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.

 

Lunar bombing - Nasa TV live feed

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaHere
 


I'm with you 100% there.

Other line




posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OuttaHere
 


...same here. That's the best post on this entire topic.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
That guy sure was packing up his crap pretty fast! He sure didnt want to be around there much longer. On another note, with all the world watching how embarassing was it that not only did this look to be a big looser of a project, but then to be the guy in the red shirt and get stiffed on your big high five moment. lol



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HrdCorHillbilly
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Yep, you got me there.


I just think it's odd that we haven't been back to the moon in a very long time.
The best way to get information on something unknown...is to send someone there to see things with there own eyes.


Actually no:
Human eyes can't record what they see, so you need cameras anyway. And they are very bad at handling darkness and extreme brightness, have only a tiny area where the image is actually focused, can't see infrared, ultraviolett etc etc, and ... only come attached to humans.
Those need food, water, air, a certain temperature, a way to dispose of their waste, they have this irrational urge to not die there, but get back again too, go insane if you leave them alone for just a few years, make mistakes (just ask HAL), and despite of all that even demand a salary with their equipment!

So, no, sending folks up is perhaps the coolest way to do it, but not the best.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaHere
We can see comets crashing into Jupiter, which is 386,968,323 miles away, at high resolution. We can see galaxies 13 billion miles away. We can see minute details of nebulae far away from our solar system. But we can't get a decent picture of a moon impact only 238,855 miles away?

The Hubble images of this thing had better be good, and they had better release them soon. We didn't have to wait long for the Shoemaker-Levy pics.

And BTW I am not buying that Hubble can't resolve the American flag on the moon, either. For crying out loud, if a satellite can resolve an American flag on the surface of earth, then Hubble certainly can resolve a flag on the moon.

I call B.S.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by OuttaHere]
And I also agree that if they expect the taxpayers to keep funding them, they need to give us something to look at. The average person doesn't care about their numbers, infrared signatures, and jaargon. We want to SEE something.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by OuttaHere]


Your problem here is scale:
That tiny impact on jupiter was as big as earth. (not shoemaker-levy, the one a few months ago) So are the "minute details" of nebulae, and galaxies, well, galaxies are pretty friggin huge things.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaHere
The Hubble images of this thing had better be good, and they had better release them soon.


Im sure they have photoshop experts working on them right now to make them look real.

It amazes me that people still think its natural that NASA has to edit the pictures before showing them and that this process takes weeks.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by vip867
 




Maybe that guy was the one that deliberately flubbed the mission. Decided he'd done what he came to do and got the hell outta there.

Of course the whole image quality thing is immediately suspect. One of those things we'll never know the truth of.

Obama Nobel as a smoke screen for the NASA gaff?


PG



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
They don't use hubble to view the moon. The moon is too bright.
They don't have the necessary filters on the telescope to image it properly.

They didn't use it to image the moon this time, either.
They turned off of the moon itself and imaged the area just off the moon's surface to analyze it spectrographically.

You won't see any hubble moon pics.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 


I was wondering the same thing. It seems to me that the footage from the first moon landing back in1969 had better footage than we do today 40 years later. Nasa should have sent them up there with a new iPhone 3GS, I'm sure it has better quality than that stone aged crap NASA is using.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Yes we probably will. As they have in the past..

hubblesite.org...

Here too, www.wired.com... 5th paragraph.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
They don't use hubble to view the moon. The moon is too bright.
They don't have the necessary filters on the telescope to image it properly.

They didn't use it to image the moon this time, either.
They turned off of the moon itself and imaged the area just off the moon's surface to analyze it spectrographically.

You won't see any hubble moon pics.



I do not believe that for one minute, hubble has been upgraded several times and no matter what people say that is a superior piece of machinery.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Im officially pissed,all that hype for nothing...WoW,im done with NASA,they should be shutdown ASAP because we could be spending money on better things then this bull.....i mean they didnt even try to fake it good at that!I mean they could of used CGI.but i guess they thought

"O nahh jus use a webcam...CGI cost to much,They wont notice the difference"lol
are they trying to insult us ...lol im sry but this is a joke



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
What i'm focusing on is the first switch to infrared. What temperature variation are we looking at between the blue/green and few red spots? Why would what seems to be dark craters with no to little sun exposure be giving off a higher heat signature then the exposed lit up areas getting full sun exposure. Not to mension the three higher heat signatures which Exuberant1 pointed out on upper left



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Tell me, have i missed anything ?

Here is the Uk its nearly 8pm...


Ta
S



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by who-me?
 


Well if that dont contradict everything they just said at the news confence. I listened and that was exactly what the guy said, that the moon is too bright to be looked at with hubble, and I could buy into that, but after you have linked those pics I dont get what they were trying to say. You would think that they would know if they have ever taken pics of the moon with hubble before lieing about it at a public news confrence.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vip867
 


Well then... That makes two lies that came from the conference.
I mentioned the other one earlier. The guy said he spent an hour with the photos before the conference. Later on during questioning he said he only spent fifteen minutes with them.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Hey this must have been huge, even the face on mars dropped by to check it out, looksie






posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I didn't notice that. It looks just like the cydonia face on mars.
Maybe they were destroying some kind of evidence.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by HrdCorHillbilly]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HrdCorHillbilly
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I didn't notice that. It looks just like the cydonia face on mars.
Maybe they were destroying some kind of evidence.


[edit on 9-10-2009 by HrdCorHillbilly]


Or, crazy thought, maybe they were trying to do exactly what they said they were going to do.


You're probably way closer to the mark though, that image is clearly a human face- The quality of the image alone, is remarkable.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisBenoit
 


Lol at you buddy. NASA one of the biggest money black holes on earth actually doing what they say they are doing. Did you forget you were on ATS and not the NASA forum.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join