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.

 

NASA exposed - Do NOT miss these videos!

page: 16
162
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mikesingh
No Earth based or space based telescope can image any equipment left on the Moon.


Well now that is a blanketing statement


But more to the point... THEY WON"T TRY

Why try when simple calculations will show you that there isn't a telescope on earth large enough to resolve the landing site? All you'd be doing is wasting telescope time that could be used for something more productive. The lunar lander descent stages are 0.002174" arc seconds wide when the moon is at its closest approach. A 6.4 meter telescope (about 25% bigger than the Hale at palomar) can only resolve down to 0.0181" assuming no atmospheric distortion or perfect adaptive optics (which it doesn't have). That's a magnitude too poor to see anything at all. A 50 meter telescope, larger than any ever made, would have a maximum resolution of 0.0023" just under what would be needed to make the lander appear as a single pixel with the perfect camera and no atmosphere. A 100 meter telescope would get 0.0011" maximum, just enough to get the job done with great adaptive optics in place and a great camera. Nothing smaller will show anything we left behind, so there's no sense in looking for it with large expensive telescope that are still far too small to be able to ever pull it off, even under ideal unrealistic conditions.




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Yes and then there is the reflector/mirror that is used to measure the distance to the moon these days. At least some equipment is still there and it is verifiable fact regardless of whether or not we can directly image it.. If anything could directly image the equipment at all at this point it would be the Japanese selene probe capable of taking the high def images from orbit.

wms.selene.jaxa.jp...

-ChriS

[edit on 10-7-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
I laugh at all of these moon conspiracies. No offense, really, but any Average Joe could buy a telescope to see the moon in GREAT DETAIL from his back porch. Seriously, there's no way that they could hide anything on the moon from us.


I hope this is just a joke.

You do realise that only one side of the moon is permanently visible from earth, so the backside always stays hidden?

But if you already knew this can you please point me to a store where I can buy one of those telescopes that can see the backside of the moon?


No offence by the way.


[edit on 11/7/08 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter\ All you'd be doing is wasting telescope time that could be used for something more productive.


More productive? Like what? Surely the space telescopes have made the old Earth based ones all but obsolete? Surely they could just 'have a look' to appease the public that could care less about a new quasar billions of light years away but just want to see whats up in our backyard? You know all that 'public funding' and all that..

And what productive stuff have they given us that the average person can make use of? Hehe at least Hubble gives us really pretty pictures

[edit on 11-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I believe some of the newer, active, more massive ground based telescopes are now rivaling the imaging capablities of even hubble (if not surpassing it). Some of the proposals for telescope designs in recent years are so insanely mind boggling that it puts hubble to shame. Like these..
homeboyastronomy.com...

www.eso.org...

The obvious problem is atmospheric distortion that can diminish the imaging capacity of these large telescopes. Some telescopes currently in operation use computer programs to minimize this distortion and to maximize their imaging capabiltiies.

What we need is a more advanced, more capable space telescope that won't have to be serviced like the hubble.
Something like the James Webb space telescope which NASA is currently developing to be launched into space in 2013.
See link here:
www.jwst.nasa.gov...

Just a few days ago on July 10, Nasa gave approval for the project to move into it's development phase.
www.stsci.edu...

www.stsci.edu...

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
imageing the Apollo Landing sites / equipment

i have a simple question for anyone ` demanding ` that terrestrial telescopes , orbital telescopes or lunar probes should be used to " supply evidence " that the Apollo hardware actually sits on the lunar surface

well actualy its a 2 part question


1 - why do you require additional evidence ? have you dismissed the evidence in the ALSJ and all other still and motion pictire evidence ?

2 if you have dismissed the ALSJ as evisence , why ?

3 having dismissed the ALSJ with its thousands of stills , and hundreds of hours of motion pictires , why would a single image or series of images change your mind ?

i have said it before - and i will re-iterate :

this demand for new images of the Apollo hardware is disengenous twaddle from people who refuse to accept all current evidence availiable

even if the imagery they ` demand ` was made availiable - they would not accept it - and claim it was fake

so why sould anyone devote rescourses to the appeasement of such people ?



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
so why sould anyone devote rescourses to the appeasement of such people ?


To satisfy our curiosity and justify their HUGE grants




posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
More productive? Like what? Surely the space telescopes have made the old Earth based ones all but obsolete?

