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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 176
29
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

It's simply due to a lack of money. After Apollo, the US Government cut NASA's budget. The last three Apollo missions were cancelled, as were other future plans.
Yes, I am sure it was due to budget cuts, but somehow they persuaded the government to fund missions to other places. Why is that not odd to you?



Why would the VA belts fog up pictures? Or mess up with communications? As for causing chaos with electronics, that's what shielding is for. Their are many satellites that pass through the VA belts regularly and they continue to function normally.


It is well-known that there are high energy radiation particles that can easily move through the spacecraft. Why do x-ray machines use lead to shield the parts they do not want x-rayed if other shielding will do the job effectively?

I really dont think that NASA care too much if the lifespan of their astronauts is shortened by a few years because they have been subjected to un-researched space radiation. They probably believe they are government employees and as such are disposable for the greater good.



jra

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
Yes, I am sure it was due to budget cuts, but somehow they persuaded the government to fund missions to other places. Why is that not odd to you?


What's odd about wanting to explore other parts of our solar system?


Why do x-ray machines use lead to shield the parts they do not want x-rayed if other shielding will do the job effectively?


What do X-rays have to do with the Van Allen belts? Different kinds of radiation require different types of shielding.


I really dont think that NASA care too much if the lifespan of their astronauts is shortened by a few years because they have been subjected to un-researched space radiation. They probably believe they are government employees and as such are disposable for the greater good.


That's a baseless statement unless you have something to back it up with. Why the need to paint NASA as some soulless/evil entity?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

What do X-rays have to do with the Van Allen belts?
Different kinds of radiation require different types of shielding.
But... all seem to be stopped by various amounts of lead shielding I think.


That's a baseless statement unless you have something to back it up with. Why the need to paint NASA as some soulless/evil entity?
I dont 'need' to paint NASA in any way, everyone makes up their own mind what kind of organisation they are. It is you who interpret my comment as soulless and evil. What I was giving was a personal opinion. It is well-known that military personnel are expendable where necessary. Astronauts are subject to doing what they are told otherwise they will be replaced with others who will. I believe NASA are doing what they have been told to do for reasons we dont understand.

There are media reported instances where it has ignored experts advice on safety issues on the shuttle launches. There is also evidence of NASA tampering with photographs, and otherwise altering information which rightfully belongs to the people because the people pay them to investigate space.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
But... all seem to be stopped by various amounts of lead shielding I think.

Actually lead is just about the least efficient way to shield against the particle radiation of the van allen belts due to excessive bremsstrahlung generated by particle collisions with lead. The higher the atomic number of the metal, the more bremsstrahlung you have to deal with. Fortunately, and not by coincidence, aluminum like that found on the skin of the command module has a very low atomic number.


There are media reported instances where it has ignored experts advice on safety issues on the shuttle launches.

That's negligance, but negligance does not imply intentional sabotage.


There is also evidence of NASA tampering with photographs, and otherwise altering information which rightfully belongs to the people because the people pay them to investigate space.

NASA does not tamper with photographs.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
Yes, I am sure it was due to budget cuts, but somehow they persuaded the government to fund missions to other places. Why is that not odd to you?

Cost of apollo:
23 billion
Cost of the mars rovers:
820 million

Need I say more?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

NASA does not tamper with photographs
Who are you kidding? This is definitely not true.

Are you telling me that the quality of the photographs we see as released to the public, is the quality that NASA get from the actual spacecraft?

No-one believes that - except you and all the other people paid by the government to say this kind of thing.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Cost of apollo:
23 billion
Cost of the mars rovers:
820 million
To be absolutely fair, we have to calculate what the Apollo figure would be in todays money. We have to take into account the full cost of the Mars trips not just the mars rover vehicles, and we also have to assess what is to be gained or lost from moving the focus of attention from the Moon to Mars and the rest of the planets.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo

NASA does not tamper with photographs
Who are you kidding? This is definitely not true.

It should be easy for you to prove your claim then. Good luck.


No-one believes that - except you and all the other people paid by the government to say this kind of thing.

Oh goodie, where can I pick up my check?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
To be absolutely fair, we have to calculate what the Apollo figure would be in todays money.

LOL!!! Ok, have it your way, I was being overly-generous by NOT giving the figure adjusted for inflation. Here you go, in today's money it would be more than $135 billion. Thanks for making my case stronger.


We have to take into account the full cost of the Mars trips not just the mars rover vehicles,

That is the full cost of the mars trips, delta launchers, operations and all. 820 million.


and we also have to assess what is to be gained or lost from moving the focus of attention from the Moon to Mars and the rest of the planets.

Considering how little we knew about mars and the other planets before apollo ended compared to now, we gained quite a lot. To me though, this part of the sentence is a throwaway excuse to try to obscure the real issue, which is that Apollo was far, far more expensive than the unmanned mars missions.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Are you telling me that the quality of the photographs we see as released to the public, is the quality that NASA get from the actual spacecraft?
I guess you are accepting that this is true then?

