Wernher von Braun's trip to Antarctica in 1967 (two years prior to the Apollo missions) was in order to study and/or collect lunar meteorites to be used as fake Moon rocks.
Now ...why telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. yes no ??
Yes the Hubble could certainly see the descent stages and rovers still on the moon if they were ever there in the first place.
we have telescopes capable of seeing 3 billlion years back in time into the big bang, why cant we take a nice photo of the jeep we left up there and the flag pole? i'm sure many woulld continue to argue that it was a faked photo, but at least it would be a step in the direction of clearing this mess up...
"This image showcases Hubble Space Telescope's first high-resolution ultraviolet and visible imaging of the Apollo 17 landing region within the Taurus-Littrow valley of the Moon. Humans last (alleged? ) walked and drove on the lunar surface in this region (marked "+" in the image at left and at lower right) in December 1972.
The image at upper right was taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts (Dr. H. Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan). It illustrates a view of the rim of Shorty crater and the lunar roving vehicle against a backdrop of the mountain-like massifs that define the Taurus-Littrow valley. The Hubble Space Telescope image at lower right was constructed by overlaying the Hubble image (at left) with a digital-terrain model acquired by the Apollo program to provide a perspective view looking from west to east up the valley. These Hubble data illustrate the high-resolution resolving power of the Advanced Camera for Surveys and display features smaller than a soccer field from low-Earth orbit some 248,000 miles (400,000 kilometers) distant. These images were acquired at nearly full Moon, so the long, dark shadows typical of many lunar orbital photos are not seen; however, this is perfect lighting for color analysis from which to interpret subtle compositional differences.
The Hubble Space Telescope Lunar Exploration team is using the Apollo 17 images (and those acquired of the Apollo 15 site) as "ground-truth" in an effort to discriminate lunar materials enriched in ilmenite, a titanium-bearing oxide of potential value as a resource in human exploration of the Moon.
The images at left and at lower right were taken Aug. 16, 2005 by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. North is at the top in these images.
Images were processed by the Hubble Space Telescope Lunar Exploration team at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Northwestern University, and the Space Telescope Science Institute.
My questions are: 1- Do you think the NASA can lie or hide informations also about the resolution capacity of the Hubble telescope? 2- If not, then do you think that the resolution is enough to make "artificial constructions" on the moon visible?
--------------------------------
2- About the future explorations of the moon: The best moon altitude resolution we have so far is 5-10m, with the Chandrayaan-1 mission (from ISRO and ESA) and its MIP.
Future missions are planned, especially LRO, Chandrayaan II with its Rover (in 2012).
My questions are: 1- Do you think that in all the future missions, like the previous one, datas will be hidden? And from the whole indian, european, japanese and chinese missions? 2- Don't you think that it would be harder and longer to post-process the photos than to not make them public? 3- If photos of the far side of the moon will pop up from these future missions with a resolution up to 5 meters and show nothing special (i-e artificial constructions, sees, vegetations, etc...), what will be your thoughts?
----------------------------------
3- About the recent mapping of the Apollo landing site by Chandrayaan I
"Nearly 40 years after Nasa's Apollo flights, which put a man on the moon, India's Chandrayaan mission launched on October 22, 2008, recently did something unique this week it mapped the landing sites of the six Apollo missions on the moon and the process ended on Saturday. " [...] "Sreekumar told TOI that that the six Apollo landing sites which were mapped related to those of Apollo 11, 12, 14 15 and 17. The process began on January 7 and ended on January 10. "Our purpose of carrying out this exercise was to validate and confirm the data through global mapping about the moon's surface and rocks which had been obtained by these Apollo flights," he said"
My question is: 1- Do you think that this mapping will show traces, artifacts or human things 'alleged' left on the moon during the Apollo flies? (Can't wait to see the pictures....40 years after !!)
---------------------------------------
That lead me to another important question, IMO: Do you think that a so HUGE secret can be kept confidential, after all these years and with all the people involved?
Chandrayaan staff - Crowded news conference after the launch
"I think it's time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark on the question of government investigations of UFOs. It's time to find out what the truth really is that's out there. We ought to do it really because it's right. We ought to do it because the American people, quite frankly, can handle the truth. And we ought to do it because it's the law." It's been one year for now
John Lear Member of Distinction Special Guest member is offline
Official John Lear Tin Foil Hat
Joined: Jul 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 1,469 Location: Las Vegas, Karma: 249
Re: The case for the civilization on the Moon « Reply #676 on Jan 25, 2009, 4:14pm »
I dig in this thread and read the 40+ pages ( ) and I must say that I admire your effort to try to understand what's going on on the Moon.
