast the signal. WTF right???
They say Australia was used because the other transmission system 'went down' and they had to go to Australia as a back-up. That's one HELL OF A BACKUP! Considering it was LITERALLY ON THE BACK! And couldn't be seen; let alone focus on the moon to receive a signal from it.
If they had transmitted through a (1960's) satellite network (which I don't believe officially existed at the time); then why would they transmit the signal around to the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD; and then back around to receive it in America?
It makes absolutely no sense that it originated from Australia. And I don't see any possible way to explain this; other than it was easy to FAKE the origin of a signal, by saying it came from Australia.
*(Time below is Sydney, Australia time. It was 6AM (the following day) when they landed on the moon. And around lunchtime when they went for a moonwalk.)*
One side of the moon always faces us. There are craters on the moon that are said to have originated from 'impacts' of meteorites, etc.
The problem with this? Is that most of them WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE LAUNCHED FROM EARTH FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE
That is of course unless they were able to pass THROUGH the Earth to hit the moon!!
The only way these impacts could possibly be 'impact craters' is if the moon originated ELSEWHERE in space; and came to Earth in (almost) the condition we see it in today.
APOLLO 11 - MISSING 89 SECONDS OF COMMUNICATION
HOUSTON ASK IF THEY CAN ADVISE WHETHER THE ILLUMINATION IS COMING FROM A SOURCE ABOVE, SHINING DOWN INTO ARISTARCHUS. OR WHETHER THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM INSIDE SHINING OUTWARDS.
THEY ADVISE THAT IT APPEARS THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM WITHIN SHINING UPWARDS.
AFTER BEING ASKED TO HOLD; HOUSTON ASKS IF THEY CAN TELL THEM ANYTHING MORE IN RELATION TO THE COLOUR.
THE ASTRONAUTS ARE CONFUSED FOR A SECOND BUT THEN UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING ASKED IF IT IS 'WHITE LIGHT'; OR IF THERE IS SOME COLOUR TO IT.
THEY ADVISE IT APPEARS WHITE.
AFTER A PAUSE HOUSTON ADVISES THEY WILL "CONTINUE WITH "DOCKING"'.
*(??? Docking with 'what' ???)*
BUT THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RONDO (RENDEVOUS POINT) 6.
*(??? Rendevous with who, or what ???)*
BUT THAT THEY ARE TO PROCEED AS IF WE WERE CONTINUING TO THE ORIGINAL SITE.
*PUBLIC FEED RESUMES*
originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
Firstly; there are over 3,000 satellites in orbit; yet you very rarely see ANY in NASA footage. Some say this is orbital heights; which is true to a certain extent; but not when you are looking outwards at the curvature of the Earth; where you should easily see these METALLIC REFLECTIVE OBJECTS in circular orbits. The space shuttle 'orbits' are relative to the orbits of the satellites; yet you don't see them.
originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
How does the same part of the moon always stay facing Earth, if the moon is spherical?
originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
Next thing which doesn't make sense?
The Apollo 11 landing was received and broadcast; through a TELESCOPIC SATELLITE DISH located in Australia. The problem with this? Australia was on the EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WORLD TO THE MOON at the time when they supposedly broadcast the signal. WTF right???
originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
And the most interesting thing which doesn't make sense???
One side of the moon always faces us. There are craters on the moon that are said to have originated from 'impacts' of meteorites, etc.
The problem with this? Is that most of them WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE LAUNCHED FROM EARTH FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLE
That is of course unless they were able to pass THROUGH the Earth to hit the moon!!
originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Wolfenz
Adaptive optics are NOT a filter it compensates for the turbulance in the atmosphere.
The mirrors can be flexed and adjusted to smooth out the effects of the atmosphere..
1. Why is adaptive optics needed? Turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere limits the performance of ground-based astronomical telescopes. In addition to making a star twinkle, turbulence spreads out the light from a star so that it appears as a fuzzy blob when viewed through a telescope. This blurring effect is so strong that even the largest ground-based telescopes, the two 10-m Keck Telescopes in Hawaii, have no better spatial resolution than a modest 8-inch backyard telescope! One of the major motivations for launching telescopes into space is to overcome this blurring due to the Earth's atmosphere, so that images will have higher spatial resolution than has been possible to date from the ground. The Figure below illustrates the blurring effect of the atmosphere in a long-exposure image (left) and a short "snapshot" image (center). When the effects of turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere are corrected, this distant star would look like the image on the right. Image credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and NSF Center for Adaptive Optics. Graphic can be obtained at the Center for Adaptive Optics, University of California at Santa Cruz, (831) 459-5592 or [email protected].
originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Wolfenz
Of course the Keck telescopes can do what you're saying.
Why?
Because you are talking about two telescopes that each have an aperture of 10 meters big. They are both 4.16 times bigger than Hubble. Which means their resolving power is better than Hubble's.
As wmd pointed out: each telescope's primary mirror is actually made up of 36 individual hexagonal shaped mirrors which are flexable and adjusted to counter the atmosphere.
No where in my OP did I say that Hubble is the most powerful telescope.