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.

 

Calling all Moon Hoaxers Hubble is staring at the Moon!

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



So you are calling this thread a hoax too?


No, I'm merely pointing out why there will be no "pictures."


Care to venture how the op ever thought there would be?
Why have you just played along?




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



Care to venture how the op ever thought there would be?


Lack of attention to detail?


Hubble will observe the moon for seven hours on the day of the transit to get a good sampling of spectroscopic data.


cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...


Why have you just played along?


Where did I "play along?"



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
As much as I hear about the moon landing being a hoax...I really don't think it was. But who knows? The people above us never give us a straight answer.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sparrowstail
I'm convinced that NASA is not truthful about whats going on. There are many vids using this new editing software that reveal all kinds of tampering.


edit on 9-5-2012 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)



Hi Like I have said before just because some youtube IDIOT says NASA is lying doesn't mean the youtuber is telling the truth.

If you look at his video on the youtube link look at the top left you will see the image number it's 5468 if you go to the Apollo Image Atlas and find 5468 and compare what you see.



Again they are not using the actual picture taken, I would like to see a link for the one he is using!!!

If you go to the Apollo Image Atlas it looks like a few images were stitched together to make a wider view and that would explain what he thinks he sees in his video


www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by epsilon69
 


Really?? Hubble doesn't have high enough resolution? I remember hearing once that American satellite could "pick the date off a dime". There is no freaking way that Hubble doesnt have high enough resolution. With a super powerful telescope and a damn nice camera I bet you could almost see them for yourself

edit on 7-5-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)


Someone else replied that the viewing of a dime isn't true, and maybe they're right. Seems to me it would take some truly insane advanced tech to do so through atmosphere, etc. That said, I know for a fact (from memory) that in the early days of Hubble, that was a common refrain in the media "could read the date on a dime on the Washington monument."
My guess - propoganda to scare the Russkies



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I thought I'd just pop into this slanging fest to remind everyone that Hubble will not be taking pictures of the Moon; it will be taking highly sensitive spectrograms of the sunlight reflected off the lunar surface in order to analyze Venus' atmosphere. Ciao.


Thank you for this information. I wish the article was more clear on this.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seede



TextI, too, was thinking I had read that somewhere, that they previously stated that Hubble couldn't be used to view the moon.
reply to post by notquiteright
 


Can't remember all of this but in 2009 the Hubble Telescope was repaired and new high tech gear were installed. Prior to 2009 I think you are right. I believe it was the lens that would not focus because the moon was too close. Don't really remember all of the details.


Anyone have anymore info on the new tech Hubble received on this upgrade? Does anyone know if it will have the resolution power to observe the so called landing sites now?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by epsilon69
 





Personally I have my doubts that we actually went to the moon. What makes me question the validity of Apollo was the radiation problem, i never had to rely on the photographic evidence.


You mean the Van Allen Belts?

Sadly, I can't find a good source for this quote, but I have posted it before. See, like many of you, I heard about the Van Allen Belts and said, wait, they would have died! And that's the thing, that's where most of you stopped, you didn't even bother to google what they are or what they do.

Instead of posting that, how about a quote from the man who discovered them, and had them named in his honor. The quote is referencing a fox moon hoax tv special in which it was stated that the Van Allen belts would have given all of the astronauts a deadly dose of radiation.



The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense. James A. Van Allen




Now wait a minute what you said isn't fair. I never quoted a Fox news tv show. Also James Van Allen's own original findings showed that the radiation in space was very high, causing him to have to shield his geiger counters in order to get higher readings. Only afterwards did he rebut what he had previous discovered and I'm sure he did that because he was told to. But his original findings still stand.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by epsilon69
 


Guess what J V A is also on a video saying they could get through the belts



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by epsilon69
 


The resolution is due to the MIRROR size you cant change that it will never resolve the landing sites and doesn't need to!!!



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zippidee
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


After some research, I stand corrected but my post is more of a vent of frustration regarding what remains hidden from Joe public. I understand the angular and the size lens needed to accomplish what I tauted but remember when the SR71 blackbird was declassified and how long we had that technology prior to the public's awareness. Thats my point! If They want to see the landing sites in detail, They will!
edit on 8-5-2012 by Zippidee because: (no reason given)


Sure they will, but THEY are not the ones screaming everything is a HOAX and requesting EVIDENCE that THEY did what THEY claim.