That lead me to another important question, IMO: Do you think that a so HUGE secret can be kept confidential, after all these years and with all the people involved?
Thank you very much for your time, Mr Lear!
Elevenaugust you have wasted a lot of time here proposing nonsense and asking non-pertinent questions. If you want to see anything on the moon then just point the Mt. Palomar 200 inch Hale telescope toward it. The resolution is one knats ass worth and it has been there since 1947.
It has taken hundreds of thousands of pictures of the moons surface since then but these photos are being withheld from the public for reasons of 'national security'.
It can be pointed there anytime to take photos of any of the Apollo landing sites. Why would we need Hubble or Clementine or the Japs or the Chinese to do that?
Quote:
That lead me to another important question, IMO: Do you think that a so HUGE secret can be kept confidential, after all these years and with all the people involved?
That would be self evident would it not? Tell me this: have you seen any Mt. Palomar photos of the moon in your lifetime? I bet not. My collection of Mt. Palomar photos of the moon is 4. Now why do you suppose the Mt. Palomar photos are a secret?
Here is a photo of Mt. Palomar which operates 290 days a year:
And here is a photo of the Hale 200 inch telescope:
Somebody could have saved the U.S. Government a lot of money in resolving the Apollo landing evidence with the Hale telescope. Oh and btb, for those who say 200 inches cannot resolve surface features enough to prove Apollo they should know that there have been some interesting modifications to the Hale telescope since 1947. Thats 62 years ago for those mathematically challenged.
Thanks for all of your effort augusteleven even though it was mostly wasted on nonsense.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 548 Karma: 10
Re: The case for the civilization on the Moon « Reply #677 on Jan 25, 2009, 7:10pm »
John, you mentioned earlier that you'd love to have a 21" (I believe) telescope. Is that the minimum required to resolve some of these moon objects that have been discussed here?
Would a 21 inch be enough? I was wondering how you arrived at that figure. Have you used one that size? Do you have any other info on the required minimum specs of such a scope? Thanks.
John, you mentioned earlier that you'd love to have a 21" (I believe) telescope. Is that the minimum required to resolve some of these moon objects that have been discussed here?
I just picked that number out of the air. I have an 8 inch Celestron. 21 inch would show us some nice things.
Quote:
Would a 21 inch be enough?
There is never enough.
Quote:
I was wondering how you arrived at that figure.
Out of the air
Quote:
Have you used one that size?
no
Quote:
Do you have any other info on the required minimum specs of such a scope? Thanks.
It has taken hundreds of thousands of pictures of the moons surface since then but these photos are being withheld from the public for reasons of 'national security'.
Hi Mr Lear! And many thanks for your answer.
So you have probably copies of official papers saying so, haven't you? Or is it just a guess or 'someone told to a friend of mine that someone know that....'?
It can be pointed there anytime to take photos of any of the Apollo landing sites. Why would we need Hubble or Clementine or the Japs or the Chinese to do that?
Well, maybe because we'd better trust any other space agency that is not affiliated to NASA, don't you think so?
Somebody could have saved the U.S. Government a lot of money in resolving the Apollo landing evidence with the Hale telescope. Oh and btb, for those who say 200 inches cannot resolve surface features enough to prove Apollo they should know that there have been some interesting modifications to the Hale telescope since 1947.
I guess you're talking about the "adaptive optics" combined with the high speed camera "Lucky Cam". Yes, that was a very interesting modification: from the Mount Palomar website: "Adaptive optics is a technique that allows ground-based telescopes to remove the blurring affects caused by Earth's atmosphere" "The 200-inch (5.1 meter) Hale Telescope, like all other ground-based telescopes, normally produces are typically 10 times less detailed than those of the Hubble Space Telescope. Palomar’s adaptive-optics system produces superb images in the infrared, but until now, its images in visible light have remained markedly poorer than Hubble images. With the new Lucky Camera, astronomers were able to obtain images that are twice as sharp as those produced by the Hubble Space Telescope—a remarkable achievement. "
Unfortunately, it really seems that you "cannot resolve surface features enough to prove Apollo" as explained below: (From the FAQ of the Mount Palomar website)
Q: "Can the moon be observed with the Hale telescope? And if so, is it possible to see the landing sites of the Apollo moon missions and possibly the equipment they left behind? They told me at the Hubble web site that the moon is too close and too bright for observation by the Hubble telescope.
