History Channel: Moon Is Hollow Spacecraft From Another Solar System (confirm NASA)

[ktlight]

I am just wondering if what NASA said is true. Did NASA say this?

If, for instance, we never did land on the moon, then how can it be claimed that the moon rings like a bell when the lasers hit the spot planted there?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSkYqROtGX0

[Davidallany]

Vaw_zlozEQU&feature=watch_response
Our beautiful moon, is much more than a moon.

[D-Day]

Thought I'd add this into the mix...

George Kavassilas' discusses his theory about the origins/history of the moon:

s818snxb6To

[KosmicKat]

For now, my belief remains unshaken. Yes, we sent men to the moon. But no, we weren't shown what happened for real. And when we finally know the truth about the moon, we will probably know a great deal more about our own planet as well.

[bilko]

I love these videos and musings on the moon.
For me it holds far more romance and excitement than ufos or earth bound anomalies.
I will watch this new video now, Thanks Ktlight.

Am i right in saying that the moon and sun are the same size in our sky because the moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the sun and 400 times the distance of something? There is an equation but i can't recall it. Also that the moon is the oldest celestial body in our galaxy and shouldn't be there at all?
Once i learn how to master astral projection,, the moon will be in my top 10 destinations ( yep, read Jakes thread ).

Have we ever turned Hubbell to the moon?

[Carmody]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18023776/Penetration-The-Question-of-Extraterrestrial-and-Human-Telepathy-by-Ingo-Swann-text-format

[Carmody]

get two of these on a motor mount (motorized platform w/XY motion controls) to make a giant pair of binoculars. Optically speaking, for the purposes of recording images, you only need one. however, you are looking to do an eyeball based search, and two eyes do work better. Binocular astronomy at this level is a new thing..as one might image..but it is catching on.

http://www.webstertelescopes.com/32_inch_f36_telescope.htm

http://www.webstertelescopes.com/lunar.htm

"For the serious lunar observer, our LC28 is the industry's only large aperture, LUNAR telescope. Nothing can prepare you for the incredible views through this instrument. See the moon with incredible contrast, resolution and color like you have never seen it before. With 615 square inches of aperture, the resolution of this scope is going to make you think twice about that $30,000 refractor. No contrast robbing, neutral density or variable polarizing filters are used with our optimized design. The mirror box and UTA are fully flocked. The cell is light trapped from behind, while still offering plenty of airflow (we're big on cooling around here). The LC28 features a Kennedy primary that is completely free of any coatings, thus returning 5% of the light with none of the scatter that even the best aluminum coatings cause. In fact, this may be the only time you ever get to see the absolute, full potential of what a Kennedy mirror is capable of."



This (the bigger unit) can be ordered with unsilvered mirrors as well (all custom made after a $ deposit on the 'scope), which is perfect for observing the moon. Just polished. This means the color separation and refraction is decreased (silvering increases gain at the expense of ultimate resolution--the moon is very bright, no silvering required) for a greater capacity to see and preserve detail in the sense of high resolution images. The problem comes with atmospheric warping of the images taken. The moon being as straight overhead as is possible, at high altitude, and then in cold climes--- is the best way to defeat as much as the 'atmospheric distortion' issue as is possible.

Silvering the mirror might be usable as well, with regard to speed of images taken in order to commit to a scan of the surface, with regard to an overall brute force & ignorance attempt through straightforward mapping. Do the mapping and then use the uncoated mirrors for detail work on suspected points that pop up.

The reason I state this is that.. I don't think that anyone has ever bothered to do a quality telescopic search of the moon's surface with something like this.

With modern software for clearing up image fidelity with multiple averaged overlays (specifically designed for this sort of effort) I think that finally..something may be seen on the surface that might be interesting.

The motor mount would need to have phenomenal control of motion (i can create that fine control -if I had one) and the mirror system would have to be very highly controlled in it's micro mechanical motional noise (I can fix/improve that) and then you'd have to know how to use the software at it's best capacity.

Ignoring blurring of the image by turbulence in the atmosphere (atmospheric seeing) and optical imperfections of the telescope, the angular resolution of an optical telescope is determined by the diameter of the objective, termed its "aperture" (the primary mirror, or lens.)

.........The equation shows that, all else being equal, the larger the aperture, the better the angular resolution. The resolution is not given by the maximum magnification (or "power") of a telescope. Telescopes marketed by giving high values of the maximum power often deliver poor images.

For large ground-based telescopes, the resolution is limited by atmospheric seeing. This limit can be overcome by placing the telescopes above the atmosphere, e.g., on the summits of high mountains, on balloon and high-flying airplanes, or in space. Resolution limits can also be overcome by adaptive optics, speckle imaging or lucky imaging for ground-based telescopes.

Recently, it has become practical to perform aperture synthesis with arrays of optical telescopes. Very high resolution images can be obtained with groups of widely-spaced smaller telescopes, linked together by carefully controlled optical paths, but these interferometers can only be used for imaging bright objects such as stars or measuring the bright cores of active galaxies. Example images of starspots on Betelgeuse can be seen here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope


What they are saying is to daisy chain telescopes together and then synthesize the image from the group of images. Software based image manipulation of the identical object being viewed--sourced from multiple telescopes.

Imagine an array of 5 of these puppies. Two of the 28 inch lunar scopes would give you 1300 square inches of aperture, 5x of the 20" would give you 1570 sq in, so a pair of the 28" units might be the way to go. Far easier to accurize a pair than 5 units.

Resolution limits on the single scope, outside of atmospheric blurring (I did this calculation before one day, too bad I did not write it down. Now I have to calculate it again!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_limit

States that the unpolished scope mirror is going to be about 0.16285 arcseconds of basic resolution.