If you do not accept this is true, then they are withholding information from us that is rightfully ours (since we paid for it). There are plenty of examples of NASA not releasing the full resolution photographs and I would say that a JPG format picture is great for an overview but cannot be studied properly due to the compression of that format. I think you know this anyway and you are just arguing for the sake of argument.

On another subject, it always seems strange to me how some of the 'processing' takes so long and some is really quick.

I agree that the cost of a manned space trip is a lot, but I am sure that the salaries of the scientists managing the various aspects of the rovers are not included in these calculations.

The humans on a manned space trip can perform experiments much better than a mechanical robot, and they can use their brain to figure out and solve on-the-spot-problems. Of course, you still need the ovens, analysers, etc



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo

Are you telling me that the quality of the photographs we see as released to the public, is the quality that NASA get from the actual spacecraft?
I guess you are accepting that this is true then?

That's not the original claim you made, which was that NASA tampers with photographs. There's a difference between offering reduced images as opposed to tampering with images. You swapped claims mid-stream, I'll kindly ask you to not do that again.


If you do not accept this is true, then they are withholding information from us that is rightfully ours (since we paid for it).

Wrong. It is the rightful property of the researchers who analyze the data until they are done, so that they get first dibs on all research publications made from that data. Those researchers are typically from universities outside of NASA and once a set time period has passed those images are released to the public. Mission imagery is often released right away, unless those images are going to be useful in forthcoming research publications. Hubble's useful research data, for example, is in images, so those images are the sole property of the investigator for a set period of time. AFTER that time it becomes public information released as the raw fits files as well as reduced publication sized files:
archive.stsci.edu...
If you're looking for other raw images from other spacecraft you should use ISIS:
isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov...


There are plenty of examples of NASA not releasing the full resolution photographs

That's not "tampering" - you switched claims mid-stream. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Your original claim:


There is also evidence of NASA tampering with photographs, and otherwise altering information which rightfully belongs to the people because the people pay them to investigate space.

I don't see anything in there limiting your claim to offering jpgs as opposed to raw files. In fact, I wouldn't classify compression as "alteration" because that indicates deliberate manipulation designed to change the image's appearance, such as additions, subtractions, or other manipulations. Compression, by design, is supposed to retain the original appearance of an image as much as possible. If I posted an image to flickr as a jpg I'd be pretty unhappy if someone claimed that I had "altered" the image before posting it. Incidently, NASA is very good about releasing the raw images from their missions, you just have to not be too lazy to get the software necessary.


I agree that the cost of a manned space trip is a lot, but I am sure that the salaries of the scientists managing the various aspects of the rovers are not included in these calculations.

Yes, they are. That falls under "operations" cost which I previously mentioned. As a scientist I can vouch for the fact that our salaries are a tiny fraction of the overall cost of doing research, particularly when compared to upfront equipment costs.


The humans on a manned space trip can perform experiments much better than a mechanical robot, and they can use their brain to figure out and solve on-the-spot-problems.

Again, you're trying to side-track the issue, which is sheer cost. A given unmanned mission is only a fraction of the cost of a manned mission, it's not so incredible therefore that we haven't done manned missions to mars yet as you originally claimed.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I really did not want to get into the argument of the tampering too much, but there ARE plenty of examples if you care to look for them.

Marsanomalyresearch web site Report 152 has good examples of hills and rocks being duplicated and even shadows of the lunar module not being removed from the copy. That is so obvious that you cannot miss it. (somehow I dont think you are likely to look at this though)
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

The mars Opportunity & Spirit pictures from the marsrovers site
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
are such bad quality that there is no way that a NASA scientist could possibly steer a vehicle on another planet from looking at these. You cannot see much detail in them and details are what stops the rovers going over a cliff or getting bogged down.

The argument that the photographs need to be analysed by the scientists and researchers first is fine - except that there are still tif photographs that have not been released after 40 years from the lunar orbiter missions. Some of the pictures dont have .tif images as downloads and others do. I suppose you will say that they were damaged in transit?

Honestly, I feel that some people are so entrenched in their own beliefs and training that they do not examine the evidence in front of you. Many of the lunar orbiter mission photographs contain images of habitation and settlement and you just have to spend a little time looking for it. After doing that, no-one could say that we(or someone) have not got to the moon yet.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

I wouldn't classify compression as "alteration" because that indicates deliberate manipulation designed to change the image's appearance, such as additions, subtractions, or other manipulations.
Well, as a researcher, I am looking for good quality images of the Moon/Mars/whatever and I would say that a photograph that has been compressed does not show the detail necessary to properly analyse the contents of the image.

AS far as I am concerned, NASA's intent is to show a photograph which is lacking in sufficient detail to be analysed properly. This is evident by the fact that some higher definition pictures are released to the public and some are not. If this was not their intent, then they would release all the higher resolution photographs along with the compressed JPG pictures. There are many that people (eg: Richard Hogland) have requested but are 'missing' or 'unavailable'.

Compression IS designed to alter the image as part of the compression algorithm and it DOES subtract a great deal of detail and add a large number of lines and other compression artifacts.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Cost of apollo:
23 billion
Cost of the mars rovers:
820 million

Need I say more?