A: The 200-inch is rarely pointed at the moon, probably for the same reasons as the Hubble -- the full moon is some 60000 times brighter than even the brightest stars, and although you wouldn't set anything on fire (I estimate the total power collected to be about 0.02 watts), you'd certainly stress the highly-sensitive imaging systems on the scope unless you took special precautions. Even if we could point at the moon (perhaps putting a huge Mylar filter over the end of the tube), the blurring effect of the atmosphere ("seeing") and of the telescope itself ("diffraction limit") would limit the detail we could resolve. The smallest angles we can distinguish through the atmosphere are about 1 arcsecond (1/3600 degree), which at the distance of the moon, covers a little under 2 km -- not enough to see any signs of our prior visits. Even if we could eliminate the blurring of the atmosphere (through advanced techniques known as "adaptive optics"), there is still an inherent limitation of 0.025 arcsec for the 200-inch scope, which comes to 50 meters on the lunar surface, not quite enough to see the LEM base or rover tracks."
« Last Edit: Jan 25, 2009, 9:10pm by elevenaugust »
"I think it's time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark on the question of government investigations of UFOs. It's time to find out what the truth really is that's out there. We ought to do it really because it's right. We ought to do it because the American people, quite frankly, can handle the truth. And we ought to do it because it's the law." It's been one year for now
elevenaugust Award for exceptional contribution member is offline
APPONO ASTOS
Joined: May 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,775 Location: France Karma: 195
Re: The case for the civilization on the Moon « Reply #680 on Jan 25, 2009, 9:15pm »
"I think it's time to open the books on questions that have remained in the dark on the question of government investigations of UFOs. It's time to find out what the truth really is that's out there. We ought to do it really because it's right. We ought to do it because the American people, quite frankly, can handle the truth. And we ought to do it because it's the law." It's been one year for now
Has it helped at all? Has it shown you any anomalies?
Has it helped? Helped what?
I bought the Celestron about 30 years ago. It has an equatorial mount. About 20 years ago I bought a binocular eye piece. I have enjoyed using my Celestron but I never got a camera hooked up and I can't ever remember looking at any anomalies.
It is mostly just to show my friends the craters on the moon and Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the coat hangar and other neat things.
30 years ago when I bought it I still believed the moon was a dead satellite and that Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
The larger a telescope of course, the heavier it gets and the more difficult for transportation.
And of course you no sooner get it set up and you want bigger one.
I prefer to figure our how to get 2nd or third generation Lunar Orbiter photos and to play with the Lunar Orbiter photos that NASA has accidentally let slip by. These will be satisfactory to the end of my visit here on earth.
I would like to get a setup like Waltons in order to get better photos like he has of the orbiting weapons platforms. But that takes time and money and I have little of each.
Realistically I would like to hook up with someone who already has a 16 inch or larger and get him to shoot, Aristarchus, Endymion, de la Rue, Mare Crisium, Damoiseau, Plato, Piton, Petavius B and so on.
If I bought a larger scope I would just shoot the above photos and then the scope would gather dust. Alternatively, after I took the photos I wanted I could mount the scope somewhere on the roof and hook up a feed to a monitor on my desk where I have my TV and computers. That way I could watch the moon day and night on my desk. Not that I would see any aliens but i like looking at the moon and I think it would be neat.
So you have probably copies of official papers saying so, haven't you? Or is it just a guess or 'someone told to a friend of mine that someone know that....'?
You haven't been around here very much have you? What kind of official papers would you be referring to?
Has it helped at all? Has it shown you any anomalies?
Has it helped? Helped what?
I bought the Celestron about 30 years ago. It has an equatorial mount. About 20 years ago I bought a binocular eye piece. I have enjoyed using my Celestron but I never got a camera hooked up and I can't ever remember looking at any anomalies.
It is mostly just to show my friends the craters on the moon and Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the coat hangar and other neat things.
30 years ago when I bought it I still believed the moon was a dead satellite and that Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
The larger a telescope of course, the heavier it gets and the more difficult for transportation.
And of course you no sooner get it set up and you want bigger one.
I prefer to figure our how to get 2nd or third generation Lunar Orbiter photos and to play with the Lunar Orbiter photos that NASA has accidentally let slip by. These will be satisfactory to the end of my visit here on earth.
