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.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 235
164
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by pippadee
 



Well you could be right about the whole telescope on the moon theory, but John Lear himself stated that one of his friends took a better snapshot of the moon using a 10" earth based telescope.

He also stated that he didn't understand how it could be possible for someone with a 10" telescope to take a better, more clear picture of the moon's surface than NASA can with their $100 million dollar telescopes.

Listen, the bottom line is this... I'm not trying to prove ANYONE wrong here... I'm very much open minded and will listen to what anybody has to say about this topic and will process the information in an affort to understand and believe what's being said, however, I'm having a hard time with the lack of "clear" photographic evidence regarding these "structures" on the moon.

If we can send probes and orbiters to mars which is 6 months away, along with probes and orbiters to Saturn and some of it's moons, put a man on the moon, collect dust particles from a comet and bring them back to earth, why is it so difficult to get a few "clear" pictures of the moon's surface highlighting these so called "structures" ??




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by musikman
 


The Mars pictures are better than the moon pictures. If the public will digest THAT, they will digest anything.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Mars pictures are better than the moon pictures.


They are?

Can you qualify that statement? Numbers and all...


[edit on 29-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Mars pictures are better than the moon pictures.


They are?

Can you qualify that statement? Numbers and all...


[edit on 29-11-2007 by buddhasystem]


OMG, are you serious?

No, i cannot. Perhaps you would like to provide the qualification (numbers and all) that it is not? Help me deny my ignorance, oh great buddha.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Mars pictures are better than the moon pictures.

They are?
Can you qualify that statement? Numbers and all...

No, i cannot.


I didn't think you could.


Help me deny my ignorance, oh great buddha


I'll try, but you have to make an effort. Lets start with this one: do not make statements for which there is no evidence and which are likely to be false. Practice this dharma for one week and you'll be on your path to enlightenment.


[edit on 30-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


So before i make an observation that is based on admittedly subjective data, you would rather me locate and verify data to support my admittedly subjective observations?

I am a business man. In my world, perception is reality.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am a business man. In my world, perception is reality.


Need an accountant? I'd be happy to adjust your books for you......to a wonderful level of "reality".....



Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


No thank you. We are a client of a firm that provides financial/legal advice as a bundled service. Corporate finance being so touchy lately (in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation), it is best to source to a bundled service provider to ensure adequate coverage (and proper vetting of corporate officers before we hire them).



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by musikmanbut John Lear himself stated that one of his friends took a better snapshot of the moon using a 10" earth based telescope.


Welcome musikman....

As to that Moon Image from the 10" scope... as you are new perhaps you have not seen it yet..

On the page linked below... you will see the highest res Galileo image from NASA that we can find on the net...

The second full moon is the one Mike in the UK took...

The version on that page is scaled down to match the NASA one... click on the photo will take you to the 80% version... Let us know what you think



www.thelivingmoon.com...

The 100% version is 110 megs for printing and not currently available

[edit on 1-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Mars pictures are better than the moon pictures.


Very true.

Oh yes, I have to qualify that. IMO, and in my subjective experience.

And as a result, we got more anomalies than with the Moon, if you are counting the natural phenomena.

IMO, and in my subjective experience.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


What Mars pictures are better than what Moon pictures?

We have pictures of both taken from the surface and from orbit.

If you are talking about the latest Mars pictures from NASA and the latest Moon pictures from NASA then you are talking of a difference in time of about 11 years between Clementine and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

The Clementine High-Resolution Camera had a 288x384 pixels sensor with a pixel size of 23x23 micrometres, giving a best resolution of 7 metres at its lowest altitude.

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter HiRISE camera has a 20,264 wide pixels sensor (for the Red channel) with a maximum length of 40,000 pixels because of the limited (28Gb) memory available for the picture. Its best resolution is 0.3 metres.

The camera from Clementine was made for mapping the whole Moon, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter camera was made to take high definition pictures.

So, when comparing a mapping camera from the beginning of the CCD camera age with a high definition camera after a 12 years CCD and general electronics evolution, it is only natural that there are differences between them.

But if we compare the surface images, those from the Moon are clearly better than those from Mars.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I don't think that is a fair comparison, Galileo was not made to take pictures of the Moon.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


What i mean is that we have taken the time and effort to image the Martian surface but not the moon. We have the means and capability. There is MUCH activity in the moon mining business. I talked personally with the president of one such firm in Austin. Moon mining for H3 is about to boom. The technology prepared and the plans are in place.

So, how are we going to discern where the prime locations are? Our ability to recon is severely hampered by a lack of intelligence. To land on the surface of Mars in the future they have spent billions planning locations based on their thorough hi res imagery. But to begin a new era of clean energy, all they are using are Clementine images? They are hardly worth more than ground based telescope in some instances.

