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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 338
377
<< 335  336  337    339  340  341 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



I say we can usually make out what make of car it is..
The LRO pics are mere pixels..
FACT.....
I really don't know why you'd bother useing pics that would be slammed by skeptics in seconds to prove equipment left on the moon..
Other facts are far more credible proof..
Stick to PROVABLE facts, not the LRO crap..


The spy satellites that have extremely high resolution are quite large and heavy. It would be very expensive to loft them all the way to the Moon. There is no compelling reason to get that sort of resolution of the lunar surface.

Since you automatically reject any evidence, nothing is provable to you. Why you reject the work of scientists and engineers, while embracing hoaxes and publicity stunts is beyond me.


OH, I GET IT NOW
According to DJW001, the pixel resolution of a space-based spy camera is directly proportional to the weight of the spacecraft
Did you get a citation from NASA on that???



jra

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Overall what is our best spy satellite and it's resolution???


Nobody here can say for certain what it would be due to that information being classified. But one can speculate by doing some math.


en.wikipedia.org...
where θ is the angular resolution, λ is the wavelength of light, and D is the diameter of the lens or mirror. Were the Hubble Space Telescope, with a 2.4 m telescope, designed for photographing Earth, it would be diffraction-limited to resolutions greater than 16cm (6 inches) for green light ( \lambda \approx 550 nm) at its orbital altitude of 590 km. This means that it would be impossible to take photographs showing objects smaller than 16cm with such a telescope at such an altitude. Modern U.S. IMINT satellites are believed to have around 10cm resolution; contrary to references in popular culture, this is sufficient to detect any type of vehicle, but not to read the headlines of a newspaper.


Spy satellites are huge however and sending one to the Moon would require quite a hefty rocket I would imagine.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



OH, I GET IT NOW According to DJW001, the pixel resolution of a space-based spy camera is directly proportional to the weight of the spacecraft Did you get a citation from NASA on that???


It's a pretty obvious conclusion..
Getting mass to the moon is hard and expensive..
Earth based satellites do not have the same issue, well not as bad..
Therefore many even have telescopes, not just your average zoom lens..
Weight is not as big a factor....



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 



Spy satellites are huge however and sending one to the Moon would require quite a hefty rocket I would imagine.


I wouldn't even debate that..
If you look you will see I was telling WMD_2008 that it was irrelevant to the debate about the LRO..

I just wish you guys would call out ridiculous comments like WMD_2008 made as fast as you do for any comment others make..

And they even got stars for ridiculous, inaccurate statements..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...
...2.5cm resolution..Think we could tell the make of that car..??
BTW, most believe the secret sats take even better pics...


You're quoting NASA? I'm afraid that you've made it clear that source can't be trusted. Can you find something you would accept as proof of your statement?

edit on 29-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



OH, I GET IT NOW According to DJW001, the pixel resolution of a space-based spy camera is directly proportional to the weight of the spacecraft Did you get a citation from NASA on that???


Do you suppose it is an inverse relationship?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...
...2.5cm resolution..Think we could tell the make of that car..??
BTW, most believe the secret sats take even better pics...


You're quoting NASA? I'm afraid that you've made it clear that source can't be trusted. Can you find something you would accept as proof of your statement?

edit on 29-1-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.


Get real..Are you saying spy sats haven't got far better resolution than the LRO pics??
Really, this debate is getting so stupid..
You'll probably get stars for that silly comment..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...
...2.5cm resolution..Think we could tell the make of that car..??
BTW, most believe the secret sats take even better pics...


You're quoting NASA? I'm afraid that you've made it clear that source can't be trusted. Can you find something you would accept as proof of your statement?

Get real..Are you saying spy sats haven't got far better resolution than the LRO pics??
Really, this debate is getting so stupid..
You'll probably get stars for that silly comment..

It's good to see how you are setting a fine example with your 'pleasant tone'. After all, it is everyone else who is at fault...

Just a moment ago (and in fact continually), you were criticising OTHERS for offtopic or ill-informed comments.

So, would you now explain how the resolution capabilites of current earth-orbiting spy satellites is ontopic, and what point you would like to make. Thanks so much.

And if you like, we'll go right back to when you introduced it, and look at what you said, in detail....



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
for Google Maps, specifically....the "zoom" in to closer, better detail and resolution is from.....drumroll....photographs taken by aircraft!!!. Aircraft at about 1,500 feet above the ground, on average. Folks, do I have to remind everyone that there are NO "aircraft" flying over the surface of the Moon,


Do you think they'd let the google earth planes fly above area 51 ? Yet here you can not only identify the cars, but almost their makes.

From what I can understand, Area51 is a no fly zone. Yet here is a very detailed picture.
Actually this detail would be fine to identify the alleged lander, rovers and experiments.



