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: 92
29
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
the CIA releases pictures of SPYSAT pics of Soviet Bombers, thiese pics are far away


please tell us the exact distance - and what fraction that is of the earth~moon distance

also tell us the mass of a keyhole satalite is - it is not classified


, now if you don't think the CIA or NASA could do the same to show us the Moon Equipment


if you do not believe the evidence presented to date - why whoukld you believe a "new" image from the CIA or NASA ?




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by YASKY
the CIA releases pictures of SPYSAT pics of Soviet Bombers, thiese pics are far away


please tell us the exact distance - and what fraction that is of the earth~moon distance

also tell us the mass of a keyhole satalite is - it is not classified



Ooh! ooh! I know!

But I ain't sayin', because I'd like to see if YAKSKY even knows what "diffraction limited" means...

I will confidently assert that whatever laws the CIA may have violated, the laws of physics are not among them.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by disownedsky]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by YASKY
the CIA releases pictures of SPYSAT pics of Soviet Bombers, thiese pics are far away


please tell us the exact distance - and what fraction that is of the earth~moon distance

also tell us the mass of a keyhole satalite is - it is not classified


, now if you don't think the CIA or NASA could do the same to show us the Moon Equipment


if you do not believe the evidence presented to date - why whoukld you believe a "new" image from the CIA or NASA ?

I don't know, but what I do know is his post stated the closest that Hubble could look at is 300 feet, and there is nothing left by the Apollo Nuts that could be seen fron 300 feet, what I said/say is the C.I.A. has pics of Soviet Bombers from higher than 300 feet, that they zoom in on with Microscopes before taking a picture of it and then presenting it to the President, D.O.D. Pentagon, so all scince hubble can get even closer to 300 feet microscoping that and taking a picutre can sure enough show the "Leftbehind Appolo stuff" scince this is something that even I a civilian can figure out I know for a FACT NASA could think of this also, and there reason I believe NASA has not did this is because the Apollo missionS were FAKE FAKE FAKE, thats what I'm saying, and I'm not asking for new pictures, because I know those will be fake also, I also believe NASA has/is probably secretly going to the moon to place Apollo stuff there to "make it look like the Apollo stuff" from the 60's if the mission was real, from the beginning NASA would have show us every thing the sits I posted talked about, for NASA to come now and show us closer images, for me it's NASA trying to "Cover up' thier lies after all these "Moon Hoax" movies have burst the lies open, thats what I'm saying, you get it now.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   
As you can see here they have had Sats that could have found the L.M. on the moon years ago, the reason they haven't done it is because THEY NEVER WERE THERE!!



Former CIA Expert: It Can Be Done

According to an anonymous former CIA reconnaissance-satellite expert the KH-11 could easily be used for observing the moon or perhaps near-earth orbit asteroids.

"The focal ratio is fixed, so the 10 centimeter resolution it gets from 500 kilometers in space would have to be scaled to the distance of the observed object," he observed.

Given that the moon is around 400,000 kilometers (248,548 miles) away from the satellite, a quick calculation equates to a resolution of 80 meters on the moon.

"Basically the KH-11 is a diffraction-limited telescope of around 2.5 meters aperture. It's limited in looking at objects of low surface brightness, because it was designed to look at the sunlit surface of the earth. Tweaks to the pointing mechanism might get longer exposures, but there's a limit," the former CIA expert observed.

www.space.com...

[edit on 25-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Why should the CIA care that there are some people who think we never went to the Moon? And since they don't care, why would they spend the resources on this matter?

While we're at it, maybe the National Parks Service or the Food and Drug Administration could help the FBI find Jimmy Hoffa.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Do you really believe that 80 meter resolution (which I doubt given real-world attitude stability issues) is good enough to tell a lander stage from a boulder? I'll wait....



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I know how you can solve this conspiracy:
Try looking at the moon with a very strong telescope and see if you can find the flag the Apollo crew left behind.

