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.

 

Hubble... Are the images being falsified?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Well, there has been a lot of spillover on this topic as well. So, much like when I started the Who should explore space: Man or Machine? thread, I'm starting this one because of all the spillover and offtopic posts on this topic...

So what to do? Debate the Hubble Space Telescope and whether or not the images are being falsified. Few believe they're fake, many believe they're real. Which side will you take?

Please refrain from posting a picture and saying something like "OMG look at this awesome picture that Hubble took! There's proof it's real!" or anything similar to that.




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Anything emerging into the "public" domain has been sanitised.
Anything unusual has been airbrushed out, hence NASA's refusal to broadcast live footage.

But on the hubble telescope, i think the images given out are true in the sense of what you see is there.
Just maybe missing a few things.
We have all seen some amazing pictures captured from the hubble.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Thanks cmdrkeenkid for starting the thread. Personally I can find alot of amazing discoveries this has led to in space since being repaired. You can go to thier link here and see many. Hubble Discoveries
I must agree with Denied in saying I feel we only see what they want us to. ( sanitized photos if you must ) I would love to know for sure without doubt that Nasa has released all important evidence found but feel they have not. I hope the day will come if I am still around when someone can convince me of this.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The Hubble pics are amazing, that's for sure. They are beyond amazing. They are what is known as Virtual Reality.

The Hubble is actually a big mysterious hunk of junk floating up in space, more of a computer than a telescope. It is difficult to operate because you can't get near it, and it's more for show than anything. It can't even take a decent picture of the moon. There's a thread running here right now about backyard telescopes that take better pictures of the moon than the Hubble does. www.abovetopsecret.com...

But because the Hubble is "up there" the virtual reality pictures we're told it's giving us seem to be so special and believable and wonderful because they're coming from this thing floating up in space, even if it's only 100 miles up, and even assuming we can even believe any of these pictures NASA is feeding us are even coming from the Hubble at all. Furthermore, once these images are produced they are prettied up by graphic artists such as Calvin Hamilton, who you can thank for almost all the photos that are put up on NASA's website and all the fancy NASA space posters you buy in the Space Museum.

In addition to the backyard telescopes currently being discussed on ATS, we also have another VLT (very large telescope) in Chili that takes way better pictures than Hubble does, has far greater resolution, and produces pics that are not so much virtual reality.

Since Hubble is really a big computer floating in the sky we need to remember that it's data in, data out. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The images are based on computer data that's put into the Hubble, telling Hubble what it would see if it could see but it can't see. Who are the ones putting the data into Hubble? NASA "scientists" who have agendas, who are very biased in their beliefs, and who need people to support them so they can keep their jobs working for the same agency that faked the moon landings. The NASA "scientists" have extremely vivid imaginations about how things work in space and/or have sinister agendas for the NWO.

In light of these things, would there not be a temptation to contrive images to support agendas or at least to promote and foster the idea in the taxpayers' and voters' minds that NASA has super capabilities to discover things about the wonders of space, super capabilities that in fact NASA does not have at all? If the American taxpayers think NASA is discovering amazing things beyond the imaginations of anyone, then might they not continue to fork out billions to keep NASA busy roaring around in the Shuttles and their other romantic adventures?


I don't believe Hubble can produce accurate images of deep space because the Hubble images of the moon are so poor. As a telescope, Hubble is a disaster. If Hubble does such a poor job as a telescope, why should we trust it more as a computer to show us the virtual reality of space? A computer is only as good as the information that's fed into it.

NASA's budgets are being cut because Americans are tired of paying for space shuttles that crash and pollute the atmosphere and cost too much money. Therefore, NASA needs any kind of public relations boost it can get. These mysterious Hubble pics pique the interest of the public and help to keep the tax dollars flowing.

Therefore, why should I want to trust the Hubble pictures?

Answer: I don't.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The Hubble pics are amazing, that's for sure. They are beyond amazing. They are what is known as Virtual Reality.

The Hubble is actually a big mysterious hunk of junk floating up in space, more of a computer than a telescope. It is difficult to operate because you can't get near it, and it's more for show than anything. It can't even take a decent picture of the moon. There's a thread running here right now about backyard telescopes that take better pictures of the moon than the Hubble does. www.abovetopsecret.com...

But because the Hubble is "up there" the virtual reality pictures we're told it's giving us seem to be so special and believable and wonderful because they're coming from this thing floating up in space, even if it's only 100 miles up, and even assuming we can even believe any of these pictures NASA is feeding us are even coming from the Hubble at all. Furthermore, once these images are produced they are prettied up by graphic artists such as Calvin Hamilton, who you can thank for almost all the photos that are put up on NASA's website and all the fancy NASA space posters you buy in the Space Museum.

In addition to the backyard telescopes currently being discussed on ATS, we also have another VLT (very large telescope) in Chili that takes way better pictures than Hubble does, has far greater resolution, and produces pics that are not so much virtual reality.

