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.
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?
Hubble will observe the moon for seven hours on the day of the transit to get a good sampling of spectroscopic data.
Why have you just played along?
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)
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 yourselfedit on 7-5-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)
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.
Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by notquiteright
TextI, too, was thinking I had read that somewhere, that they previously stated that Hubble couldn't be used to view the moon.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.....
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.
Originally posted by paradox
You people are NUTS.
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.