I live next door (25 miles) to Kennedy Space Center so I know for a fact that we went to the moon.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647
I know how you can solve this conspiracy:
Try looking at the moon with a very strong telescope and see if you can find the flag the Apollo crew left behind.

I live next door (25 miles) to Kennedy Space Center so I know for a fact that we went to the moon.


Not a solution, as discussed above. You simply can't get the resolution.

Anyway, no solution required. There's nothing to resolve. the so-called Moon Hoax is a myth that has been busted six ways to Sunday.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647
I live next door (25 miles) to Kennedy Space Center so I know for a fact that we went to the moon.


One of my online friends lives in Colorado and is a lot closer to the Moon than you are, and therefore, he knows the real truth!


I know we are making better and better telescopes every year, so we'll have to keep your other suggestion in mind.

Meanwhile, here's a link on Resolution of a Telescope you might be interested in reviewing.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Do you really believe that 80 meter resolution (which I doubt given real-world attitude stability issues) is good enough to tell a lander stage from a boulder? I'll wait....

No kidding. Here's a pciture of my house taken at .3 meters/pixel resolution:



Here's the same geographical area, taken at 60 meters/pixel:



80 meter resolution would be even worse, obviously.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by nataylor]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by disownedsky
Do you really believe that 80 meter resolution (which I doubt given real-world attitude stability issues) is good enough to tell a lander stage from a boulder? I'll wait....

No kidding. Here's a pciture of my house taken at .3 meters/pixel resolution:



Here's the same geographical area, taken at 60 meters/pixel:



80 meter resolution would be even worse, obviously.

[edit on 25-7-2007 by nataylor]
What I am trying to explain to you all is, the CIA took satalite images from 1000-800 feet of Soviet Bombers, then they would use Microscopes to zoom in more, then they would snap the picture, before showing the President/DOD/Pentagon, now if the can do those 3 steps to show Bombers, from 1000/800 feet, how much more can be done by NASA using "Hubble" that can see up to 300 feet, all they'd have to do then is use the microscope and zoon in and snap a pic, to show the Apoolo stuff, i.e. Lunar Rover, and everything else they would have done this YEARS ago, but they reason they didn't is because THEY WERE NEVER THERE!!!!
BTW how many feet above ground is that .3 meters/pixel resolution?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKYWhat I am trying to explain to you all is, the CIA took satalite images from 1000-800 feet of Soviet Bombers, then they would use Microscopes to zoom in more, then they would snap the picture, before showing the President/DOD/Pentagon, now if the can do those 3 steps to show Bombers, from 1000/800 feet, how much more can be done by NASA using "Hubble" that can see up to 300 feet, all they'd have to do then is use the microscope and zoon in and snap a pic, to show the Apoolo stuff, i.e. Lunar Rover, and everything else they would have done this YEARS ago, but they reason they didn't is because THEY WERE NEVER THERE!!!!
BTW how many feet above ground is that .3 meters/pixel resolution?

[edit on 25-7-2007 by YASKY]


You are failing to explain it because, as you are demonstrating, you don't understand physical optics. A KH-11 is doing quite well to resolve 80 meters on the moon (I'd be impressed if they could do that). There is simply no more information in those images. They are two orders of magnitude away from the resolution they would need.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
You don't seem to understand how optics and imaging technology works. If I take a picture of someone's face, I can't put that photo under a microscope and look at that person's individual skin cells, for instance. There's only so much detail a photo (be it digital or film) can contain. In order to get high-resolution images of the lunar surface that would show the Apollo equipment, they would need to put the equivalent of a spy satellite into orbit around the Moon (which would be highly expensive). You can't point the Hubble, or any other telescope or imaging device on the Earth or in orbit around the Earth at the Moon and get pictures of the Apollo equipment. They simply can not see stuff that small from that far away.

Yes, the CIA and others have satellites that can take very high-resolution images of the Earth's surface. But they're in an orbit around the Earth at about 400km from the Earth's surface. The Moon is about 400,000km away. The only way to get high-resolution images is to get the optics closer to the Moon.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
YASKY,

I'm not sure what specific soviet bomber photos you are talking about, but if they were using microscopes, then possibly they were looking at actual FILM photos that were recovered froma re-entry vehicle (That's the way the used to get the spy photos back in the 1960's).

