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.
Originally posted by YASKY
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.
Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
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 ?
Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Originally posted by YASKY
Originally posted by disownedsky
Now, do you see the house with the swimming pool, (Second Row of houses from the bottom row) look to the left of the swimming pool, do you see that dark greenish object ( probably a tree or bush) the LunarRover is a little smaller than that, so if this pic is from 500km away, at 500km away one can clearly see a non-Lunar object that could be zoomed in as much as one can BEFORE "BLURRAGE" starts to see it is the L.R. or some sort of NON-Lunar object left by the Apollo people, but the reason it's NEVER been done is because THEY WERE NEVER THEEEEERRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Originally posted by YASKY
[edit on 27-7-2007 by YASKY]
And you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.
Originally posted by YASKY
You do understand I was talking about a Sat being 500km away from the moon and taking the images right you do know then an image of the L.R. would be available right it may not be Crispy clear but you do know one could clearly tell it's a non-Lunar object right
Originally posted by nataylorAnd you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.
Naaahhh the reason they've never did it was because they were not there.
Originally posted by disownedsky
Originally posted by nataylorAnd you do understand that it would cost tens of millions of dollars to construct a such a satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, right? Kind of a high price to pay for getting photos that people will just say are doctored anyway.
Tens of millions would be a good price, but with some inevitable proportion of the NASA bureacracy along for the ride - it's more.
LRO is in progress, and should get very good resolution. Last I checked, they were lookinig at a 2008 launch. Since the moon has no significant atmosphere (really!) , you can fly quite close to the surface.
[edit on 27-7-2007 by disownedsky]
Originally posted by YASKY
...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...
I'm not saying the CIA should do it I was using the CIA as an example.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by YASKY
...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...
Are you talking about flying an existing spy satellite from Earth orbit over to the moon? I surely hope I misunderstood what you are saying.
Besides, the LRO will be able to do much more science than a spy satellite could possibly do. Even if a spy satellite is cheaper (and I don't know if that's true), comparing the capabilities of each spacecraft would be like comparing apples and oranges. So again, I say why would the CIA bother to do something that is so totally irrelevant to their mission like waste one of their spy satellites by giving it to NASA to look at the Moon.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by YASKY
...BTW if it's so expensive why are they going in 2008/2009 it's cheaper to fly a Sat over there and take images from the Apollo Landings then what they want to do in 2008/2009...
Are you talking about flying an existing spy satellite from Earth orbit over to the moon? I surely hope I misunderstood what you are saying.
Besides, the LRO will be able to do much more science than a spy satellite could possibly do. Even if a spy satellite is cheaper (and I don't know if that's true)
Originally posted by bigbrain
...
Can a plastic covering defend a troncated cone made by aluminum from a temperature of 2,800°C?
Can a rocket land going backwards?
Is it normal that 3 poor men went to the Moon with a rocket that would have to land going backwards without testing it on the earth?
Answer my questions and try to say something intelligent.
No they haven't those are just "Post MoonHoax" coverups designed to make it seem as if MoonLandings happend.
Originally posted by Shadowhawk
These questions have already been answered intelligently, over and over, in great detail. Yasky/Bigbrain and his ilk just refuse to accept the facts.
How many times do we have to go through the explanations of blunt-body aerodynamics, thermal protection systesm, and lunar landing vehicle dynamics?
Originally posted by YASKY
Answer these ?
1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
Originally posted by skepticfriend
I think there are somebody here in the pay of NASA that takes
people away from real evidences in order to debate about
nothing over and over.
Originally posted by bigbrain
...
Ha, Ha, Ha,
Then, you are starting to go to the moon and you say: "OK, it's all right", BUT YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED THIS OLD CROCK
ON THE GROUND OF OUR PLANET and YOU WILL PILOT IT IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.
The very least you had to do it was to test this strange piece of metal on the earth before testing it on the moon.
Nobody, except a raving mad, would go to the moon without testing the aircraft he will use for landing.
Ha, Ha, Ha,
What is this?
A spatial chicken on the spit?
At NASA there are a lot of jockers.
It's funny how you don't disprove what he says "Point by Point" yet you just say "he doesn't have the knowlege" just like the pethetic site "Bad Astronomy"
Originally posted by disownedsky
Originally posted by YASKY
Answer these ?
1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
Well, for one thing, this person has never heard of diffuse reflection. The lunar regolith is a fine diffuse reflector. But that's not even the point. He apparently has not even the most rudimentary knowledge of photography.
You can't argue with the willfully ignorant.