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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
don't see the point why they would - but it wouldn't surprise me either.

hows that for fence sitting.!




posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
This first image is what NASA gets back from the Hubble when they point the HiResCamera at Mars. This was taken Oct. 28 2005 and as you can see, it's in black and white. You can even see one of the occulting masks from the HRC.



This second image is the one that NASA released to the media for publication.
As you can see, it has been colourized and the occulting finger has been clone painted out.



I know I like looking at the second picture due to it's asthetics. But is it a purely factual picture???
No, in a sense it's a lie........



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
is there technique where old black and white movies were recorded but they didnt have the technology to make it color but as time goes by they finally had the technology and converted the old movies into color now?


its just like the Mars rover expedition where wen the first pictures were black and white and NASA was able to convert to color.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
This explains why Hubble can't see the moon very well or as well as the backyard telescopes being discussed on another thread. But it does NOT explain why it can see far, far out into space, that it's somehow built to see far and not close (as though the moon were close, when what you've posted clearly states that the Hubble is not overmagnifying. It just can't magnify enough. How does that translate into bein "far-sighted." That just means it's a wimpy telescope.

We are discussing two questions here and I wish the thread title reflected this (is it too late to change it?) One question is: Is the Hubble designed to see things far past the moon? Is it designed to be "far-sighted" meaning far PAST the moon? (i.e. isn't it true the Hubble was originally put up to view the moon as one of its main tasks?) Isn't it true that the Hubble can't see far out any better than it can see close in? That is, without "help" from the computer engineers inputting data into the Hubble computer telling it what it would see if it could see but it can't see.

I want to resolve this question about this far-sighted thing because I'm tired of people telling me to go back and reread threads, that I'm a troll, that I just don't get it, that it's been explained to me, blah, blah. I am the one who keeps explaining and nobody seems to be grasping what I am saying and what the information is saying that's been pulled up on this subject.

Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?

Thanks.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by resistance]

[edited big quote -nygdan]

[edit on 16-11-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Maybe this will help put this thread to rest....but probably not.

Let's do an experiment. Take a pair of binoculars (which is basically 2 telescopes side by side) and while holding them in one had, try to look at your other hand. You will not be able to focus on your hand. There are limitations to optics.

All telescope lenses (mirrors in the case of the Hubble) are designed to focus from a certain distance to infinity, depending on how they are ground and polished.

The moon is approximately 250,000 miles away. The CLOSEST star is Alpha Cenauri (actually it is 3 different stars, but it doesn't matter for this example) and it is approximately 25,636,800,000,000 miles away. This is 102,547,200 TIMES further away than the moon. In that respect the moon is RELATIVELY close.

There are a number of other factors relating to why the Hubble can't take good pictures of the moon (besides the fact that it wasn't part of the Hubbles mission to look at the moon in the first place). NASA can explain those reasons better than I, so I suggest you check out their Hubble Project FAQ

Enjoy!



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
This explains why Hubble can't see the moon very well or as well as the backyard telescopes being discussed on another thread. But it does NOT explain why it can see far, far out into space, that it's somehow built to see far and not close (as though the moon were close, when what you've posted clearly states that the Hubble is not overmagnifying. It just can't magnify enough. How does that translate into bein "far-sighted." That just means it's a wimpy telescope.

We are discussing two questions here and I wish the thread title reflected this (is it too late to change it?) One question is: Is the Hubble designed to see things far past the moon? Is it designed to be "far-sighted" meaning far PAST the moon? (i.e. isn't it true the Hubble was originally put up to view the moon as one of its main tasks?) Isn't it true that the Hubble can't see far out any better than it can see close in? That is, without "help" from the computer engineers inputting data into the Hubble computer telling it what it would see if it could see but it can't see.

I want to resolve this question about this far-sighted thing because I'm tired of people telling me to go back and reread threads, that I'm a troll, that I just don't get it, that it's been explained to me, blah, blah. I am the one who keeps explaining and nobody seems to be grasping what I am saying and what the information is saying that's been pulled up on this subject.

Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?

Thanks.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by resistance]


Actually, that has nothing to do with what you are talking aobut, you have been going on about 'it can't see the moon, it is a hunk a junk'. I'd imagine that somehow the Hubble's inability to not see close objects (which is what you were asking for) and it's ability to see far out into space are related.
(did I not just give you that link?)

resistance, for an experiment, take a pair of binoculars, stand 2 feet from a brickwall and tell us what you see. I know what you will say, 'my binoculars are a hunk a junk'. Now do not be too hasty, simply turn around and look at the man walking on the sidewalk about 100 yards away from you. Pretty amazing isn't it.

Your binoculars were meant to view from afar, why can't it view the near, just read the link I posted for you.

Now take a microscope and focus on an image 100 yards away, pretty poor quality. Now don't throw it away resistance, take the microscope and place a slide under the lens at about half an inch and begin to move the lense down to focus. Pretty cool.

These instruments are meant to do two different things.

This is an example of your misconseption of the hubble and what it is used for.

If you can't understand why your wrench doesn't work as a screwdriver, I am sorry for you, this was the last time I help explain this to you.

MOD EDIT: Cleaning up quotes.

[edit on 11/9/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?


Both Frosty and BomSquad explained it to you. They even gave you examples of how to test that, ironically it was basically the same example and posted at the same time. Good job to you two!


You said yourself that it was explained why Hubble cannot see the Moon. If it was explained so well, then you should realize that it is far-sighted... You just need to make the two ideas connect.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
resistance....the Hubble is not a microscope. there is a difference between a telescope and a microscope where the Hubble can see things far and wide and clear but not exact detail like a microscope on a tiny object. the microscope cannot see far but it can see extremely close detail if brought bear to an object close to it. dats the difference between far sight and close sight.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Cant believe that the images from Hubble aren't at least doctored. Would love to see the images as they are being transmitted back before any type of filtering or retouching. As for the Discovery Channel, they are still part of the media so i don't think that they are above governmental scrutiny. Seems like we need a privately run, publicly owned Hubble-type telescope up there. Of course we would need permits to launch, and nondisclosure agreements in case we wanted to turn it back on the Earth, airtime to transmit....etc. Seems like too much red tape. Guess we have to go with what is fed to us.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by resistance
Commander, how about that quote on the Hubble being far-sighted? You said it, now can you produce something to verify that?


Both Frosty and BomSquad explained it to you. They even gave you examples of how to test that, ironically it was basically the same example and posted at the same time. Good job to you two!


You said yourself that it was explained why Hubble cannot see the Moon. If it was explained so well, then you should realize that it is far-sighted... You just need to make the two ideas connect.


Sorry, Commander Keen. I would like a quote to the effect that the Hubble is "far-sighted" (or words to that effect) and that the moon is too close to be seen. I understand the analogy that's being told me. I just think it's rubbish. Pure rubbish. The fact of the matter is we are not standing four feet away from a brick wall trying to look at it through highpowered binoculars or a telescope. The moon is not "close." The moon is plenty far away. Everything I have read about the Hubble says that its resolution is too low to magnify the moon very well. It's not that it's too strong. It's that it's too weak. If the stupid moon was twice the difference from earth than it is now the Hubble would take even worse pictures of it than it does now!

This forum is not for people to keep reiterating their opinions. We have heard this opinion about the Hubble being "far-sighted." Now it's time for some proofs to be presented. And by "proofs" I don't mean people spouting off the same tired old opinions. Let's get some links here, put up some quotes that demonstrate that it is accepted science that the Hubble is "far-sighted" and that the moon is too close for the Hubble to get a good shot of it.

And jra, as far as the Hubble orbiting the earth as an explanation of its inability to focus on the moon, the moon itself is orbiting the earth, so what does that have to do with anything? Actually, the Hubble does focus on the moon. It takes the best picture it's able to based on the junky telescope that it is.

