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.
wetwarez
Welcome to the New Dark Ages...
Originally posted by Murcielago
You've got to be kidding me.
The Dark Ages was a time when there was no advances at all. How is that even remotely comparable to todays world...When you can go out and buy something and its out-dated in a couple months. We are technologicaly advancing now faster then we have ever before...and theres no end in sight.
They were sent in a time of low solar activity.
Originally posted by Murcielago
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?
Because there huge, all the galaxies and nebuas and whatnot that the Hubble has took dont need a mega telescope to see. Of course it can take pictures of a Galaxy...But it cant take pictures of planets inside that galaxy.
Originally posted by resistance
jra you said
They were sent in a time of low solar activity.
Actually, I've read differently, that the time of the Apollo missions were a time of especially active solar flares.
What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.
Originally posted by resistance
Originally posted by Murcielago
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?
Because there huge, all the galaxies and nebuas and whatnot that the Hubble has took dont need a mega telescope to see. Of course it can take pictures of a Galaxy...But it cant take pictures of planets inside that galaxy.
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim. Fact is, they can't see much of anything out there that we can't see in our own back yard with a telescope. And also fact is, they have an agenda -- which is to prove to and convince everyone there is no God and that the universe is teeming with intelligent life that evolved on an infinite number of planets "out there."
These people are LIARS. They are deceitful. They want MONEY. They want to pull the wool over our eyes, create a NWO, and this Captain Kirk stuff is all part of the deceptive charade they're playing. Anybody who's willing to open their eyes and look can figure this out just as well as I can.
Not only that, but they are destroying the atmosphere and ruining the entire planet roaring around in the atmosphere with these stupid rockets and shuttles. They need to be shut down and shut down NOW while we still have a planet left to save.
What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.
resistance
They are working in conjunction with the military and doing all kinds of other ungodly and arrogant experiments on the atmosphere, human breeding experiments, mind control etcetera.
Originally posted by resistance
Murcieligo -- Yes, I certainly do think NASA is lying.
resistance
And I'll share some tips I've learned on how to make points and win a debate:
resistance
Number one -- get on the right side. (it really helps)
resistance
Number two -- don't name-call. It adds nothing and just makes you look like you don't have any arguments and you're so frustrated you have to name-call.
originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim.
originally posted by resistance
These people are LIARS. They are deceitful. They want MONEY. They want to pull the wool over our eyes, create a NWO, and this Captain Kirk stuff is all part of the deceptive charade they're playing. Anybody who's willing to open their eyes and look can figure this out just as well as I can.
originally posted by resistance
Not only that, but they are destroying the atmosphere and ruining the entire planet roaring around in the atmosphere with these stupid rockets and shuttles. They are working in conjunction with the military and doing all kinds of other ungodly and arrogant experiments on the atmosphere, human breeding experiments, mind control etcetera. They need to be shut down and shut down NOW while we still have a planet left to save.
originally posted by resistance
What do you expect from Freemasons and Illuminati? They want to own the world and they don't mind if they destroy it to own it.
resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon.
Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?
No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.
An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.
Resistance
This plainly tells me that the Hubble is not powerful enough to see the moon. Not that it's TOO powerful. So maybe you need to reread this and think about it?
Originally posted by Realist05
...give me 5 Billion instead of 104 over the same period and here's what I'd do:
1. Contract for 10 Zenit/Sea Launch flights.
2. Build remotely operated rovers. Sort of "Spirit and Opportunity on steroids."
3. Fly them to the moon and let 4000 researchers explore instead of 4.
Don't say it's not as good as a human being there, because with machines we could use multispectral and sensor capabilities beyond the senses of astronauts.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Resistance
This plainly tells me that the Hubble is not powerful enough to see the moon. Not that it's TOO powerful. So maybe you need to reread this and think about it?
Do you not know what the word RESOLUTION is?
Thats what it all comes down to.
I will give you the best example i can think of.
It all about resolution.
Originally posted by seattlelaw
I agree with the naysayers on these plans. We've got too many problems here on earth that need the cash to send up people.
Originally posted by resistance
Sorry I chose the wrong word. Resolution will do just fine. The Hubble doesn't have enough resolution. Not TOO MUCH. It has NOT ENOUGH. Get it now?
So if it doesn't have enough RESOLUTION to get a decent pic of the moon, how the heck can it get any pics of stars 800 light years off in space?
NOW does what I say make sense to you? Somehow we don't need resolution to see 800 light years off in space? If we don't need resolution, what DO we need? You tell ME!