Famous alien-hunting telescope slashed to pieces in mysterious midnight accident

a reply to: puzzled2

It clearly states it is not fixed and it has the ability to look in different directions.

Yes, and it provides the parameters.

This allows the telescope to observe any region of the sky in a forty-degree cone of visibility about the local zenith

40º cone means a radius of 20º. Two fist widths.
Zenith means straight up. That's what I said. That is not a lot of sky.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Could that be the source of annoyance? Sometimes?

Your not so much annoying as you are formidable .

You are meticulous in your approach which makes debating you a delicate process , Most people just glaze over information half paying attention , that's not you though.

People are annoyed by the effort at times it takes to build a wall you cant analytically climb over.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I'll take that as a compliment.

Thank you.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

This reminds me of the old ATS, let the theories begin

Ok, I will take the first bite.. The aliens noticed we are on to them and distroyed our "eye" so we can not track their invasion armada which is according to the latest reading just 20 light years away. (ETA 287.456 years, 18 hours and 21 minutes)

a reply to: Phage

sorry missing your source stating its a fixed 1 directional i.e. looking straight -- Are you now expanding the parameters to your comment to cover the error.

You can try to debate and twisted the words but you failed to provide context or source and clearly misinformed with an off the cuff expression.

But have fun I know you're almost right and won't admit you made the mistake but do try to supply a source in future when spouting off will save confusion later on.

a reply to: puzzled2

sorry missing your source stating its a fixed 1 directional i.e. looking straight

Straight up. Yes.
The dish cannot be directed.

a reply to: Phage

got a source for that?

Notice you reduce the subject to just the dish now, nice try.

a reply to: puzzled2

Notice you reduce the subject to just the dish now, nice try.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Phage

got a source for that?

Notice you reduce the subject to just the dish now, nice try.

It took me literally two minutes to find this:

www.naic.edu...

The spherical reflector always points straight up and unlike many other radio telescopes; it cannot be steered to adifferent direction.

Why couldn't you be bothered to prove yourself right?

Look at the struture of it, what makes you think it's movable?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And that's why a source is good this one TELESCOPE DESCRIPTION

Think it moves be cause they say it moves

A total of 26 electric motors control the platform. These motors drive the azimuth and the Gregorian dome and carriage house to any position with millimeter precision. The 1 MW planetary radar transmitter located in a special room inside the dome, directs radar waves to objects in our solar system.

So which is it fixed or movable?

Wikipedia & NAIC current web page v a pdf from 2005. Something is not the same as the rest.

a reply to: puzzled2

This good man has some info about what this telescope can do..

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Id heard that the funding for aricebo was stopping and that is why its fell into disrepair

arecibo - funding cuts threaten the life of the site

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Id heard that the funding for aricebo was stopping and that is why its fell into disrepair

arecibo - funding cuts threaten the life of the site

That's a 12 year old article.

This is also in Puerto Rico which is constantly hammered by hurricanes and had a pretty devastating one recently so I'm sure that's a lot the issue.

a reply to: TheAlleghenyGentleman

Hes responsable.

a reply to: zatara
humm interesting comment at 4:53 wonder what he means ?

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: zatara
humm interesting comment at 4:53 wonder what he means ?

Again, not hard to find:

www.naic.edu...

The dish works by collecting a signal and focussing it on a receiver. The dish is fixed and does not move. The antennae that point at the dish and receive the signal can be moved to point at different parts of the dish. This allows it to focus on s specific region of the large amount of sky from which it receives a signal.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

oh so it does move it is not a fixed view of a single point in the sky directly above it,
by the way love they way your trying to protect phage do you both work at the same place?

He didn't produce a source for his comment and he is incorrect in his statement. So if everyone else has to provide links for him then so does he.

If you have a problem with keeping him to the same standards as the rest of us, that nothing to do with me.

a reply to: puzzled2

He didn't produce a source for his comment and he is incorrect in his statement.

This is what I said:

The Arecibo dish can't really track anything unless it is directly over Puerto Rico and stays there. It points straight up and can't be moved.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is incorrect?

The dish points straight up (zenith). The dish cannot be moved. It covers a small area of the sky (20º radius) directly over Puerto Rico.

The Gregorian Dome is not the dish.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

oh so it does move it is not a fixed view of a single point in the sky directly above it,

Not what I said or what anyone else said. Why demand information if you're not going to pay attention to it.

The dish is fixed. It does not move. Physically imposdibke for it to do so. Different sensors can point at different parts of the dish. Which bit of that is difficult for you?

by the way love they way your trying to protect phage do you both work at the same place?

All I'm doing is providing answers you seem too lazy to find yourself. You seem determined to prove him wrong but don't want to put any effort in.

He didn't produce a source for his comment and he is incorrect in his statement. So if everyone else has to provide links for him then so does he.

He is not incorrect. You are saying his statement is false but haven't provided any evidence to support that. Double standards?

If you have a problem with keeping him to the same standards as the rest of us, that nothing to do with me.

I don't. You asked a question. I answered it. No rules that say I can't, just like there are no rules that would have stopped you answering your own question. The answer I gave is no different to his. I gave you a source and you still either won't accept it or don't understand it. Seems like a decision to save the effort might have been a wiser one.