Apollo 15 landing site is strikingly clear in image captured from Earth

[Timeshifter]

This kind of thing makes my teeth itch!

Scientists captured this striking image of the Apollo 15 landing site by shooting a powerful radar signal from Earth into space and bouncing it off the lunar surface

Yep, you read that right....

Scientists spent two years developing the technology to take these detailed images of the moon from Earth, and now, they can capture snapshots of lunar objects as small as 16.4 feet (5 meters) across from about 238,855 miles (384,400 kilometers) away. In the future, the researchers plan to develop the technology further, to the point where they can throw radar signals out to the far reaches of the solar system and capture images of Uranus and Neptune, which at their closest are 1.6 billion miles (2.6 billion km) and 2.7 billion miles (4.3 billion km) from Earth, respectively, according to Space.com.

Why not just use a camera and lens? After all, that's how we have attained those astonishingly detailed 'photographs' of the moon et al this far.... or is this a slip of an admissin that we haven't....

Are there no people out there thinking 'Why not just take a photo with a regular camera? Why not use a satleite, or Hubble or one other of those amazing machines they suposedly have up there!

No, people just read this 'headline maintenance' and carry on their day, believing how wonderfull science is.

And that radar image looks like it was drawn with ms paint...

Source

 

[Huaqero]

Radar Astronomy is supposed to work with bouncing beams. I guess this means that the slopes of the mountains that we face, being vertical towards us, should be more illuminated and brighter than the slopes that we see under higher inclination.
Yet, on this picture, the shadows are the ones that we would see on an optical image. Take a look at the mountain right below the A15 landing site point, for example. The facing slope is darker than the top of the mountain and the part of the back slope that we are able to see!

In other words...
Radar Astronomy, light source: the Earth.
Optical astronomy, light source: the Sun.
What we see in this image are shadows made by the sunlight.

Moreover, ever wondered who pays such enormous amounts of money for building and maintaining all that uber-tech infrastructure and for paying highly skilled scientists, only to take pictures of the sky, however impressive these may turn out? Universities? The logistics behind it do not make sense. I accept that purist scientists would never admit that all these telescopes and radars are actually covers for military works and excellent recruitment spots for the most brilliant amongst them, but why would that need to work under a noble star-watching facade? The military has its own facilities anyway, who would blame them for that?
Is there more to it?

 

[Lightseeker]

I love how NASA and scientists come up with all kinds of crazy shit and people just believe it:

-Did you hear about that planet made of diamonds they discovered?
-NASA reported about a new Earth-like planet just a few million light years away!
-There will be colonies in Mars in just a few years!
-DeGrasse Tyson says Earth is like an egg, it must be true! xD
-Dr. Haku said we live in one of millions of universes. Imagine that!
-OMG they drove a car in space!
-Brian Cox said science proves the soul not to exist! I fucking love science LMAO

 

[6079SmithW]

Begin message:

Good evening comrades!

New photo of celestial orb is doubleplusgood.

Minitru is increasing propaganda drive of heliocentric religion to counter dangerous thought criminals spreading the hateful FE message.

Questioning celestial orb images will not be tolerated

End message.

:Ministry of Truth

 

[kd-755]

CGI.
So real it's fake, to paraphrase our Elon.

 

[Citezenship]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my mum used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

 

[6079SmithW]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

 

[Timeshifter]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

 

[6079SmithW]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

 

[Timeshifter]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

Notice the price, when you get anywhere large enough for our needs, they become 'in private hands'...

size matters

 

[Citezenship]

size matters

From the above link,

It’s said that only three of this toys are around, all made in Japan, and all in private hands. The lens focuses on objects 18-32 miles (30 – 51.5 km) away. If it was even more powerful the earth’s curvature would be a serious issue. The minimum distance is 400 feet (120 meters), the weight is around 220 lbs (100 kg). One of these monsters sold in eBay a few years ago for a ridiculous $50000. Definitely not recommended for frequent travelers.

 

[JWW427]

For Christmas my wife bought me a $75 radio telescope from Radio Shack.
Here is what I captured last night. What a disappointment.

 

[Citezenship]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

Notice the price, when you get anywhere large enough for our needs, they become 'in private hands'...

size matters

Although we could just fake one,

View: https://youtu.be/dfi_KS2BeHY

 

[Timeshifter]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

Notice the price, when you get anywhere large enough for our needs, they become 'in private hands'...

size matters

Although we could just fake one,

View: https://youtu.be/dfi_KS2BeHY

I appreciate this guys sentiment, but what he is saying is utter horseshit .

I have most of the kit he discusses and as you guys know, you have seen from my images, the kit augments nothing. If the image being captured by the camera is poor, no amount of wizardary will fix it. The only way fakery is happening, is if the photographer decided to fake it.

The camera being demo'd is simply making double exposures and exposure adjustments normally done manually, and doing the photoshop bit in camera. Its no different to making the exposure adjustments yourself then stacking in Photoshop. The augmented pictures are still 'real' shot by the camera. The only thing he says which is true is that there is zero technical ability required.

The nebula images shown further on will be 100 shot by a pro probably using pro kit and mucho photoshop. Marketing, eh!