You didn't read my post very thoroughly, or you failed to understand it. It takes a telescope of aperture a bit greater than 50 meters to resolve the equipment we left behind as a single pixel. It takes 100 meters to get about 2 pixels out of it. That's assuming there's no atmosphere, in other words, that it's a space telescope. Show me what space telescope we have in that size - we don't even have a ground telescope that size. Hubble is only 2.4m in diameter - not even close to what you would need. And as stated, with really good adaptive optics you can make up most of the difference between space and ground telecopes.


And what productive stuff have they given us that the average person can make use of? Hehe at least Hubble gives us really pretty pictures

You just answered your own question. If nothing else they provide inspiration to the public who may be spurred on to strive for higher education. That was the case for me and I'm sure it was the case for lots of other people who were kids when men first landed on the moon. Nevermind all the valuable information we get about how the universe works, and consequently what threats our planet faces from natural dangers.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter If nothing else they provide inspiration to the public who may be spurred on to strive for higher education.


Well they are going to have trouble competing with Youtube. I mean according to Youtube we already have proof of Nibiru from telescope pictures... and Youtube has all the answers about the Apollo' mission'


Now considering all the fuss over this you would think they could spare a little time and effort to prove it
but they don't because they can't without letting the cat out of the bag...



That was the case for me and I'm sure it was the case for lots of other people who were kids when men first landed on the moon.


Yes and those like you will be hardest hit when the real truth does finally come out




Nevermind all the valuable information we get about how the universe works, and consequently what threats our planet faces from natural dangers.


Quite right... never mind the 'valuable information' we learned as its all being rewritten now anyway..

Pari Spolter is challenging Einstein an Newton on Gravity...
Electric Universe theory is gain ground...

Interesting times...

I would leave a few openings in your box to let some 'illumination' in






[edit on 14-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
quote]

To satisfy our curiosity and justify their HUGE grants


Satisfying the desires of the ignorant by knowingly disregarding the limitations of precious billion dollar equipment does not justify huge grants. If a guy walked up to the institute I work in and said "I want you to stuff this piece of hair in your million dollar mass spectrometer and tell me if it shows who my great grandfather is," we'd tell him to take a hike. If we "satisfied his curiosity" all we'd do is end up breaking our equipment - hardly justification for our multimillion dollar grants.

Now while observing the moon may not break hubble, it wastes critical time spent observing something that we know for sure CAN'T see. Space telescopes, in particular, have very limited lifespans so you're wasting extremely valuble time that could be spent doing something else. The scope's final breakdown is inevitable and will occur much much sooner than it would with a ground scope, so you're literally costing taxpayers money wasting their time on needless ignorance.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ngchunter If nothing else they provide inspiration to the public who may be spurred on to strive for higher education.


Well they are going to have trouble competing with Youtube. I mean according to Youtube we already have proof of Nibiru from telescope pictures... and Youtube has all the answers about the Apollo' mission'


That others wish to spread ignorance does not matter; it's certainly not justification to make expensive decisions based on ignorance. Moreover, most intelligent people are not swayed by youtube when it comes to science and most good parents don't let their kids watch that trash in the first place.


Now considering all the fuss over this you would think they could spare a little time and effort to prove it
but they don't because they can't without letting the cat out of the bag...

Simple math can prove it doesn't work to those who have even the slightest open mind. The ignorant who don't have an open mind will only use it as "proof" that we never landed on the moon - severe confirmation bias.



Yes and those like you will be hardest hit when the real truth does finally come out


The real truth is already out, we went to the moon. There is not even any evidence that we didn't go. There is, on the other hand, irrefutable evidence that we did go. I'm not bothered by your threats of a "sudden revelation." In fact, since you're intentionally pushing for a test you know is doomed to fail and not show the landing sites, it's proof that you're trying to push your bias, not the facts. You know it will fail by design and so you wish it to happen so you can spread ignorance of the truth with the result.


I would leave a few openings in your box to let some 'illumination' in

I would close up a few holes and biases. Your ignorance regarding basic optics, unwarranted "apollo doubt," and severe bias for a test lacking any sense of a positive control all combine to hurt the credibility of any other claims you make, including radical revisionist physics - honestly, you're hurting your case with every post.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


what good would it do? when pictures eventually arrive from future moon probes you'll scream theyre fake anyway.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mikesingh
No Earth based or space based telescope can image any equipment left on the Moon.