I would like to get a setup like Waltons in order to get better photos like he has of the orbiting weapons platforms. But that takes time and money and I have little of each.
Realistically I would like to hook up with someone who already has a 16 inch or larger and get him to shoot, Aristarchus, Endymion, de la Rue, Mare Crisium, Damoiseau, Plato, Piton, Petavius B and so on.
If I bought a larger scope I would just shoot the above photos and then the scope would gather dust. Alternatively, after I took the photos I wanted I could mount the scope somewhere on the roof and hook up a feed to a monitor on my desk where I have my TV and computers. That way I could watch the moon day and night on my desk. Not that I would see any aliens but i like looking at the moon and I think it would be neat.
Thanks for the info.
You know that large telescopes can be rented, right?
I bought the Celestron about 30 years ago. It has an equatorial mount. About 20 years ago I bought a binocular eye piece. I have enjoyed using my Celestron but I never got a camera hooked up and I can't ever remember looking at any anomalies.
It is mostly just to show my friends the craters on the moon and Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the coat hangar and other neat things.
30 years ago when I bought it I still believed the moon was a dead satellite and that Apollo astronauts went to the moon.
The larger a telescope of course, the heavier it gets and the more difficult for transportation.
And of course you no sooner get it set up and you want bigger one.
I prefer to figure our how to get 2nd or third generation Lunar Orbiter photos and to play with the Lunar Orbiter photos that NASA has accidentally let slip by. These will be satisfactory to the end of my visit here on earth.
I would like to get a setup like Waltons in order to get better photos like he has of the orbiting weapons platforms. But that takes time and money and I have little of each.
Realistically I would like to hook up with someone who already has a 16 inch or larger and get him to shoot, Aristarchus, Endymion, de la Rue, Mare Crisium, Damoiseau, Plato, Piton, Petavius B and so on.
If I bought a larger scope I would just shoot the above photos and then the scope would gather dust. Alternatively, after I took the photos I wanted I could mount the scope somewhere on the roof and hook up a feed to a monitor on my desk where I have my TV and computers. That way I could watch the moon day and night on my desk. Not that I would see any aliens but i like looking at the moon and I think it would be neat.
Thanks for the info.
You know that large telescopes can be rented, right?
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 548 Karma: 10
Re: The case for the civilization on the Moon « Reply #686 on Jan 26, 2009, 1:28am »
^ This place is in California. They rent large scopes and they say that they can ship them to customers. They have testimonials from people in Oregon, Wisconsin, etc.
They have a 16" Dobsonian for rent @ $62 per night , including eyepieces (plus shipping I presume.)
^ This place is in California. They rent large scopes and they say that they can ship them to customers. They have testimonials from people in Oregon, Wisconsin, etc.
They have a 16" Dobsonian for rent @ $62 per night , including eyepieces (plus shipping I presume.)
Thanks for your time and effort researching a scope rental place. Right now that is way out of my budget and logistical capabilities. But I do appreciate your help.
Dood Global Moderator Veritas Board Moderator. Bekkum Board Moderator. Award for Altruism. Award for exceptional commitment member is offline
Joined: Nov 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,647 Karma: 235
Re: The case for the civilization on the Moon « Reply #689 on Jan 26, 2009, 12:30pm »
I always thought of having one of those set ups where it all hooks into your PC.
A telescope out on your deck/back yard and it is cabled into your computer. That would be 'fun' to sit on your buttocks and just push keys to tell it where to go and snap videos/photos at your leisure.
In my case it would not work to well. I live among a forest of 100 foot oak trees. So putting it on a flagpole of some sort would not work either. I am sure the wind would ruin any 'shot' you might have. Not to mention all the bird 'do-do' that would collect on it. haha
Still, telescopes always intrigue me but, I know basically nothing about them. So I will enjoy the Living Moon website for my viewing pleasure!
OMF Books and DVD's - CLICK HERE
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/sendtopic.png "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1411/avatar1879.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/new/msn.png "[msn]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/www_sm.png "[homepage]")
) and I must say that I admire your effort to try to understand what's going on on the Moon.
) walked and drove on the lunar surface in this region (marked "+" in the image at left and at lower right) in December 1972.![[image]](http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1501/200529fwebprintpf2.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/779/mipimagepr6.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7316/india2710327oy6.jpg "[image]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1989/tinfoilhataub2.png "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5679/opendomeyl4.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/603/haleomgj7.jpg "[image]")