A simple way to test a whether a scope is showing you stuff that is 'preloaded' or not is to point it at something during the day. If you are seeing nebuli then, it's a fix, but it won't be.

As much as I want to like this guy, it's typical of someone making asumptions through zero real life experience and misunderstanding.

I have no doubt many images are faked, but the camera algorythms are just allowing you to do in camera, what a pro would do in photoshop.

 

[6079SmithW]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

Notice the price, when you get anywhere large enough for our needs, they become 'in private hands'...

size matters

Although we could just fake one,

View: https://youtu.be/dfi_KS2BeHY

I appreciate this guys sentiment, but what he is saying is utter horseshit .

I have most of the kit he discusses and as you guys know, you have seen from my images, the kit augments nothing. If the image being captured by the camera is poor, no amount of wizardary will fix it. The only way fakery is happening, is if the photographer decided to fake it.

The camera being demo'd is simply making double exposures and exposure adjustments normally done manually, and doing the photoshop bit in camera. Its no different to making the exposure adjustments yourself then stacking in Photoshop. The augmented pictures are still 'real' shot by the camera. The only thing he says which is true is that there is zero technical ability required.

The nebula images shown further on will be 100 shot by a pro probably using pro kit and mucho photoshop. Marketing, eh!

A simple way to test a whether a scope is showing you stuff that is 'preloaded' or not is to point it at something during the day. If you are seeing nebuli then, it's a fix, but it won't be.

As much as I want to like this guy, it's typical of someone making asumptions through zero real life experience and misunderstanding.

I have no doubt many images are faked, but the camera algorythms are just allowing you to do in camera, what a pro would do in photoshop.

That's exactly what I thought too

 

[cmgtech2525]

you have to check out the guy on youtube godgevlamste - the moon is a reflection of a greater earth and we are just a crator. wild.. but I'm in for the crowdfund. and I am 1/4 Welch.

 

[Starman]

Watch out for the 'imperfection of the optics' and 'atmospheric distortion' in our observations of far away objects, according to Those in The Know. I understand all of our perceptions are now being called into question due to inconsistent data interpretation. It appears that we have lost our reference to what is true, due to the malfunctioning of our instruments.

Until further notice, best to doubt what you see until experts can reach a consensus that will help us get back on track.

We will let you know when the proper order has been reinstated.

 

[Dan in Phoenix]

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

I'd kick in but I'd fear for Timeshifter's safety! The moon jumped to north of the 33rd first time in my 64 years for three days and now it has disappeared for another 4. And not a peep. Makes me say Hmmm. Is every amateur astronomer dead, or do they have a deep mental block against it? I have what I thought were some pretty good sky watchers on you-tube. Crickets.

My parents have a radio but I have never seen it display an image.

This is the same stuff they use when saying they have taken a "photo" of a black hole, turns out to be an interpretation of a piece of data.

As my my used to say, I have a beautiful face for radio(welsh accent).

I'm Welsh too!

But back on the topic, thanks for this awful NASA CGI image.

@Timeshifter could you somehow get some serious kick ass telescope setup and get severly close up images of the 'landing site'? No doubt the gear would be expensive, could it be hired? Or could we crowd fund it?

It is tricky, the best kick I can afford starts to get 'murky' when I get much closer than the picsI have posted elswhere.

Kit hire is not so expensive, but the £2000 deposit is the killer....

2000 divide by 150 trusted members - £13 each.

Maybe we could start a separate fundraiser thread and get some equipment hired!

I'd kick in but I'd fear for Timeshifter's safety! The moon jumped to north of the 33rd first time in my 64 years for three days and now it has disappeared for another 4. And not a peep. Makes me say Hmmm. Is every amateur astronomer dead, or do they have a deep mental block against it? I have what I thought were some pretty good sky watchers on you-tube. Crickets.

Watch out for the 'imperfection of the optics' and 'atmospheric distortion' in our observations of far away objects, according to Those in The Know. I understand all of our perceptions are now being called into question due to inconsistent data interpretation. It appears that we have lost our reference to what is true, due to the malfunctioning of our instruments.

Until further notice, best to doubt what you see until experts can reach a consensus that will help us get back on track.

We will let you know when the proper order has been reinstated.

It really is looking more and more like DemonHunter (now on Bitchute) has contended all along. They have probably constructed a dome within the firmament over our heads. It might be ancient, like the "mythology" contends also. Witness the cities that appear in the sky across the earth. then disappear. So this caught my eye. Distortions, smoke and mirrors? In 2017, during the eclipse, it was byebye to our yellow sun. No eclipse here, just some odd happenings in the sun, a changeout maybe?

A hive. An enemy with an insect nature. A World Wide Web constructed using nano tech. Controlled through quantum entanglement and released by chemtrails, programmed to construct in the sky. Like the Hopi said. When you see spiderwebs crossing the sky...

So with your info ANOTHER piece falls into place, so to speak. TY.

 

[Bitbybit]

That camera technique can be made with an analog camera with analog film as well.
Its basically just long exposure + flash.

The flash will illuminate the close objects, but will make no difference on the stars.

 

[Coulness]

There’s nothing there! In that picture, and the others they show, there is no sight of the crap (literally) they say they left behind...