P.S. BTW, the Hubble can't "see" far out into the stars, to magnify either visible or invisible points of light into these pictures they tell us they're getting. These pictures are based on computer input telling it what it would see if it could see but it CAN'T see. If it can't magnify the surface of the moon anymore than it does, it certainly can't magnify points of light in space (sometimes not even points of light at all but just computerized guesses based on what the NASA people are feeding into it of what they think is hiding behind the space dust).

It's called virtual reality.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
P.S. BTW, the Hubble can't "see" far out into the stars, to magnify either visible or invisible points of light into these pictures they tell us they're getting. These pictures are based on computer input telling it what it would see if it could see but it CAN'T see. If it can't magnify the surface of the moon anymore than it does, it certainly can't magnify points of light in space (sometimes not even points of light at all but just computerized guesses based on what the NASA people are feeding into it of what they think is hiding behind the space dust).

It's called virtual reality.

No, it's not. It's called actual reality. The Hubble Space Telescope has a mirror that enables it to see deeper into space than anything has ever been able to before using the visible spectrum. Again, this is a matter of public record. Things aren't made up, fabricated, painted or CGI'd into existence. Hubble shows us what is out there. And for information, the moon is not "plenty far away" it is, in cosmic terms, right up close to us. It's incredibly close to us when you look at the sheer scale of the Solar System.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Darkmind -- We've heard your opinion. I'm tired of people's opinions. Can you back your opinion up? Why don't Hubble's mirrors work with the moon? What good is it to gather light if the light that's gathered is sent to a telescope that's not so hot? And who's to say that generally diffused light is what NASA says it is? These are not miracle mirrors. It's more like smoke 'n mirrors if you get my drift.

Everything I've read says that the resolution of Hubble is too weak to take a good picture of the moon. Show me something different and I'll shut up. (meaning show me a quote that says something different, meaning a quote from some reputable person or source other than yourself.)



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Okay, find an astronomy club nearby to you. Chances are they'll have a wide array of telescopes. Look at a full Moon through a smaller telescope, say something 4 inches or smaller in aperture. Look at the Moon through a medium telescope, something from 6-8 inches in aperture. Look at the Moon through a large telescope, something 10 inches in aperture or larger. Which will it look the best in? Chances are the smaller or medium telescopes. Why? Because the larger the telescope the more light it collects. The more light it collects, the brighter and more washed out the image.

Hubble's aperture is 2.4 meters, plus its views are unhampered by the Earth's atmosphere. So it would gather a heck of a lot of light and create a really washed out image. In my opinion, the pictures Hubble has taken of the Moon are quite poor, and that's because of this very reason.

The analogy of looking at a brick wall four feet in front of you through bincoulars is a very good one. The distances are relative, of course. The brick wall four feet away from the binoculars is compared to the Moon at 240K miles away from the Hubble. Now, if you took those same binoculars and looked at the brick wall that was a mile away you'd be able to see the entire wall and some detail in it. This would be just the same as the Hubble looking billions and trillions of miles away.

It's not an opinion, it's simple fact and knowledge of how telescopes and optics work.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
resistence, you always manage to pop up and start an argument over the simplest terms. Everyone here has patiently given you the links and proofs you've requested -- even I have on other threads. Yet, you continue to be obtuse and ignorant when the information is right in front of you.

We've even given you examples to try yourself , but you still refuse to accept the truth... Why? This is not some "NWO Conspiracy" thread... this is in the SPACE EXPLORATION thread.

I've said it before, the thread you want is the conspiracy links, two down and to the right. You "might" even find some people that may agree with your -- ideas... And as soon as they get out of the rubber room they're in, enjoy a cup of coffee together... and dispute the reality of the moon landing...



[edit on 11-15-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Well, resistance, you're looking for Hubble specific responses, but you're not going to get many from me here. Instead, I'm going to go over the basics of telescope operation to explain why it is that a galaxy could be in focus while the moon would not be.