Source: google earth.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



It's good to see how you are setting a fine example with your 'pleasant tone'. After all, it is everyone else who is at fault...
Just a moment ago (and in fact continually), you were criticising OTHERS for offtopic or ill-informed comments.
So, would you now explain how the resolution capabilites of current earth-orbiting spy satellites is ontopic, and what point you would like to make. Thanks so much.
And if you like, we'll go right back to when you introduced it, and look at what you said, in detail....


Please go back and read why my tone changed..
Check WMD_2008's post that are absurd and yet gain stars and NO correction..

I continually said what resolution is possible from Earth sats is irrevevant..
I did NOT want to carry on that debate..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


????


Yet here you can not only identify the cars, but almost their makes.


Really? No hyperbole in that claim??

Please, point out each make and model, in that photo....



From what I can understand, Area51 is a no fly zone...


SO deceptive. Show the SAME resolution, from a "Google Map" screen-grab, for the ENTIRE base, and not just a lonely (isolated) parking lot.

Really....is THIS the sort of "debate" you bring??? Sorry, but....well....trying to stay polite. However, when faced with such easy punts, well......



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



SO deceptive. Show the SAME resolution, from a "Google Map" screen-grab, for the ENTIRE base, and not just a lonely (isolated) parking lot.

Really....is THIS the sort of "debate" you bring??? Sorry, but....well....trying to stay polite. However, when faced with such easy punts, well......


Google??? Why???

And why is this even relevant??
I'm shaking my head at those on both sides of this debate..
What you are all argueing over means NOTHING...
Sounds like playtime in prep school..



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Well....WHAT, then, are YOU referring to???

Because, on one hand. you claim an "equivalent" to what we "see" on earth satellites, to what we "should" see on the Moon???

Trying to tell you....that WHAT you see.....whether it's Google Maps, or whatever....is NOT THE SAME!!!

BASIC satellite resolution....for the commercial variety, available to the public here for Earth views.....about the same as the LRO. ENHANCED, because....well....we LIVE HERE!!! And, have the ease of enhancement.

The Moon, is entirely different.

As mentioned....there is NO financial incentive to satisfy a handful of "Apollo hoax" nutjobs by spending multi-millions or billions on satellites, lauched to orbit the Moon, JUST to image the Apollo (or any other ) Luanr landing sites!!! How silly, in its claims.....



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Please go back and read why my tone changed..

There's nothing in the quoted text that justifies it, and that's all that counts.

It was actually a rhetorical observation - it's quite obvious that your 'rules' apply to everyone else, not you.

Carry on.


[I did NOT want to carry on that debate..

So, you have no point to make about the veracity of the Apollo missions. And that post was a waste, and the next one... Perhaps think about that before posting next time, or perhaps even before you get involved in the topic in the first place, when you said:

I say we can usually make out what make of car it is..
The LRO pics are mere pixels..
FACT.....


But now that ppk has introduced that SUPERB example....(and I'm carefully controlling my tone here....), perhaps you and ppk can positively identify some of the cars in his image?

That will be.. some FACTs!!




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Of course my tone changes with the bully boy tactics..
As for telling me I should stay out of the topic, well you know T&C negates me giving that the answer it trully deserves..

If you guys want to go on patting eachother on the back for incorrect posts, fine...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



But now that ppk has introduced that SUPERB example....(and I'm carefully controlling my tone here....), perhaps you and ppk can positively identify some of the cars in his image?

That will be.. some FACTs!!

Are you saying I am wrong when I posted a NASA link that clearly states their sats had resolutions as high as 2.5cms..?????

Really, what a retarded thread this is turning into..
Everyone argueing over irrelevant facts..




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Because, on one hand. you claim an "equivalent" to what we "see" on earth satellites, to what we "should" see on the Moon???


As said by you many times...You got a star fot that bull????

I have been saying the exact opposite...
I have said it's irrelevant what we can or can not do with earth sats...

Please show me where I said different...
This is flaming for no reason and getting boring..........



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Are you saying I am wrong when I posted a NASA link that clearly states their sats had resolutions as high as 2.5cms..?????

Really, what a retarded thread this is turning into..
Everyone argueing over irrelevant facts..


Do you consider NASA to be a reputable source or not?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Spy satellites are huge however and sending one to the Moon would require quite a hefty rocket I would imagine.


Why the hell would anyone even do that? To spy on the craters and rocks?



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
 



Are you saying I am wrong when I posted a NASA link that clearly states their sats had resolutions as high as 2.5cms..?????

Really, what a retarded thread this is turning into..
Everyone argueing over irrelevant facts..


Do you consider NASA to be a reputable source or not?


The question is , do you??
I posted information from a source that YOU accept as credible yet you are carrying on with these ridiculous posts..
If I had of quoted JW as a source you would do the same...

Tell me what the f I am meant to do?????



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 335  336  337    339  340  341 >>

log in

join