You foot the bill, I'm sure they'll lend you some equipment.... But then, when you see it for yourself, You'll be part of the Coverup and everything you say will be ignored.

So many people .. "they say they can do this. but we cant even do that!" non sequetir logic.

Well, if I can look at red blood cells with a microscope, how come my $200 digital camera cant take closeup photos of mars? They always lie to us.....



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by taccj9903
So anyone who believes something contrary to another member's opinion must be ignorant? Denying ignorance is easy and what the ego does, accepting our own ignorance is truly the challenge.


There is a distinct difference between Denying Ignorance, and Denying the facts.

"Your facts about NASA are lies. I want third party sources."

"Your Third Party sources cant be taken seriously. I want evidence."

"Your evidence is baloney, they made it on earth."

and the circle jerk continues.....



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium
This is learned from NASA's history of hiding everything. I don't believe NASA anymore than I do any politician.


Exactly. NASA needs to let us see those pictures of Alienz eating strawberry ice cream and performing telepathic tricks for us. How dare they hide these things from us.

And the UFOs on the moon, and the crystalline pyramids, and insect people. We all know they're there, it's just that NASA has continually covered it up.

We all know this because they've never ONCE shown us anything Alien... so it is true.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 





Well, if I can look at red blood cells with a microscope, how come my $200 digital camera cant take closeup photos of mars? They always lie to us.....

Instead of ranting why don't you do some scientific investigation.
From Wiki:



A telescope's light gathering power and ability to resolve small detail is directly related to the diameter (or aperture) of its objective (the primary lens or mirror that collects and focuses the light). The larger the objective, the more light the telescope can collect and the finer detail it can resolve.

Meaning the larger diameter of the main mirror the smaller the object it can see.

Hubble's mirror is not large enough to see as small as Apollo hardware.
It is great for seeing galaxies billions and billions of miles across.

You would need a mirror about 400 feet across.

Here is a nice link to help you understand.

And here is another.

But I don't expect conspiracy believers to comprehend the science involved they would rather rant about TPTB hiding the truth. When in reality they are hiding themselves from the truth.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


Cool. I did not know that. Thanks.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Sarcasm my friend.

Read the post again and then imagine it being said with a whimsical glint in his eye...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

You people are NUTS.


The summation of my view of the entire 'Moon-Hoax' crowd.

Well said sir!!!



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
in the book 'MOONDUST' (Andrew Smith, bloomsbury, 2005), the author makes the following observations about the Saturn V;

"Among the welter of facts and figures, only two strike me as particularly remarkable. The first is that this rocket was trusted to go to the Moon on only its third flight, where others faced exhaustive test programmes before anyone was allowed to climb aboard; the second that it contained close to six million parts, meaning that, even with NASA's astounding 99.9 per cent reliability target, roughly 6,000 things could be expected to go wrong on a good flight. Yet the Saturn V never failed, nor looked like failing when it mattered and it doesn't take a genius to understand that something very like genius was at work here."

genius, or incredibly good fortune. or maybe neither. incidentally, the book (a very good read btw) is not a conspiracy/hoax piece, but a series of interviews with various apollo astronauts.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23
Someone else replied that the viewing of a dime isn't true, and maybe they're right. Seems to me it would take some truly insane advanced tech to do so through atmosphere, etc.



The Airborne Laser shoots out a laser, detects atmospheric distortion...and has a mirror that adjusts itself by bending and curving to get the light in the correct position to get through the atmosphere.

All Space Observatories worth their salt have a similiar system where they use a laser and shoot it up at the atmosphere to detect how their mirror must be shaped on the fly to observe objects in space.

It's pretty old technology today.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Something that quite a few of you are not understanding is the electromagnetic spectrum what you are asking for is something in the visible light range where as the range that is going to be used is NOT in the visible range.

in other words, you can't see x-rays, or gamma rays, but you can see the results of those spectrum's

Hubble is not going to be looking at the moon in the visible spectrum, therefore it will not show objects in the visible range.

you can't see in infrared but you know that we have infrared technology ( FLIR and "smart" bombs )

there will be pictures from Hubble, they just wont be what you think they will be.
edit on 11-5-2012 by thedigirati because: hit n instead of s



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join