I don't buy it. Not one bit. That is what i meant.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Who do you think would be the first to get any new data from the Moon?

The public or the companies that are waiting to mine the lunar surface?

Once you know that it won't take long to figure out why the public doesn't get to see this data.

I base this on my understanding of the gov't. If you haven't worked for them it is hard to explain but it does give you a very good idea of what to expect when it comes to something like this.

I hate adding stuff like this to a thread, but it might help some members understand what can be going on behind the scenes. We all know that He3 is a big deal and more fusion reactor research is moving towards using He3 as the fuel.

I always say to take a step back and look at the big picture. This He3 revolution as I call it, will change the way business is done on this planet since the big oil companies and OPEC will see their end in site. That is if they don't jump on this future power source and take advantage of it.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


OK, I understand it now.

But for that they had more useful sensors than just "common" cameras, Clementine had some sensors specifically for that.


The Ultraviolet/Visible camera (UV/Vis) was designed to study the surfaces of the Moon and the asteroid Geographos at five different wavelengths in the ultraviolet and visible spectrum.
...
This experiment yielded information on the petrologic properties of the surface material on the Moon, as well as giving images useful for morphologic studies and cratering statistics.
 
The Clementine Near-Infrared camera (NIR) was designed to study the surfaces of the Moon and the near-Earth asteroid 1620 Geographos at six different wavelengths in the near-infrared spectrum. This experiment yielded information on the petrology of the surface material on the Moon.
 
The Clementine Long-Wavelength Infrared (LWIR) Camera was designed to image darkside features on both the Moon and the near-Earth asteroid 1620 Geographos in the thermal infrared spectrum, and to allow measurement of thermal properties of material on both bodies, from which an assessment of regolith characteristics can be made.
 
The Clementine Bistatic Radar Experiment made use of the radio transmitting equipment aboard Clementine to search the Moon's polar regions for evidence of ice in permanently shadowed craters. Properties of the received reflections can be interpreted to give information on the target surface.


And for this kind of analysis there is no need of a great resolution.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Somebody threw an interesting wrench into the whole conspiracy/moon thing on one of the posts -- maybe another thread, not remembering clearly -- that I have no real response to (the answer may have been given; if so, I missed it):

If the PTB are at least 50 years ahead of consumer-sci (Phil Schnieder said as much as 1400 years ahead), then in, let's say, 1969, the imaging technology should already have been at HD resolution. But the photos we have may as well have been taken with a 110 camera.

Can anyone clarify?

Had I been sitting opposite of a debate, I would have looked just like this:



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptionToChoose


If the PTB are at least 50 years ahead of consumer-sci (Phil Schnieder said as much as 1400 years ahead), then in, let's say, 1969, the imaging technology should already have been at HD resolution. But the photos we have may as well have been taken with a 110 camera.

Can anyone clarify?

Had I been sitting opposite of a debate, I would have looked just like this:


john lear would tell you that's because NASA is a front for the real space program



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Well, I read all of the posts and in the end I see nothing in these images. I have found more things in other images from the mars rovers, clemintine,the ESA mars express to name a few. I found it somewhat displeasing to have read all the way through.

Also, because there is no way to respond to another post, I might add that I was very interested in the tread about the girl who had the alien image on her camara untill another mod named Byrd decided to close it because some members had a hate thing for the thread author. Byrd, I don't think you needed to pull it off, it was a gang up on Palasheea, and they should have been prohibited from destroying what was a "good" post. Would it be too much to ask that you try to discern when a post is just being slammed by a few people. If they didn't like the post, they should move on.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by Fromabove




Also, because there is no way to respond to another post, I might add that I was very interested in the tread about the girl who had the alien image on her camara untill another mod named Byrd decided to close it because some members had a hate thing for the thread author. Byrd, I don't think you needed to pull it off, it was a gang up on Palasheea, and they should have been prohibited from destroying what was a "good" post. Would it be too much to ask that you try to discern when a post is just being slammed by a few people. If they didn't like the post, they should move on.


I agree with you Fromabove. I have seen Byrd make some posts that were not well thought out nor well researched. I have seen Byrd use references from Wikepedia that were just plain wrong. If I see Byrd posting I just move on.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
What Byrd did was to close out the thread (Youtube girl talking about her UFO sighting and what she later found on her cam ). It was plain that a few disgrunted people just wanted to attack the thread.

On subject, what should I be looking for in these images. How old are they actually. I am windering if they were taken prior to any "known" moon visitation. Please forgive me if someone posted some of the info, I don't wish to review the hundreds of posts.



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 232  233  234    236  237  238 >>

log in

join