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.
I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...
Originally posted by Mouth
I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...
So, you zoomed in on a photo, and it was blurry? Wow. I would never have thought for that to happen.
Edit: I posted those pics to show that there is no vegitation, no rivers, no NOTHING to be seen on the moon.
[edit on 18/8/06 by Mouth]
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by tommy1979
I have one amazing photo of the moon. It is LO II-162H. I ordered it from a NASA contractor and instead of sending me a 16x20 print they sent me a 16x20 negative. I kept that negative for over 10 years before the technology was available (to me) to print from a negative that size. I already knew what was on the print and when I got the enlargement (20x24) from the negative I was amazed...it was not airbrushed or retouched in any way. Somebody was looking out for me. Its in black and white but there are still exciting artifacts, silos, vapor, a long ramp, a building. In that package the contractor also sent (unrequested) 2 photos taken by the Lick Observatory of the moon one is late 40's, one is early 50's, both show lots of cool stuff.
Originally posted by Toc
Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Originally posted by johnlear
I have one amazing photo of the moon. It is LO II-162H... when I got the enlargement (20x24) from the negative I was amazed.
This is a gallery featuring the images I assume John is referring to. Make up your own mind.
John Lear's lunar photo album.
Darn, i can't make out anything from those photos...hardly anything really visible. I was hoping for more clearly defined objects.
Originally posted by Mouth
I was wondering exactly the same thing, What a poor picture. Once i got the full far side image and zoomed in, there is large blurred portion of it and some nasty bad areas that don't seem to be long there...
So, you zoomed in on a photo, and it was blurry? Wow. I would never have thought for that to happen.
Sounds interesting, why dont you scan it in for us all to see?
You can goto yousendit, where you can upload it, no file limits, be cool to see
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by lecuitis
Thanks lecuitis.
Will try yousendit.com, although all of them that I have tried will not upload this picture which is 8 mgs. When they say 'no file limits' I think they mean no 'number' of file limits, but they limit the 'size' to 2 or 3 mgs. I would be willing to pay for space if this could be done. So any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to get this uploaded so that all those interested can see the quality of this Lunar Orbiter photo.
Originally posted by lecuitis
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by lecuitis
Thanks lecuitis.
Will try yousendit.com, although all of them that I have tried will not upload this picture which is 8 mgs. When they say 'no file limits' I think they mean no 'number' of file limits, but they limit the 'size' to 2 or 3 mgs. I would be willing to pay for space if this could be done. So any suggestions would be appreciated. I would like to get this uploaded so that all those interested can see the quality of this Lunar Orbiter photo.
The good thing with yousendit is you dont even have to register or anything like that to use it. The idea behind the site is you want to send someone a file, so you type in their email address and upload the file, but it also gives you the URL to the file which you can post here and anyone can download it. So as you dont want to send anyone an email just send it to yourself or even make an address up
Haha, Im imagining Bobs reaction now.
Originally posted by AscendedMaster
It makes me laugh how some people will go to any lengths to try and debunk the UFO phenomenon; is it that impossible to think that maybe there could be other races besides ours in this grand universe of ours, so unbelievable that they could be more advanced than us (we are only 2 million years old, according to scientists, the universe is 4 BILLION years old); is it so beyond your programmed version of reality that those advanced races could actually be here, when there are millions of reports and hundreds of thousands of new reports each year?
Originally posted by Argos
If you believe in the Ashtar then they are making preperations, if they come in wipe out the NWO then they are going to seem hostile, and un-peaceful. As to most on lookers it would just be ET wiping out our governments, and then the whole transition after first contact could spiral out of control.
It was the Christians who decided the time was right for the return of Jesus. They self-fulfilled everything they believed would happen or was supposed to happen. The NWO is a creation from the mind of Christians. They predicted and oh what a coincidence that everything they have predicted is happening. This is what is called self-fulfilled prophecy. The aliens are not making any preparations to wipe out the NWO. If you want to get rid of the NWO you will have to do it yourself. The aliens will not deliver you from the monsters that you yourselves have created for yourselves. They do not interpret the scriptures the way Christians do.