Film can be much higher resolution than digital media. Images from Hubble are transmitted digitally -- they are not film, thus as you zoom in, the best you will see are larger pixels. If, as you say, the Hubble can resolve the moon at 300' per pixel, then zooming in or looking at the photo under a microscope won't help -- the smallest thing you would ever be able to resolve will be 300' across, no matter how powerful of a microscope you are using to look at that photo (and even that would be difficult to resolve since 1 pixel does not provide much information.)

If Hubble used film, then NASA would probably be able to see more detail under a microscope.

The only other solution would be to put a satellite in lunar orbit with a hi-res camera, such as nataylor suggested. The Clementine probe had a resolution of 7-20 meters per pixel, depending on the altitude of the spacecraft (source: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...), so at best, one pixel would span about 7 meters. A picture of the lunar lander, which is smaller that 7 meters, may look like nothing but a slightly darker pixel among a field of grey pixels, and the flag woul be impossible to resolve. Even if you zoomed in, you would only see the same pixels, only bigger. There is no way to "clean up" the resolution like they do on TV detective shows and spy movies.

The Japanese are sending the SELENE probe to the moon. It will have a High definition TV camera on board, but I don't know what the resolution will be from 100 km in orbit. The chinese are sending the Chang'e 1 probe, but its Hi-res camera will only resolve 150 m/pixel.

We know that the Hi-res camera on the MRO is able to see the Mars rovers, but even in those pictures, the rovers just looked like blobs that could be confused for boulders if you didn't know what you were looking at. Maybe the CIA satellites have much better resolution capablities, but I doubt the CIA wants to give all of its spy satellite secrets away just so NASA can send a probe to see the Apollo sites.

[edit on 093131p://45079 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Im sure I read somewhere that Hubble couldnt take close up pics of the moon ?

hubblesite.org...=77&cat=topten



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Do you see the picture of those houses at the top?, how many feet (estimate for me will ya) above the ground do you think that picture is from? and I'll explain to you from that point on, scince you can't understand what I'm saying.





[edit on 26-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Do you see the picture of those houses at the top?, how many feet (estimate for me will ya) above the ground do you think that picture is from? and I'll explain to you from that point on, scince you can't understand what I'm saying.
It's an aerial photo, so I'd guess around 3,000-5,000 feet.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by YASKY
Do you see the picture of those houses at the top?, how many feet (estimate for me will ya) above the ground do you think that picture is from? and I'll explain to you from that point on, scince you can't understand what I'm saying.
It's an aerial photo, so I'd guess around 3,000-5,000 feet.


Looks like a satellite photo to me, since the aspect doesn't change from row to row of houses. Probably taken with a pushbroom imager. I'd guess about 500 km altitude. The same images on the moon would have about 240 meters resolution.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedskyLooks like a satellite photo to me, since the aspect doesn't change from row to row of houses. Probably taken with a pushbroom imager. I'd guess about 500 km altitude. The same images on the moon would have about 240 meters resolution.
Nope, it's definitely aerial. If you look at a larger area around my house, you can see the perspective change. And then if you keep going out, you can see the line where the perspective shifts again, indicating the border of the photograph.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Do you see the picture of those houses at the top?, how many feet (estimate for me will ya) above the ground do you think that picture is from? and I'll explain to you from that point on, scince you can't understand what I'm saying.


why do you need to know the distance , exact or estimated ?

it [ the distance ] is an irrelevance if only the distance is known

to make any sense of the distance it is vital that the effective focal lengh is also known

taking 10 seconds experimenting with a zoom / telephoto lens or vari power scope will tell you that

only parralax discreprancies will identify if tha given image was taken from a short diustance , with a short focal lengh or from a great distance with a coorespondingly longer focal lengh

is that clear ?




top topics



 
29
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join