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.

 

Astro-NOTS?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by molecularstranding
 


Could be spherical distortion either from the lens or in attempting to get a better composition of the picture. You have to remember that the primary purpose of the pictures from the moon were publicity to ensure continued budget.


No research on spherical distortion...please explain what you mean and how this could be accomplished without two light sources. Oh yes, any sources would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
Hey, several years ago, I shone a laser & reflected it off a panel they placed on the moon back with the Apollo missions.

How'd I do that?


I'm personally on the fence as far as manned missions to the moon, reasonable evidence both ways, and I wasn't there, so I could never say for sure.

But as the devil's advocate, would it not be entirely possible for unmanned missions to have placed the reflecting panel on the moon? Just because there are verifiable man-made objects on the moon doesn't necessarily mean that human hands placed them there, correct?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by VariableConstant
 

That's what I am saying, except not. I don't think there are any manmade objects on the moon, and if there were, they could have been placed there like you stated. I just don't understand why they don't train one of their superpowerful telescopes at the moon and show everyone the footprints, flag, tracks, parts of spacecraft, tools, etc., that got left behind. I know it would shut me up about this...unless those photos were faked too! haha



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


When they use a wide-angle or fish-eye lens, it grabs more of the scene but distorts the image. The same effect can be caused by manipulating the image with software.

This is not necessarily a noticeable distortion but becomes obvious when straight lines get curved and angles and perspective are distorted.

It is highly likely that wide-angle lenses were fixed to all cameras used on the moon, to capture the maximum field of image.
edit on 14/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Wouldn't the background and astronaut be distorted too? Or just the shadow?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

It is a big charge to claim that NASA never went to the Moon, that it was all a fake, yet this man René has come up with a large body of information that has to be seriously considered. He is obviously not writing this book for the fun of it, I doubt he’s making any money at it, and is sure to be scorned and ridiculed simply for asking good questions which go against the common belief.


He did it because he was a hate filled religious fanatic. His "facts" are all lies. Here's an example of one of them being exposed on this very site:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you want to read Rene's book, you will find it here:
NASA Mooned America

If you'd like to see more of his lies exposed, try here:
Ralph Rene Was Wrong, Mate!



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


www.ralphrenewaswrongmate.com...

That site says nothing..Only Rene's claims...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


wow...your thread is very antagonistic.



What makes you think Jarrah's "beliefs" are honest? Do honest people deliberately lie? Jarrah does, that's a proven fact, or have you not read any of this thread? What makes you think anyone is freaked out by his cynical behavior?


The US gov't lies. NASA is funded by the US gov't. Are you actually saying that you believe honest lies after criticizing people on your thread for doing the same? I don't know for a fact whether they have landed on the moon or not, neither do you. The people that know for sure, sure aren't talking or providing concrete proof.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
What a scam



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayProphet
What a scam


Welcome to ATS and what an enlightening first post you have contributed..
Gave me so much to consider.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Yes, the background would also be distorted but without any particular frame of reference, it is possible that it could look undistorted.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


What??? DO you normally start a thread, and spout off the most ridiculous claims (based on that crap "source") without doing even minimal research and fact checking of your own?:


I don't think there are any manmade objects on the moon...


Immediately, epic fail here. sorry.

Not only are there many manmade objects from NASA missions, but from Soviet (USSR) as well. Why not try looking some stuff up?



I just don't understand why they don't train one of their superpowerful telescopes at the moon and show everyone the footprints, flag, tracks, parts of spacecraft, tools, etc., that got left behind.


You don't seem to understand optics, size and distance limits. (I see these same pointless claims of "use a telescope" all the time.....and I'm betting each time, from a member of the 'younger' generation...am I right?? Makes me wonder what passes for "science education" in schools nowadays....)...



But, since there is no telescope on Earth with a mirror large enough to resolve items only a few meters across, form a distance of nearly 400,000 kilometers, then the orbiting camera that is part of the LCROSS mission will have to do, for now:








And, another camera...the DAC onboard the LM:



ALSO, your thread title is the ultimate insult. Look up the definition of "Astronaut", and try to learn something, rather than believing nonsense, and using insulting tems.

edit on 14 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: CLASSIFIED



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


First post and straight with those HEAVILY ENHANCED videos Weed ???

Why not tell the people how much enhancement was done??

No ? Well I will


Up to 500% enhancement !!!!

