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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The reason they only show us certain things is because they have to process it all, find out what it is etc...




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The Apollo 17 landing site -




Aristarchus impact crater


Aristarchus impact crater in UV


www.nasa.gov...

So sure, Hubble takes pictures of the moon, but the resolution isn't the greatest because of the onboard optics.

I hate to be a thread killer but.....
With all the evidence that members have posted, the links, examples and such. I think this topic needs to die.................

The Hubble Space Telescope is what it is, no more, no less.
It has some amazing assets, but it also has it's limitations. (limited by it's designed purpose, the technology of the time (plus upgrades) etc...)

It would be nice to see another Shuttle mission to the Hubble, just to keep it going for a few more years.

This piece of equipment is an icon of Human achievement, and has brought home so much data.

I just find the Hubble to be so amazing, and yet people question it's veracity due to an ignorance of how it operates...

*member shakes head and walks away from topic*

[edit on 16/11/2005 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
I hate to be a thread killer but.....
With all the evidence that members have posted, the links, examples and such. I think this topic needs to die.................


Well, the topic wasn't whether or not Hubble can take pictures of the Moon. The topic is whether or not the Hubble images are being created through CGI or "virtual reality." So I don't see why you feel the need to have this thread "die."



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Well, the topic wasn't whether or not Hubble can take pictures of the Moon. The topic is whether or not the Hubble images are being created through CGI or "virtual reality." So I don't see why you feel the need to have this thread "die."


It shouldn't die by any means. The question that started it is a valid concern that some may have. Seeing as Hubble has had a history of problems I can see where "some" might believe that the images could come into question.

But, as we've seen with the explanations and examples in this thread, the images may have been "cleaned up" for our benefit but, the original images that have not been "false color" enhanced are still available.

Does this mean the images we see are false, only in as much as doing a "red-eye" reduction in a family photo may be listed as false.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
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.)


(Sigh) Well, you know have some pictures up (nice one, AnxietyDisorder!) of the Moon, as taken by Hubble. And here's another reason why it's hard for Hubble to see the moon. Have you ever tried to focus your eyes on a pebble as it flies right past your nose? The moon is moving relative to the Earth and therefore relative to Hubble. Here's a link from NASA: www.nasa.gov... Scroll down to the bottom to get to the relevant part.
Another thing - why do you keep saying that the telescope isn't much use? It had problems with the mirrors when it was first launched, but that was put right. So it works!



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
As I understand it, the images are not what you'd see with your eyes, nor are they a single image. Instead, they are layered and the colors are based on the kind of information you have.

Remember those "heat area" pictures of the human body where some parts of the body are glowing red and some are yellow and so on through the spectrum? They combine images of light with images of heat and images taken in different light wave lengths. This gives them a better picture of what's going on.

But instead of layering black and white images on top of each other, they add the colors which says something about the thermal and spectroscopic properties of what they are looking at.

No released image is a single image. They are compiled, and they are artistic. The individual photos are available but without the additional information added by photos in other spectra, they're sort of... well... dull.

And remember, the Hubble wasn't created to send pretty pictures to Earth. It's a research instrument and the black and whites it sends are being used worldwide by astronomers. Furthermore, it is taking pictures of areas of the sky where we have other telescopes pointed.

If the images were completely false, every astronomer and astronomy hobbyist in the world would be shrieking and demanding that Hubble be nuked out of the sky.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join