Since Hubble is really a big computer floating in the sky we need to remember that it's data in, data out. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The images are based on computer data that's put into the Hubble, telling Hubble what it would see if it could see but it can't see. Who are the ones putting the data into Hubble? NASA "scientists" who have agendas, who are very biased in their beliefs, and who need people to support them so they can keep their jobs working for the same agency that faked the moon landings. The NASA "scientists" have extremely vivid imaginations about how things work in space and/or have sinister agendas for the NWO.

In light of these things, would there not be a temptation to contrive images to support agendas or at least to promote and foster the idea in the taxpayers' and voters' minds that NASA has super capabilities to discover things about the wonders of space, super capabilities that in fact NASA does not have at all? If the American taxpayers think NASA is discovering amazing things beyond the imaginations of anyone, then might they not continue to fork out billions to keep NASA busy roaring around in the Shuttles and their other romantic adventures?


I don't believe Hubble can produce accurate images of deep space because the Hubble images of the moon are so poor. As a telescope, Hubble is a disaster. If Hubble does such a poor job as a telescope, why should we trust it more as a computer to show us the virtual reality of space? A computer is only as good as the information that's fed into it.

NASA's budgets are being cut because Americans are tired of paying for space shuttles that crash and pollute the atmosphere and cost too much money. Therefore, NASA needs any kind of public relations boost it can get. These mysterious Hubble pics pique the interest of the public and help to keep the tax dollars flowing.

Therefore, why should I want to trust the Hubble pictures?

Answer: I don't.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]


This is incorrect. The Hubble Space Telescope has mirrors in it. This makes it a telescope. The idea of putting a telescope into space has been mooted for years, because this way we get rid of atmospheric blurring and twinkling. So one was built and is not in orbit. It's not a hunk of junk, it's not 'useless', it's one of the most important astonomical tools we've ever had. It can see farther into space than ANYTHING that we have had before. If you want a good description of it, here's the link to the entry in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
The electronic bits are all to do with getting the data recorded by the telescope down to earth. That's where the computer images come in that have got Resistance off on the wrong track.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Dark -- It can't see the moon very well. And the VLT in Chili is a much better telescope. It might have mirrors, and it might have a computer, but as a telescope it's pretty poor. The backyard telescopes take better pictures, and not because the Hubble's resolution is TOO HIGH like we keep hearing people claim out of pure ignorance. The Hubble's resolution is TOO LOW to get a good shot of the moon.

So it's a crummy telescope, mirrors or not.

And computers are -- well, they are just computers.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
There's a thread running here right now about backyard telescopes that take better pictures of the moon than the Hubble does.


The Hubble cannot see things that are nearby very well. It's far-sighted. That means it lacks the "ability to focus on near objects," such as the Moon. Backyard telescopes, on the other hand, are not. They cannot bring in images of the far away stuff, as where Hubble can. You're comparing apples to oranges there!



In addition to the backyard telescopes currently being discussed on ATS, we also have another VLT (very large telescope) in Chili that takes way better pictures than Hubble does, has far greater resolution, and produces pics that are not so much virtual reality.


The VLT is composed of four telescopes, each with 8.2 meter aperature. That effectively makes it have a 32.8 meter aperature. The Hubble has only a 2.4 meter aperature. That means the Hubble collects about 7% of the amount of light that the VLT does. Also, there have been tremendous advances in the area of adaptive optics which allow for such high resolution images to be taken. Without the adaptive optics it would not be as spectacular. Oh, and trust me, the images from any telescope will be polished over.




I don't believe Hubble can produce accurate images of deep space because the Hubble images of the moon are so poor.


Moon: really close. Deep space: farther away than can be comprehended. Apples to oranges...



NASA's budgets are being cut because Americans are tired of paying for space shuttles that crash and pollute the atmosphere and cost too much money.


Or, you know, it could be that whole war thing...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Commander Keen -- Excuse me. You said this:


The Hubble cannot see things that are nearby very well. It's far-sighted. That means it lacks the "ability to focus on near objects," such as the Moon. Backyard telescopes, on the other hand, are not. They cannot bring in images of the far away stuff, as where Hubble can. You're comparing apples to oranges there!


This is what I keep hearing. But I have yet to read anything that says this at all. This is just some opinion that's going around and it doesn't match up to the facts at all.

Bring me a link or something that shows how the Hubble is "far-sighted" and that looking at the moon is "short-sighted." Okay? Not that your opinion isn't of value to me, but let's get a little support here for this point of view. I do hear it constantly, and when we go looking at the facts this never bears out.

Maybe I've missed something?

Thanks, Commander!



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
link

here is some images of the moon from the Hubblescope.

link

here is an explanation why they cant find objects really close.

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...


