Aliens, Ufo's, Moonbases.....and telescopes ?

I have a question...


There are alot of threads, videos etc.. about how there are moonbases, alien craft surrounding the earth and so forth..


as in

www.youtube.com...


My question is, why do people with telescopes not see any of these objects or bases on the moon, or these large craft that apparently fly over the earth?

firstly i doubt anyone at home has a telescope powerful enough to see the surface of the moon in any great detail....secondly there would be heaps of people who see this stuff but it's the same answer for everything...the cover up

But to be honest im still not convinced, all of you guys talk about this stuff on this site as if its all fact, however if steven hawking doesn't believe in the whole conpiracy (essentially labelling you all on this site as 'crackpots and weirdo's'-yes this might be true i mean everyone here could just be using second hand data) how should i believe in it....unless he is paid heavily by the government

Originally posted by Alucard Hellsing

There are alot of threads, videos etc.. about how there are moonbases, alien craft surrounding the earth and so forth..

.....

My question is, why do people with telescopes not see any of these objects or bases on the moon, or these large craft that apparently fly over the earth?

Read Hoagland's book "Dark Mission". In the book, he presents a moon photo that he says was taken with a 10" earth-based telescope. While I don't believe everything he says, Hoagland provides enough interlocking info to make me wonder ..... especially in light of shuttle video like "the tether incident", et. al..

I would bet that several people on this board have commercial 10" or 12" telescopes. It would be nice if they could verify Hoagland's claim.....




[edit on 11/9/2008 by anonymousATS]

Originally posted by Alucard Hellsing
My question is, why do people with telescopes not see any of these objects or bases on the moon, or these large craft that apparently fly over the earth?

There are a lot of threads on here that answer that question

Even Hubble is not strong enough

Read Hoagland's book "Dark Mission".

No offense, but I was very disappointed with that book. Some of the things he says were interesting. Overall, however, he may be reaching a little.


As for not being able to see things on the moon with a telescope...I've heard conflicting reports. I've heard that with a strong enough telescope you can see the flag the astronauts placed on the moon. I've also heard that you can't see anything at all. I know you can't see anything with my telescope.

Most reports of moon bases and stuff, though, say they're on the dark side of the moon which we never see.

reply to post by zorgon

Even Hubble is not strong enough

poor weak wittle hubble getting a bad rap...

i think it can see whatever they want on the moon with Mr. hubble but they don't want you to know that imo

and yes i have seen the photo's and the data but is it believable ?

i mean really, it can see the other side of the universe but it can't take a closeup photo of something on the Moon, please deny ignorance

Stephen Hawking is hardly able to move, never mind look up at the sky. You can't blame anyone for being sceptical when they haven't seen a ufo before, and even then it's the correct approach to question everything and not make any assumptions. All will change with evidence one day, and then nobody will care about being ridiculed by people who may or may not have meant it in a malicious way.

...

[edit on 9-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

What I have heard concerning why we can't see these bases is because the aliens are apparently hiding at the back side of the moon.

Of course, I don't actually believe any of this stuff. Just thought it was worth mentioning.. I'm surprised you haven't heard of that outlandish theory.

Originally posted by Majorion
I'm surprised you haven't heard of that outlandish theory.

No that's news to me...

Amazing... I wonder why no one ever figured that the bases would be on Farside where we can't see what's going on...

Thanks for pointing that out



(at least you didn't say 'dark side' )

[edit on 9-11-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by easynow
i think it can see whatever they want on the moon with Mr. hubble but they don't want you to know that

imo

No because Hubble is not designed for close up observation... really quite simple actually.

Yes they CAN tune it for close viewing, but that would require a mission to make adjustments... like that time when it was down and they needed to send a 'repair team'

Originally posted by anonymousATS
Read Hoagland's book "Dark Mission". In the book, he presents a moon photo that he says was taken with a 10" earth-based telescope.

Haven't see that photo yet.... hmmmmm

I would bet that several people on this board have commercial 10" or 12" telescopes. It would be nice if they could verify Hoagland's claim.....

Don't know about Hoagland's claim but at Pegasus we have such a picture taken by a 10" scope by Mike Deagan form the UK...