The moon is about 1800 arc seconds of diameter from the earth's viewpoint.

1800/0.16285=11051

Moon diameter of 2158.64 miles (The scope was in inches, so I'm sticking to imperial for the moment)

2158.64/11051=0.1953 miles is the basic resolution of the one scope mirror, alone, no other conditions included. This is with respect to viewing the moon, in this case.

314.304 meters of resolution. on the single 28" telescope. One scope. Now, double them up (2x scopes) and then use image enhancing techniques/software. You might get down to 60% of that 'number' with the multiple scopes, on some days... for maybe 200M resolution of the surface of the moon. Who knows. I'm no expert in the field. The people who use the image enhancing software many times work with thousands of images and then stack them for averaging out the noise from the signal. It can be done. It may be that more detail than thought possible may emerge.

The 36" scope gets you to 244 meters of basic resolution. Then move to the two 36" uncoated mirrors scope scenario with the software ...and you might get to 175 meters of resolution. The moon at it's closest approach..might get you to about 155-140 meters of resolution, utilizing the software and two 36" scopes with uncoated mirrors.

However, this is all barring my basic ignorance of atmospheric issues and how this stacks up with such big scopes and the given software..and the positional controls of the scope set. That is a big part of it as well. mechanical noise from the mount is an issue as it will be moving continually as the moon moves fast.

Another trick is to move to gathering the highest frequency of light that the moon reflects, and then this wavelength becomes your resolution limit. It depends on the reflective qualities of the moon and the mirror and the given camera -and associated camera optics & image capturing CCD, etc..All these things combine to lower your overall achieved resolution. The software image manipulation and averaging does a good job of helping to equalize that overall equation out to something closer to the theory.... than might be suggested.

A single 50"(inch) telescope will get you down to 100meters of theoretical or basic resolution of the moon's surface.

I have not mentioned any magnification multipliers as this is not a factor of the resolution maximums. Usually, it is about 50x-60x per inch of aperture (mirror or lens image capture size).

this means our 36" mirror sized scope reaches it's limit at about...1800x magnification. Now I've never seen such a high multiplier on any scope eyepiece (:p), so I've no idea what to do with that number. In this case, one is using a camera capture system for that particular aspect and not the eye. ie, a 15megapixel camera capture system, or thereabouts. Then blow up those images. However, the number crunching will get pretty onerous.


The computer required for the 'number crunching' would be no bigger than the average high powered gaming PC. But with 15 megapixel per image,and 1000 images to crunch that's a 15gigabite bit of data..and THEN the number crunching.

Gonna need a bigger PC, methinks.

(It may be possible to increase the image fidelity by capturing monochromatic images but in order to to that one must use a filter and then this defeats the fidelity increase from going monochromatic. That trick only works when you have control of the light source and go monochromatic from that end of the equation.)

Slightly smaller telescopes are hugely cheaper and a 5x 20" array might be buildable for ...oh.... $40k. (Asian design, build and optics--far less expensive-but the quality is different-but not different enough for these purposes) (if one requests to buy 5 of these at this $ level, you are going to get better price.)

http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/UltraPortable-Truss-Dobsonians/Orion-UP20-Premium-UltraPortable-Truss-Dobsonian-Telescope/pc/1/c/12/sc/32/p/8937.uts?refineByCategoryId=32


From this kind of effort, it might be that something concrete finally emerges.

People really have no clue that the moon has so many anomalies to it with regard to it's actual physical placement in the sky..... that by all known and suspected theory of any kind...it simply should not be there. It literally cannot be there.

[Davidallany]

z17WsAOgf4U&feature=related
Fake Apolo missions to cover up the real space colonization program.

[Davidallany]

u2MQuH50_Io&feature=related
We were told over and over that astronauts are the best of the best, take a look who they really are, so rude. Such an insult to all of us; the best of the best at what?

[ktlight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSkYqROtGX0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSkYqROtGX0&feature=player_embedded#at=92

[grapevine]

Randall Carlson - The Moon is the External Hard Drive of Earth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT7K7b6Xioc&ab_channel=BeforeSkool (20:46)
It's a pity that most of the videos on this thread are no longer available as the moon is a fascinating subject for discussion whatever theories abound. So far in all the latest whistleblowing testimonies the moon has never been mentioned but there's no doubt that we still know very little about it.

One of the YT comments was that the Randall Carlson video would have sounded "insane" if the Why Files video hadn't been seen first, so I've added it below:

The Moon Revealed: It's a Hollow Spaceship, so who built it and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXhTcko-lg&ab_channel=TheWhyFiles (22:33)

[Bill Ryan]

For whatever it may be worth, Project Camelot witness 'Henry Deacon' (Arthur Neumann) told us back in 2006-7 that our moon had been moved into place from elsewhere a long time ago. At the time, that was the first I'd heard of the notion.

He never mentioned where it had come from. If this had indeed happened, it always seemed that it had to be from somewhere in our own solar system — not from another one, which (to me) seems way too unlikely to be plausible.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

^
Just to add, I think Alex Collier (or it may have been Tolec) also said something like this back in the day. If I recall correctly, the story had ETs bringing the moon to us (God knows how) from Cygnus. It was the perfect size and mass to stabilise Earth's axial wobble, or something like that. There was a time I put some stock into Collier's claims, these days not so much.

[sunwings]

^
Just to add, I think Alex Collier (or it may have been Tolec) also said something like this back in the day. If I recall correctly, the story had ETs bringing the moon to us (God knows how) from Cygnus. It was the perfect size and mass to stabilise Earth's axial wobble, or something like that. There was a time I put some stock into Collier's claims, these days not so much.

7459174437213048086?q=moon&t=1739745045032