Dont forget to factor in the GNP of 69 vs 09 into that equation and see exactly how much of that yearly 11 billion + budget could be used to return to the moon after 30+ years.

NASA's budget for FY 2008 was 17.3 Billion


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 14-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
Marsanomalyresearch web site Report 152 has good examples of hills and rocks being duplicated and even shadows of the lunar module not being removed from the copy. That is so obvious that you cannot miss it. (somehow I dont think you are likely to look at this though)
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Of course you don't want to get into your tampering claim, that's why you dodged it and switched claims. I figured that already.

Not likely to look at it? LOL, I've already seen this claim and completely destroyed it on other forums. Marsanomalyresearch, well there's your first mistake, trusting that website for anything. The panoramas on that page are compositions made from a series of hand-held shots made while the astronaut rotated in one spot. David Harland, an author and space historian not affiliated with NASA, created the panoramas from those shots. NASA had nothing to do with it. The duplications and other errors are a result of the panoramic stitching process and are not present in any of the original images.



The mars Opportunity & Spirit pictures from the marsrovers site
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...
are such bad quality that there is no way that a NASA scientist could possibly steer a vehicle on another planet from looking at these. You cannot see much detail in them and details are what stops the rovers going over a cliff or getting bogged down.

How many cliffs have the rovers gotten close to? Please tell me that you're aware the rovers also have their own onboard AI for detecting hazards as they drive and can override the operator commands if a problem is detected. The images provided are all at the original resolution, sorry if it's not good enough for your taste, but I have a close friend at JPL who worked with those CCD sensors and I can vouch for their true 1024x1024 resolution.


The argument that the photographs need to be analysed by the scientists and researchers first is fine - except that there are still tif photographs that have not been released after 40 years from the lunar orbiter missions. Some of the pictures dont have .tif images as downloads and others do. I suppose you will say that they were damaged in transit?

LOL! How old is the tif image format buddy? I'll give you a hint, it's a lot newer than 40 years. What's happening now is that they're finally getting around to digitizing all the old photographs into high resolution tifs that were transmitted back to earth in analog format. Did you really think I'd fall for that claim?


Honestly, I feel that some people are so entrenched in their own beliefs and training that they do not examine the evidence in front of you.

The feeling is mutual.


Many of the lunar orbiter mission photographs contain images of habitation and settlement

Wow, brand new claim, are you sure you want to delve into that when your previously claims have so many problems?

[edit on 15-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by ngchunter
Cost of apollo:
23 billion
Cost of the mars rovers:
820 million

Need I say more?


Dont forget to factor in the GNP of 69 vs 09 into that equation and see exactly how much of that yearly 11 billion + budget could be used to return to the moon after 30+ years.

NASA's budget for FY 2008 was 17.3 Billion

As was pointed out to me, in today's money it would cost 135 billion. Additionally, NASA was tasked with building and flying a reuseable space shuttle after apollo. How were they supposed to do that AND maintain apollo on their budget?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo

I wouldn't classify compression as "alteration" because that indicates deliberate manipulation designed to change the image's appearance, such as additions, subtractions, or other manipulations.
Well, as a researcher, I am looking for good quality images of the Moon/Mars/whatever and I would say that a photograph that has been compressed does not show the detail necessary to properly analyse the contents of the image.

That wasn't your original problem. I just gave you a link to a tool that any true "researcher" should already have for using raw images from the various missions, including the rovers. You should now be able to open the uncompressed images, but the resolution won't be any greater and I dare say you won't be able to get much more "detail" out of it, probably only more dynamic range at best.


AS far as I am concerned, NASA's intent is to show a photograph which is lacking in sufficient detail to be analysed properly.

I just gave you the tools for the raw images. You find the raw spirit and opportunity images, though I haven't messed with those much myself, I'm more of a hubble raw images kinda guy. Here's the link to the raw Spirit and opportunity data:
pds-geosciences.wustl.edu...
Knock yourself out.


This is evident by the fact that some higher definition pictures are released to the public and some are not.

Wrong.


Compression IS designed to alter the image as part of the compression algorithm and it DOES subtract a great deal of detail and add a large number of lines and other compression artifacts.

The point of good compression is not to alter the image. Altering implies deliberate manipulation and you know it.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
It seems as if we are not going anywhere with this branch of the discussion. Thanks for the useful links anyway.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 

I hate to beat a dead horse, but if my links are useful to you, doesn't that prove that NASA DOES provide the raw images you sought?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Mickey, considering that photos taken in 1969, from the surface of the moon, lasers which regularly measure the exact difference between the earth and the moon by bouncing off mirrors installed in 1969, and video of our astronauts while on the moon haven't put this to rest, how would new pictures really help?


you mean this
?
cuz to me it's REALLY small~!



but, i'm sure they took coordinates to get EXACT x,y.. considering the moon rotates and all, and well, since the mirror is static and doesn't seem to be a mechanical one, which would compensate for the angle of the beam used.....to fire from the Earth to the moon

Or... they could just use a telescope to locate the REALLY small mirror.
located 384 403 kilometers / 238 856.950 41 miles from the earth.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join