This is a principle known well to film makers and photographers, but affects anything using a lens to magnify a wave, be it visible to our wave detectors (eyes) or not. This principle is called "depth of field", and you're experiencing it right now. As you're reading this post, your monitor screen is in crisp focus while the wall behind your monitor is blury. But you can focus on the wall, you say, and this is true...to a degree.

You can focus, but if you put a piece of paper with words a centimeter away from one of your eyes, you can't focus on the actual text. Your eye is not designed to see clearly that closely. Yet, does that mean you can't really see the tree in the front yard?

The virtual aspect of the infrared and UV images is somewhat accurate; humans cannot see wavelengths of those sizes. So because we cannot see it, we need to have a computer translate those wavelengths into visible light for display. Does that make the image fake? No, it is simply multiplying or dividing the size of the waves the telescope is detecting so we can view them, too.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I don't believe that they're being falsified in the sense to decieve, but I do know that false colors are added to enhance visual appreciation.

Some of the recent deep space pictures are too spectacular. Man just don't have the imagination to duplicate such images.

As far as a "cover-up" with some of the images that come from the Hubble? I do believe that there exists images that the Hubble has taken that mankind isn't ready for.

Falsified images released by NASA would become public knowledge if it were true. Someone would spill the beans.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
As far as a "cover-up" with some of the images that come from the Hubble? I do believe that there exists images that the Hubble has taken that mankind isn't ready for.


Erm... What do you mean by that?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Intelearthling
As far as a "cover-up" with some of the images that come from the Hubble? I do believe that there exists images that the Hubble has taken that mankind isn't ready for.


Erm... What do you mean by that?


There's a galaxy Hubble's taken an image of that is, oddly enough, in the shape of some english characters, and a couple little symbols. It says in big block letters:

EARTH, THIS IS YOU: O

Facing the "O" is a massive hand (formed out of stars, of course) with the center finger raised. Mankind's not ready for it yet. NASA doesn't want that image to get out because all of those intelligent design folks will be sayin' stuff like, "See? See? Told you so!" They know there's an astrophysical explanation for the unusual shape of the galaxy, so before releasing the image NASA first has to be able to explain how it was formed.

On a more serious note, if you mean there are pictures of aliens and the like, Hubble isn't capable of imaging something so small, unless we're talking deathstar huge aliens. Even then, though, they wouldn't give off enough light for us to see it, and we wouldn't be able to make out any specific details. It would just be another radio-anomoly in space. Hubble can't see anything that would shake all of mankind to its foundations, only the scientific community.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   


I understand the analogy that's being told me. I just think it's rubbish. Pure rubbish.


Now that is just classic. To quote someone else.(adam savage:mythbusters) "I Reject your reality and substitute my own."


Very informative thread. I wondered about the farsightedness myself...now not only do i understand exactly how the hubble works but have taken a bit of an interest in telescopes. Thanx to the truly informative here.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I don't believe that they're being falsified in the sense to decieve, but I do know that false colors are added to enhance visual appreciation.


They are labeled as "false color images" in those instances. Deception is not a point in it.

As junglejake said

The virtual aspect of the infrared and UV images is somewhat accurate; humans cannot see wavelengths of those sizes. So because we cannot see it, we need to have a computer translate those wavelengths into visible light for display. Does that make the image fake? No, it is simply multiplying or dividing the size of the waves the telescope is detecting so we can view them, too.


The same goes for radio astronomy. We cannot see those different wavelengths. And just to put it into perspective, most, if not all astronomers don't really need to see the images produced. Although asthetically pleasing, the data is far more interesting than a picture. But, it's easer for an astronomer to describe what they are looking at / for with a pic to help a lay person. So, the images we see are mostly for our benefit.

Black and white is perfectly acceptable to most (maybe not all) astronomers because the of clarity of images and definition. They may not be as striking to us but as long as there is data to back up the images... perfectly acceptable.




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join