Originally posted by johnlear
2 things I would like to mention. One, the Hubble telescope never had a probelm.
Launch and initial disappointment
The telescope was launched by Space Shuttle Discovery mission STS-31 on April 24, 1990. This had been postponed from a 1986 launch date by the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in January that year.
The first images back from the telescope were generally regarded as a big disappointment for astronomers and all concerned in the project. They were blurred, and despite image processing could not match the predicted resolution. It was determined that the main mirror had been ground slightly too flat at the edges, a problem that could have been tested for on the ground if the funds had been available.
Servicing Missions
The telescope has been revisited several times by spacewalking astronauts in space shuttles in order to correct malfunctions and install new equipment. Because of atmospheric drag, the telescope slowly loses height (and gains speed) over time; the shuttle pulls it back to a higher orbit every time it visits.
Servicing Mission 1, December 1993 (STS-61) installed several instruments and other equipment. The most important astronomically were: the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR), which was a set of five corrective mirrors; and the Wide Field/Planetary Camera (WF/PC-II), an upgraded version of the previous ultraviolet detector which also incorporated the corrective optics. On January 13, 1994, NASA declared the mission a complete success, and showed the first of many much sharper images.
Servicing Mission 2, February 1997 (STS-82) replaced High Resolution Spectrograph and Faint Object Spectrograph with Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph and added Near Infrared Camera / Multi-Object Spectrograph.
Servicing Mission 3A, December 1999 (STS-103) replaced faulty gyroscopes and fine guidance sensors (reusing one returned by SM-1), installed new computer.
Servicing Mission 3B, March 2002 (STS-109) repaired and upgraded several items, requiring lengthy and delicate spacewalks. Fixes to the telescope included:
Update of its Power Converter Unit, which was particularly tricky as it was not designed for in-orbit replacement, and also required taking the satellite completely off-line for the first time since it was put into operation.
Replacement of its solar arrays. The new arrays were derived from those built for the Iridium comsat system. They are only two-thirds the size of the old tattered arrays, resulting in less drag against the tenuous reaches of the upper atmosphere, while providing 30% more power. The additional power will permit all instruments on board the Hubble to be run simultaneously.
Replacement of the "Faint Object Camera (FOC)" with the "Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)". Both the FOC and the ACS are about the size of a telephone booth.
Installation of a mechanical cryocooler unit into the nonfunctioning "Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS)".
Replacement of a reaction control wheel.
The completion of this servicing mission, considerably enhanced Hubble's capabilities, some enthusiasts claiming that it is now effectively a "new instrument".
Named after Edwin Hubble, it was launched into orbit in 1990 as a joint project of National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the European Space Agency. Initial optical errors were corrected in 1993, and high-quality imaging began in 1994. ......
Servicing Mission 1 (STS-61) in December 1993 installed several instruments and other equipment:
replaced the High Speed Photometer (HSP) with the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR),
replaced the Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC) with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2),
replaced the solar arrays and their drive electronics,
replaced two of the three Rate Sensing Units (RSUs), containing four gyroscopes, to leave Hubble with a full complement of six working gyroscopes,
replaced two electrical control units and other electrical components,
replaced two magnetometers,
upgraded the computer, adding more memory and a processor,
installed improvised covers on the magnetometers, which threatened to shed debris due to UV decay,
fitted an electrical connection box on the Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS),
boosted Hubbles orbit. The most important change was the installation of the corrective optics package. On January 13 1994 NASA declared the mission a complete success, and showed the first of many much sharper images.
In the first place there are 2 Hubbles in orbit.
One was strictly military one was supposed to be civilian. Something came up where the military needed both so a problem was invented for the civilian one until the military was finished with it. I mean, c'mon...you didn't really buy that after all that work and preparation that someting REALLY went wrong with Hubble? Did you?
The other is that the universe is infinite and billions upon billions of years old. To believe that the vast space that we look out into every night is only 18 billion years old? Not a chance.
I am not saying your claims are implausible, but i have never come upon any evidence, nor been exposed to any source material that substantiates your claims.