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 resistance
JRA -- Here's another interesting link. Some more lies. These people all work together.
usafflyingsaucers.com...
[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]
Note: The aircraft depicted on this website are computer generated forensic composite illustrations based on the specific details provided by military personnel who are familiar with this historically significant aircraft.
Originally posted by resistance
If that's true, I wonder why they haven't done it already. Could you explain a bit more the basis for your claims about needing two Hubbels to get a clear pic of the moon?
Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Thanks for going to so much trouble. I'm still looking to find out what the deal is, the actual true deal, on why the Hubbel can't see the moon's surface and what would actually be needed to rectify that. Got any answers on that one? (since all the figures you gave you say are hypothetical). Seems like a relatively simple solution to just improve the telescope so we can see the moon buggies and junk that got supposedly left behind by the astroNOTs.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Thanks for going to so much trouble. I'm still looking to find out what the deal is, the actual true deal, on why the Hubbel can't see the moon's surface and what would actually be needed to rectify that. Got any answers on that one? (since all the figures you gave you say are hypothetical). Seems like a relatively simple solution to just improve the telescope so we can see the moon buggies and junk that got supposedly left behind by the astroNOTs.
Resistance, if you look at the link just above the post I'm quoting, you can see a picture of the moon taken by the HST back in 1999. I think that link will also let you go to other pics as well.
As far as improving the HST so it can see the old landing sites, no can do. They would literally have to make the HST about 12 times larger than it is before those sites could be resolved by the optics. That would mean the HST would end up as a 30 meter telescope (by far the largest ever made). There simply isn't any way to loft something like that into orbit with our current technology. That's why I said to just put a 2nd one up there and link them.
[edit on 10-10-2005 by Astronomer68]
Originally posted by resistance
Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?
Originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- But their moon pics aren't that much better than what somebody can get in their back yard with a telescope.
Originally posted by Murcielago
BTW...I'm not sure if its annoying anyone else...But enough with the "NOT" thing...allright. Its spelled astronauts. and yes..., I got the pun you were going for.
Yet we supposedly sent astroNOTs to the moon five or six times 40 years ago, sent them in a lightweight spaceship with thin skin of aluminum during a time there was supposed to be lots of solar flares going on.
Originally posted by resistance
Once again I'll make the point that if the Hubbel isn't big enough to get a clear shot of the moon, how is it supposed to be taking pics of stars 800 light years away or more like it claims it does? Could it be that the Hubbel is as big a fraud as the Apollo moon landings were?