Originally posted by zorgon

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...

Great, go there then and do that, but don't try to waste astronomers time with telescopes that do not offer the public the chance to pick the target. Most professional observatories do not provide that kind of opportunity with their largest scopes. I know because I've worked public viewings at a university's observatory. I can promise you right now though that simple calculations show that it's impossible for a 120 inch scope to show you any of the apollo artifacts on the moon.

Hey JACK!!! What a joke. Proof of what? Photoshop? Reverse gaussian blur? LOL!!!

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Hey JACK!!! What a joke. Proof of what? Photoshop? Reverse gaussian blur? LOL!!!

Who is jack? Honestly, who is this in response to?

Originally posted by whipnet
NASA faking the moon landings? For real? We are still talking about this crap?

NASA engineers have gone on talk shows with the conspiracy clowns and made them look foolish.

What were the 10,000 mathematicians here in my home city of Houston calculating? How to fake a moon landings?

I thought we had moved passed this ignorance years ago.

*

I did too. But now a new generation is here "discovering" old rumors.

The videos I watched in this thread are doctored with photoshop techniques. A green plant shoot growing from a rock "discovered" in a dark shadow? Gimme a break.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Hey JACK!!! What a joke. Proof of what? Photoshop? Reverse gaussian blur? LOL!!!

Who is jack? Honestly, who is this in response to?

I was making reference to "Jack'' Schmitt and one of the videos.

Originally posted by ngchunter
here then and do that, but don't try to waste astronomers time with telescopes that do not offer the public the chance to pick the target.

Yes Sir Herr Commandant

You know I wrote the PUBLIC RELATIONS guy at Mt Palomar... so I wasn't wasting anyones time... And I also have some awesome photos of the Moon from astronomers who did not think I was wasting their time... some I even paid licensing fees for them to use as prints... and I have a letter from a NASA employee that says its the best photo of the moon he has ever seen...

Now I wasn't looking for scope time at Palomar... merely to purchase copies of photos I had seen in old books credited to Mt Palomar... only to be told that none exist... I asked for the archive photos of the Moon taken by Lick... only to be sent by a very helpful lady at the Lick to the UCLA Santa Cruz facility where they were 're-cataloging the images... only to find the MOON images are not available

Most professional observatories do not provide that kind of opportunity with their largest scopes. I know because I've worked public viewings at a university's observatory.

Well good for you and as you say MOST but SOME do So what are you a volunteer?

I can promise you right now though that simple calculations show that it's impossible for a 120 inch scope to show you any of the apollo artifacts on the moon.

Well marvelous thank you for confirming that Of course I never said that is what I was looking for... and I am one that repeatedly says you CANNOT see Apollo from any current satellite..

Matter of fact Jack used some equipment in CA that bounced a laser of the Moon He is pretty sure he found the missing Luna 17 Lunokhod 1 laser target


[edit on 30-7-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Yes Sir Herr Commandant

You know I wrote the PUBLIC RELATIONS guy at Mt Palomar... so I wasn't wasting anyones time...

Sounds to me like you wasted the PR guy's time.

And I also have some awesome photos of the Moon from astronomers who did not think I was wasting their time... some I even paid licensing fees for them to use as prints... and I have a letter from a NASA employee that says its the best photo of the moon he has ever seen...

I have access to plenty of cool photos of the moon too, some very high resolution shots as well. Webcam-style astrophotography has revolutionized lunar astrophotography in recent years, amateurs with big scopes are beating what the pros used to be able to do. But what has this got to do with detecting apollo artifacts exactly?

Now I wasn't looking for scope time at Palomar... merely to purchase copies of photos I had seen in old books credited to Mt Palomar... only to be told that none exist... I asked for the archive photos of the Moon taken by Lick... only to be sent by a very helpful lady at the Lick to the UCLA Santa Cruz facility where they were 're-cataloging the images... only to find the MOON images are not available

Again, it doesn't matter whether Palomar or Lick took the picture, neither is even close to capable of seeing apollo artifacts. So why does it matter whether you were hoping for archive photos or new photos?

Well good for you and as you say MOST but SOME do So what are you a volunteer?

I can assure that the ones that do are not "Keck-class" scopes though. They may be good for what they are, but not the best. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the ones that do let you choose the target to look at are at older historical observatories like Lick and Palomar or are not among the world's largest scopes. I was a volunteer at my university's observatory the entire time I was a student there and I came back and helped out with some public viewings a few times after I graduated. I went on to work at another observatory for a while after college, which was a big step down in equipment but gave me a paycheck. You say you've always said these scopes can't see the apollo artifacts, but you started off complaining that they won't try, as if you thought maybe they could. Sounds like you're changing your tune.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by ngchunter]

Uhhh......I am not just seeing rectangles n triangles. I have been studying the official Nasa photos for about 35 yrs. now. I have sketched a really beautiful
building in Tycho Crater and some other stuff there. It is pretty much a mess in the bottom of the crater.....And King Crater, I have sketched flying machines workiing and picking up stuff. One is flying out the side of the photo, which looks like it is dragging out what looks like a net, that has some strange looking fibers in it, if you can call it that. And a bunch of other stuff. Their air craft doesn't look anything like ours or not the ones working in the crater. Other strange machines that are probably mining. We might have something similiar. I just sketch what I see. These photos have been posted on ATS and no one mentioned seeing any of the stuff I see, so I just maybe one of your weirdies who can see what everyone else can not. When I sketch it out, only then can my family say...."I see it now!!!"I don't know how to do anything on a computer yet. One day I will be able to show you, but many of you do not have the EYE to see this stuff , you will only see rocks. Some of my family still can't. Women see it better than men.....so far.

I would like to know why these things haven't been specifically addressed in interviews and so forth. Why hasn't someone said, "Hey, Jack....when you said something hit here, and saw something coming, what did you see?" or something like that. I mean, the supposed audio from Apollo 11 with Neil Armstrong actually mentioning that there was UFO's over on a crater. If this audio exists, where is it? I know Jack's audio is out there for all to here. But what about the other audio with the astronaut saying, "What is that Jack? Whats that? Hey, something just hit here!"...I know that's not exactly it, but you guys know what I'm saying.

I would like to hear that audio being said of the ufo's over on the crater.