Last image on the page... click on the image for the FULL SIZE

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Hello everyone,
Very interesting thread about an often misunderstood topic, and I hope this can help clarify some of the questions about spotting the remnants of the Apollo program on the moon from down here on Earth.
Here is one of the best breakdowns I have ever come across that explains just how badly hindered terrestrial-based optical telescopes are when trying to view the lunar disc due to the perturbative effects of the Earth’s atmosphere.
This comes from a 238-page General Electric (Apollo Support Department) document written for NASA back in 1963, and although it is 45 years old, what it has to say regarding the effects of atmospheric distortion on the “seeing” capabilities of optical telescopes (their ability to resolve objects on the moon) is still entirely relevant today.

From: Survey of the Physical and Environmental Parameters of the Moon (Chapter 4.1 - OBSERVING THE MOON - pages 51 and 52)
On average clear nights, images of a celestial point at the prime focus of a telescope are spread out by turbulence to a diameter equivalent to three seconds of arc. On nights of good seeing, the spread is equivalent to one second of arc, while really exceptional seeing, which occurs only rarely, results in an image spread equivalent to twenty-five one hundredth seconds of arc. At the moon's mean distance from the earth, these angles correspond to the following linear distances:
3 seconds of arc - equivalent to 3.48 statute miles
1 second of arc - equivalent to 1.16 statute miles
0.25 second of arc - equivalent to 0.29 statute mile (1530 feet)

The bad "seeing" sets an insurmountable barrier to observing fine detail, either visually or photographically. The requirements of good "seeing" are so severe that the best photographs taken with the one-hundred-inch telescope fail to reveal craters less than one mile in diameter. It is doubtful that the displacement, appearance, or disappearance of a spherical mass of one mile in diameter on some lunar mountain ridge could be seen on the best photographs of the moon.

So, this gives you some idea of just how naturally obfuscative our Earth’s atmosphere is to even the best optical telescopes, and how you can simply forget about ANY chance of EVER seeing the flags or LRVs or LM descent stages or anything else that was left up there while you are way down here on good ol’ terra firma. In fact, from here on Earth through a telescope you would NOT be able to discern if there was a Great Pyramid-sized pyramid sitting on the valley floor at Taurus Littrow, nor could your eyes ever detect if there was an Eiffel Tower-sized construct proudly standing on the rim of Copernicus. The “seeing” conditions created by light diffraction and atmospheric turbulence, even in the best/cleanest atmospheric viewing scenario (and even with a 100-inch telescope), still leave us incapable of achieving the resolution required to detect things of that size from Earth.
Bottom line: The only way to see what constructs are or are not there is to rely on the hope that NASA and the DoD have been showing you totally accurate, unaltered space-based lunar recon imagery over the decades. Always keep in mind that you have no way of ever independently verifying through terrestrial-based optical telescopes the small-scale accuracy of any NASA lunar near-side imagery. We have to blindly trust that what they are showing us is there is what is really there - nothing more, nothing less. For the conspiracy minded among us, that opens up one hell of a door, doesn’t it?

If anyone is interested, I can upload the full 238-page document somewhere and post a link. I will say that the whole thing is an interesting read, and it provides a good summary of what they knew about the moon (or were willing to tell the public they knew anyways) back during the run-up to Apollo.

Cheers gang!

Check out Felix A, Bach,s web site concerning Moon Bases on the Earth side of the moon. But something strange has happened since yesterday, one of his web sites has been removed. It concerned a gigantic structure at Pitatus Crater, ( might be the wrong way to spell it.) About 200 hundred miles long and about 10 miles high....But , there is one site left, concerning a 20 mile high tower at Plato Crater.and he does explain why we can't see things all the time, concerning astmospheric conditions and having to wait several days to go back to that particular area to view what is goin on. You might believe.

My question is, why do people with telescopes not see any of these objects or bases on the moon, or these large craft that apparently fly over the earth?

Not strong enough. The best, closest pic I ever found when researching actually showed the blast mark left at the Apollo site, but even that was hard to discern. You certainly couldn't see details such as the flag or even the remains of the lander, rover, etc.

The Hubble is for long distance viewing. It'd be like trying to look at your shoe through a telescope. Try it, see if you can even make out what you're looking at.