Well now that is a blanketing statement


But more to the point... THEY WON"T TRY

Why try when simple calculations will show you that there isn't a telescope on earth large enough to resolve the landing site? All you'd be doing is wasting telescope time that could be used for something more productive. The lunar lander descent stages are 0.002174" arc seconds wide when the moon is at its closest approach. A 6.4 meter telescope (about 25% bigger than the Hale at palomar) can only resolve down to 0.0181" assuming no atmospheric distortion or perfect adaptive optics (which it doesn't have). That's a magnitude too poor to see anything at all. A 50 meter telescope, larger than any ever made, would have a maximum resolution of 0.0023" just under what would be needed to make the lander appear as a single pixel with the perfect camera and no atmosphere. A 100 meter telescope would get 0.0011" maximum, just enough to get the job done with great adaptive optics in place and a great camera. Nothing smaller will show anything we left behind, so there's no sense in looking for it with large expensive telescope that are still far too small to be able to ever pull it off, even under ideal unrealistic conditions.

Why bother with lunar landers, etc. Just look at what earthbound telescopes show UKERT CRATER to look like, which is fodder for Hoagland's fantasies, when Lunar Orbiter high-resolution photos show its true nature. And UKERT is one hell of a bigger crater than the lunar landers yet the images seen of the crater do not show it as it looks from orbit about the moon.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Here's some evidense that the U.S. and other Gov's are the ones inside these U.F.O.'s

1. www.erichufschmid.net...

2. wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Colour_avrocar_59.jpg

3. www.erichufschmid.net...

4. The attempt to fake alien spacecraft supposedly was going on during World War 2. Here are some photos from Nazi Germany:
photo.raelian.com...

5. However, one of those aircraft may be an early "stealth" aircraft, not an alien spacecraft:
photo.raelian.com...



[edit on 25-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
what good would it do? when pictures eventually arrive from future moon probes you'll scream theyre fake anyway.


Well the Chinese and Japanese sent up a ship... and people like you told us they would show us whats what...

Well I am still waiting... and with the fiasco of that one photo China produced I don't have to scream fake... they're doing all the work for me



However with that total useless non-constructive comment of yours, its the iggy bin for you

Ta Ta



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I am still waiting... and with the fiasco of that one photo China produced I don't have to scream fake... they're doing all the work for me

Well the wait is over: here's a before/after image of the apollo 15 landing site taken by the command module during the mission. You can see a lighter patch of lunar soil that had been disturbed by the lunar module right where the landing (and subsequent blastoff) took place.

www.jaxa.jp...

Now here is a closeup comparison of the after shot from apollo with a recent shot of the same area taken by Japan's Selene probe.

www.universetoday.com...

Craters match up perfectly and the bright spot is still there.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Hi,

Sorry I don't fancey looking through all the pages but I was just wondering. On that 3rd video the very first picture this person shows us of moon then he shows the galaxy in the background... that can't be real can it? Looks amazing wether real or fake.

Btw last vid doesn't work it says it's been deleted.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter hardly justification for our multimillion dollar grants.


Hardly the same thing at all... most observatories have public viewing nights...

Lick Observatory has 4 nights a year that you can pick the target with their 120 inch Shane telescope... You need an appointment for these sessions and its just a hard place for me to get to from Las Vegas...



Photo by Johnny Annonymous


And why would I need your silly machine when I can use the one at Timet? They're not so nasty as 'some people' and don't call people ignorant because they have odd beliefs


I'll have a look at your 'blocthes' later tonight

[edit on 28-7-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spacedeck
Sorry I don't fancey looking through all the pages but I was just wondering.

Btw last vid doesn't work it says it's been deleted.


Well I am sorry too... you should have at LEAST read the first PAGE as Ziggy corrected the broken link in POST #4

And if you had hit 'quote' on his first post you could have cut and paste the link




posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I am sorry too... you should have at LEAST read the first PAGE as Ziggy corrected the broken link in POST #4

And if you had hit 'quote' on his first post you could have cut and paste the link



I did actualy read the first page and if you check the video out in both the links what was posted on the first page for the 4th vid it should come up with "This video has been removed by the user."


Now.. any altenative?


And also about that picture....



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join