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.

 

telescope view of the moon. Need help

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I am just begining my own investigation of secret moon bases, fake moon landings and alien structures on the moon.

I just may have access to a very powerfull telescope, and I was wondering if there are and places I should focus on, and what I should be looking for.

For example do the places of suspected targets have coordinates an astronomer would use to target a spot on the moon?

Please reply to this thread if you have a suggestion for a target and what it is.
Thanks
Rob




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I would suggest that you don't waste your time. If amateur astronomers can see "moon bases" from earth, don't you think their existence wouldn't and couldn't be disputed?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
And besides, the moon landings weren't faked. I repeat, NOT FAKED.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Im sure. Im not talking about an amature telescope though.
Besides, it cant hurt to look.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Hey Acme,

Best of luck with your search. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on this telescope you might have access to?

You may want to utilize this thread in your search efforts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is much to learn from this thread. You will find coordinates and more to help you in your search.

Again good luck and keep us posted!

Becker



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
And besides, the moon landings weren't faked. I repeat, NOT FAKED.


That is debatable... There is a wealth of evidence to suggest the moon landings were not as reported and may not have occurred.

Issues need resolving such as the radiation belt between here and the moon that would have damaged the astronauts not to mention the massive electro static charges that are created on the moons surface.

Do some research, I don't know either way.... but there are too many issues to say yes it definitely happened.

Thanks for reading.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
As I have understood it, not even the most powerfull telescope on earth is able to see the moon in high enough resolution.

It need to be orbiter photos. Can you build a satellite?


[edit on 31-1-2007 by merka]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I will know sometime today if I will get telescope time or not. After that I'll post which scope it is.
If I do get time on it, I will try the apollo sites first and see what kind of results are seen. Im going to get as hires a photo as possible and then we can look at its quality and see if it justifies time to see another target.

As far as the apollo sites go, which mission had the most equipment left behind?
Also if there is a way to kill 2 birds, is there a apollo mission target that also may have some annomolies in the area?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Here's a list of objects of significant size that were placed on the moon or left for various reasons:

en.wikipedia.org...

There are a few objects over 10000kgs. Many of them have known locations. Pick one and try and verify it visually?

[edit on 31-1-2007 by bluesquareapple]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
And besides, the moon landings weren't faked. I repeat, NOT FAKED.


As far as i´ve understood it the debate is not about the actual moonlanding but rather about the validity of the broadcast/film/imagery. Did we actually get to see what the astronauts saw, no?

acmeartifacts, looking forward to hear more, big thumbs up!
Like said above, there´s a lot of powerfull telescopes beeing directed towards the moon already, i think an interesting aspect would be to record imagery over a length of time for comparison of details. You never know, you could get lucky.

I will easily assume that the powers that be have a fairly good overview of which telescopes, if any, have the capability to discover something important and so forth i also assume that anything going through that lens is beeing closely monitored. If there´s anything current to hide at all that is...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
No doubt you are going to get some great views of the moon, but don't waste your time looking for bases or any equipment left behind by the apollo missions. Even the largest telescope on earth is not powerfull enough to resolve such small items from such a distance.

Have fun though.


There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.




From Here



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
You won't get granular enough detail to see anything other than craters craterlets. etc. Nothing manmade or "alien" made can be seen from any telescope that humans have on earth. The general consensus is you would have to have a mirror the size of 77 meters or up to resolve anything left by NASA.

For reference, Hubble can only resolve objects 200 meters or greater on the moon. So Hubble is out.

However, don't let it stop you from looking at our wonderful moon with any telescope. It's good stuff.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
It is said that the moon structures are on the dark side of the moon and well there's no way to see that side of the moon from earth so a telescope won't do much.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Neon Haze -- the moon landings were most certainly not faked. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to convince you, but these are the main pieces of evidence:

- photographic/video/physical evidence
- amateurs listened in on the radio transmissions in 1969
- Apollo 11's laser reflector plate experiment can still be used today by
astronomers around the world

And what scientifically sound evidence is there to the contrary? Uhh...that would be none. Even Van Allen himself dismissed the notion that Van Allen radiation would prevent astronauts from traveling to the moon.

And above all, remember the motto of this site: "Deny Ignorance."


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Postal76]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Issues need resolving such as the radiation belt between here and the moon that would have damaged the astronauts not to mention the massive electro static charges that are created on the moons surface.


Val Allen belt is easily explained:

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see Radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

* The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the metal hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.[45] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.(Plait 2002:160-62)

* The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.


And you should also watch this video: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76
Neon Haze -- the moon landings were most certainly not faked. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to convince you, but these are the main pieces of evidence:

- photographic/video/physical evidence
- amateurs listened in on the radio transmissions in 1969
- Apollo 11's laser reflector plate experiment can still be used today by
astronomers around the world

And what scientifically sound evidence is there to the contrary? Uhh...that would be none. Even Van Allen himself dismissed the notion that Van Allen radiation would prevent astronauts from traveling to the moon.

And above all, remember the motto of this site: "Deny Ignorance."


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Postal76]


Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, but one thing that has actually been proven fact, is that numerous pictures and videos of the landings are clear fakes. To assume that a lunar lander module would leave ZERO crater or blast evidence is absurd. Also the video of the module taking off from the moon, with ZERO rocket thrusters, is laughable. I write it off as if you're spending billions of dollars, you better have pictures, and they did what was necessary to please the public, as well as corporations involved in the Apollo missions.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
As I have understood it, not even the most powerfull telescope on earth is able to see the moon in high enough resolution.

It need to be orbiter photos. Can you build a satellite?


[edit on 31-1-2007 by merka]


At least that's what they tell us. They can read the license plate on your vehicle from space but can't get clear photos of the moon which has no atmosphere to distort the images? Heck, I can see my trucks in my driveway and my riding lawnmower with Google maps.

[edit on 043131p://010717 by HectorRmz]

[edit on 043131p://010717 by HectorRmz]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt

Originally posted by Postal76
Neon Haze -- the moon landings were most certainly not faked. I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to convince you, but these are the main pieces of evidence:

- photographic/video/physical evidence
- amateurs listened in on the radio transmissions in 1969
- Apollo 11's laser reflector plate experiment can still be used today by
astronomers around the world

And what scientifically sound evidence is there to the contrary? Uhh...that would be none. Even Van Allen himself dismissed the notion that Van Allen radiation would prevent astronauts from traveling to the moon.

And above all, remember the motto of this site: "Deny Ignorance."


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Postal76]


Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, but one thing that has actually been proven fact, is that numerous pictures and videos of the landings are clear fakes. To assume that a lunar lander module would leave ZERO crater or blast evidence is absurd. Also the video of the module taking off from the moon, with ZERO rocket thrusters, is laughable. I write it off as if you're spending billions of dollars, you better have pictures, and they did what was necessary to please the public, as well as corporations involved in the Apollo missions.


I have my own theory. What if we did go to the moon, but as Wiliam Cooper and some astrounats have claimed, aliens were there and told us to stay away. Now, the govn. has to make a decision. Do we go bak start a war and tell the people that we have lied about aliens and they do exist. Oh and we started a war. OR, do we fake the rest of the videos and photos. Also, what if some of the videos taken on the moon actually show UFos in the background? Well maybe they edited the original (real) photos to remove such artifacts. But they didn't do such a good job? Just a thought.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I hope you find something...i've been looking at the moon for about 25 years and all i see are a bunch of craters. your gonna get bored very fast

good luck!!!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
hey acme,

Check out thelivingmoon.com. There's a lot of interesting info and pictures about the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join