We stole the following off a NASA discussion board. We would usually just link to it, but discussion messages have a habit of expiring and this was too good to lose. Ed Cheng explains there's a law of physics that would prevent Hubble seeing the Lunar Module, and it's to do with the size of its light collecting mirror.

The wavelength of visible light is around 550x10^-9m (i.e. very very small).
The diameter of Hubble's mirror is 2.4m.
Highest ever physically possible resolution = 1.4 x 550 x 10^-9 /2.4 m = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians
At a distance of 350,000km this works out as about 124 metres. As Ed says, roughly the size of a football field.
So even if Hubble's camera had a greater resolution, it still couldn't see the Lunar Module.

But doesn't this same Hubble take photos of things billions of light years away? Yup.


try using a telescope and pointing it at a quarter and lets see wat happens.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   


The Hubble cannot see things that are nearby very well. It's far-sighted. That means it lacks the "ability to focus on near objects," such as the Moon. Backyard telescopes, on the other hand, are not. They cannot bring in images of the far away stuff, as where Hubble can. You're comparing apples to oranges there!


Groan. I'm 110% certain someone already explained this to resistance, he/she just has a selective memory.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I dont know if this is true but I think I remembering hearing that some pictures taken by the Hubble are nottrue colors pictures

If that is true wouldnt they be "fake" to some extent? Not that the object is not really out there just thats not how it would look to human eyes.


jra

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
One other important thing to remember is that Hubble is orbiting Earth while taking photos. That poses a greater challenge to focus on closer objects then ones much further away.

What do you think of ground based telescopes then resistance? Are they all fake too?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I dont think Nasa is modifing any of the pictures...I dont see why they would.

BTW, in 2008 (i believe) the Discovery Channel will have there own telescope, a pretty hefty 4 meter one, and I they are planning on using one of there several channels to take an hour or os and show people live footage from there telescope...so any crazy people out there can see that its all real, and not some grand nasa hoax.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
In reply to whatever resistance states, I found this site on the net which explains very well why the Hubble cannot focus on the moon. It took me 5 minutes to find this. Prior to just today I was tolerating the conspiracy but now I can't stand it.

sm3a.gsfc.nasa.gov...


It is true that the Hubble Space Telescope can see things very clearly -
one can argue that it provides the clearest view of the sky in visible light
"colors" that humans have ever had. However, its capabilities are still
limited by the laws of physics.

For a telescope with a circular collecting area of diameter D (2.4 m for
Hubble), the smallest feature that one can resolve at wavelength L
(550 x 10^-9 m for visible light) is given roughly by:

resolution = 1.4 L/D = 3.2 x 10^-7 radians

This estimate gives the "diffraction limited" resolution, or the resolution
based on light's wave-like characteristics. It is difficult to improve
upon this limit.

The distance to the Moon is roughly 240,000 miles. Hubble's resolution
corresponds to a physical dimension of

size = x = 0.08 miles = 405 feet = 124 meters

at the Moon's surface ... roughly the size of a football field.

This is quite a bit larger than any of the artifacts you would want to see
on the lunar surface, so even Hubble's tremendous clarity is not enough for
what you would like to do! If we had an aircraft carrier at the lunar
surface, then Hubble could probably get a pretty good look at it.



Here are some more sites dealing with the link between aperature and resolution:

www.universetoday.com...
www.digibird.com...

[edit on 8-11-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont know if this is true but I think I remembering hearing that some pictures taken by the Hubble are nottrue colors pictures

If that is true wouldnt they be "fake" to some extent? Not that the object is not really out there just thats not how it would look to human eyes.


Enhanced is the word not 'not true' or 'fake'. The reason is that NASA feels that the public won't be satisfied with the original images and that they need to be enhanced. For good measure too. The public has been losing interest in space exploration, that is why NASA come out and say 'We going back to the moon', to rekindle the public's interest.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Enhanced is the word not 'not true' or 'fake'. The reason is that NASA feels that the public won't be satisfied with the original images and that they need to be enhanced.


See thats pretty interesting do you happen to know how they are Enhanced by any chance?

Are they just tweaking the colors alittle or something?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, all pictures taken by the Hubble are actually in black and white.

The way they produce colors is by using various filters, similar to a projection TV. (Green, Blue and Red)

By combining the different pictures (tinted in the color of their respective filters) into a single image, they can produce a full color image. Very early photogrophers used the same method to produce color photographs at the turn of the century.

The biggest way these images get enhanced, is by tweaking the color of the tinting of the filtered image, to accentuate the color contrast.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Thanks for the info BomSquad


Sounds alittle like Technicolor



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Here's a link to a site that explains it a LOT better than I can


HubbleSite - Meaning of Color



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
One of the things hubble can do taht most telescopes have a very hard time doing is take an image of an object, then another one about 14,000 km away about 45 minutes later. very quick and easy way to determine distances instead of having to wait 6 months



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join