As for large craft through a telescope, at any given time, a telescope has a VERY limited view window (less than that of your eyes of course), so unless a UFO happens to zip by in the moment you're looking, in the spec of sky you're looking at, you could blink and miss it. As a caveat, imagine a plane flying overhead. You're looking through a telescope, while 10 of your friends are not, and watching the airplane. Unless you get to the exact part of sky at the right time, you'll see nothing...but your 10 friends saw it better than you did.

Yes too poor telescopes... And you really got to wonder about the quality of lunar orbiters too. I mean, Clementine cost what, $80 million? Why not budget $200-300+ million for a grand orbiter that can spot individual stripes on the moon flag and be done with it. I fail to see the point of sending up multiple equally bad orbiters that will easily reach this cost.

reply to post by easynow



Totally and completely incorrect. Hubble cannot resolve anything remotely close to small enough to see details.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by zorgon

 

Even Hubble is not strong enough

poor weak wittle hubble getting a bad rap...

i think it can see whatever they want on the moon with Mr. hubble but they don't want you to know that

imo

and yes i have seen the photo's and the data but is it believable ?

i mean really, it can see the other side of the universe but it can't take a closeup photo of something on the Moon, please deny ignorance

It is not that Hubble is not strong enough, or that it cannot take a close up photo of the moon, it is that it was designed to look into deep space, thus anything "close up", such as the moon, would be severely out of the focal range of the Hubble.

Basically...it is TOO strong.


Cheers!!!!

No, Hubble is not too strong to watch the moon. And the moon is not too close to Hubble to be out of focus area. The moon is cca 400000 km from Hubble. Is this near?!?

It's all about optics and resolution power.

I remember when i was young , i read a book about how to make your own telescope (and skive the glass to make the mirror).
And apart practical steps, there was basic theory involved.

So:

The power of resolution of a lens is limited by difraction light phenomenon.

So, given a diameter of the lens (mirror), result the maximum resolving power, when 2 distant very close points can yet be seen separately as 2 points, not just one. So the minimum angle made by those 2 points is limited by the diameter of the lens. Usually angle is about arcsecond or smaller ( en.wikipedia.org... )

The empiric formula of minimum angle resolved by a given Diameter lens:

ANGLE = 12 / DIAMETER (in visible light spectrum)

where angle is measured in arcseconds and diameter in centimeters.

So, a 12 cm diameter lens or mirror telescope, can resolve 1 arcsecond.

A 1,2 meter telescope, can resolve 0.1 arcseconds

A 2,4 meter telescope can resolve 0,05 arcsecond using that formula.


Now, the Hubble telescope have a 2,4 m mirror.
So, using empiric formula, it seems that it can resolve 0,05 arcseconds.

From official sites, i saw that it can resolve 0,03 arcseconds.

Pretty close, no?
In fact, maybe the more precise formula used in advanced precise optics can push the limit further.

Anyway, the optic limit is the limit, cannot be forced.

So, i found the answer if Hubble can see or not on the moon.

Can Hubble see the Apollo landing sites on the Moon?

No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

Here is a picture that Hubble took of the Moon:
hubblesite.org...

So, to see a 4 meter object on the moon, it requires 0,002 arcseconds resolution, it means 15 times more than Hubble is capable... it means it requires a 36 meter telescope mirror !!!

And look the picture taken by Hubble on the moon:

hubblesite.org...


The above quotes where taken from here: hubblesite.org...



Hope it clarifies some aspects.




[edit on 22/1/09 by depthoffield]

[edit on 22/1/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by depthoffieldSo, to see a 4 meter object on the moon, it requires 0,002 arcseconds resolution, it means 15 times more than Hubble is capable... it means it requires a 36 meter telescope mirror.

All true. No current Earthbound telescope can resolve a 4m object on the Moon.
This thread started by asking about members with telescopes able verify claims made in Hoagland's book. Well I've got a large Meade Schmidt Cassgrain of 10 inches aperture and that has a theoretical resolution of 0.45 arcseconds. Using this, I wouldn't be able to see New York city on the Moon never mind a 12 foot feature. Many people seem to think it's possible to see objects actually orbiting the Moon. There are lots of example videos supposedly showing 'craft' passing across the Moon's surface at a low altitude. Unless such objects are tens if not hundreds of miles across, they are totally beyond visual reach. Of course, many satellites in Earth orbit regularly pass across the Moon's disc and these are often captured by amateurs making Moon videos.

WG3