Yep folks, true lifelike visions of the landing sites...

edit on 14-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by superman2012
 


What??? DO you normally start a thread, and spout off the most ridiculous claims (based on that crap "source") without doing even minimal research and fact checking of your own?:


I don't think there are any manmade objects on the moon...


Immediately, epic fail here. sorry.

Not only are there many manmade objects from NASA missions, but from Soviet (USSR) as well. Why not try looking some stuff up?



I just don't understand why they don't train one of their superpowerful telescopes at the moon and show everyone the footprints, flag, tracks, parts of spacecraft, tools, etc., that got left behind.


You don't seem to understand optics, size and distance limits. (I see these same pointless claims of "use a telescope" all the time.....and I'm betting each time, from a member of the 'younger' generation...am I right?? Makes me wonder what passes for "science education" in schools nowadays....)...



But, since there is no telescope on Earth with a mirror large enough to resolve items only a few meters across, form a distance of nearly 400,000 kilometers, then the orbiting camera that is part of the LCROSS mission will have to do, for now:








And, another camera...the DAC onboard the LM:






ALSO, your thread title is the ultimate insult. Look up the definition of "Astronaut", and try to learn something, rather than believing nonsense, and using insulting tems.


edit on 14 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: CLASSIFIED


Sorry, I should have been more clear for the "older generation". I meant manmade objects put by man. The mars rover is manmade, I should have clarified for you. I also said "think". My thoughts and opinions are allowed to be made public without some "old fart" calling it a fail. I am assuming you are from the USA. Didn't your generation or parents generation fight and die in wars to protect my rights? I appreciate them giving this ultimate sacrifice by refraining from trying to stop people from letting their opinions be known...don't know...maybe that is because my generation has more respect.




You don't seem to understand optics, size and distance limits. (I see these same pointless claims of "use a telescope" all the time.....and I'm betting each time, from a member of the 'younger' generation...am I right?? Makes me wonder what passes for "science education" in schools nowadays....)...



You never answered the question nor provided anything to the contrary of what I was asking...what did they teach YOU in school?!?

I never said it had to be on Earth...isn't Hubble a good enough telescope for you....you did learn about that didn't you? Hubble?



ALSO, your thread title is the ultimate insult. Look up the definition of "Astronaut", and try to learn something, rather than believing nonsense, and using insulting tems.


It was a pun on the name...designed to get people to read this thread. If I was being disrespectful I would have asked you for pointers.

Also, the term is sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists, and tourists. Does that mean you respect politicians, journalists and tourists!!???? Or did you mean the "old" meaning of astronaut??

edit on 14-3-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


>sigh<


I never said it had to be on Earth...isn't Hubble a good enough telescope for you....you did learn about that didn't you? Hubble?


You still don't understand the limitations of telescopes, and distance?

Tell ya what.....get a pair of binoculars....or, an SLR camera with a nice, long telephoto lens, and see why you CAN'T resolve some things that are too close to the lenses.

The Hubble is like that, only on a larger scale. It is TOO CLOSE to the Moon, to focus with any great clarity....because, it isn't designed for that!!! Additionally, it is very light-sensitive....has to be in order to image very, very dim (because they are at a great distance) objects in the Universe. With proper care, it CAN image the Moon, but it doesn't get much detail:

hubblesite.org...






edit on 14 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for responding to a very small portion of my questions and responses to your flaming remarks!


I have a cheap camera, Canon Powershot SX10IS. I can zoom in on a house a mile away and take clear pictures. Why can no telescope do the same but to the moon??!? Either on Earth or in space? I never claimed to be an expert, nor do I reply in that manner. Please educate me. You like to act superior...now back it up old man!


Edit: Your thoughts are to agree with what the gov't spoon feeds you...I would like to see it with my own eyes before I swallow.

edit on 14-3-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Hubble can focus on the moon but the resolution is not as good as the LRO shots we already have..
hubblesite.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Why is that though? They have spy satellites that can take high resolution pics of Earth. I just don't believe they can't take a high resolution pic of the moon. I see that Hubble says they can't...I guess I need to do some more researching to see what I believe about this. Thanks for the information both of you! Again, this is just my personal opinion regarding this particular subject...please don't take it out of context and get all worked up.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


High resolution spy satellites are quite large and heavy..
They say they don't need that kind of resolution so won't waste the money to get a descent camera up there..



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by superman2012
 


High resolution spy satellites are quite large and heavy..
They say they don't need that kind of resolution so won't waste the money to get a descent camera up there..


And they say size doesn't matter

Do we know what this was then?




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join