Calling all Moon Hoaxers Hubble is staring at the Moon!

Calling all Moon Hoaxers Hubble is staring at the Moon!

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com

Hubble will observe the moon for seven hours on the day of the transit to get a good sampling of spectroscopic data. Here's a practice image of the impact crater Tycho,

(visit the link for the full news article)

This could be just what we need to prove/disprove the Apollo moon landings. If Hubble is watching the moon very closely and carefully for hours, we can check to see if the Apollo landing sites are actually there!

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.

But now if NASA releases these images, considering they are going to be in such high quality they can see the Venus transit across the sun happening on the moon, we should be able to see these landing sites, finally, and in a quality that leaves no one asking questions one way or the other.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by epsilon69


So Nasa points Hubble to the moon... and that would give us an opportunity to prove them as liars by studying if the landing sites are there?

You really think they are that dumb? Any pictures released of those areas would of course first be altered in an appropriate way before release.

But i doubt we are even allowed to study those areas in detail, as the photoshop experts among us would probably be able to detect these alterations, so don´t be surprised if they have conveniently pointed the telescope "somewhere else", unable to be maneuvered or zoomed in at our command.

Short version: Don´t get your hopes up.

they already took pics of the landing sites but we all laughed at them.. maybe this time they can take some decent photos. i really want to believe we went to the moon, but im not crossing my fingers.

Originally posted by epsilon69


This could be just what we need to prove/disprove the Apollo moon landings. If Hubble is watching the moon very closely and carefully for hours, we can check to see if the Apollo landing sites are actually there!

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.

But now if NASA releases these images, considering they are going to be in such high quality they can see the Venus transit across the sun happening on the moon, we should be able to see these landing sites, finally, and in a quality that leaves no one asking questions one way or the other.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm with you, a bit skeptical because of the Van Allen belt. Plus, the question of why we haven't returned in nearly 40 years seems to make one wonder. The only problem I see with what you are saying about the Hubble is that if the moon landings never did happen wouldn't NASA just fix the photos to show the landing sites? Or maybe not point the Hubble in that area at all. Because the organization behind the moon conspiracy is the same org as the one taking the pictures I don't see anything being proven or dis-proven.

Originally posted by epsilon69

Calling all Moon Hoaxers Hubble is staring at the Moon!

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com

Hubble will observe the moon for seven hours on the day of the transit to get a good sampling of spectroscopic data. Here's a practice image of the impact crater Tycho,

(visit the link for the full news article)

So they've been lying all these years when they said hubble couldn't photograph the moon for technical reasons?

Or is this some new technology added to hubble?

I'm suspicious either way.

I realize NASA could just photoshop the images in. But these images are going to be very high quality in the first place because they are detecting basically the shadow of Venus' transit on the surface of the Moon, so if they try to photoshop anything it will be more obvious and we could call them out on it.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by epsilon69

 

So Nasa points Hubble to the moon... and that would give us an opportunity to prove them as liars by studying if the landing sites are there?

You really think they are that dumb? Any pictures released of those areas would of course first be altered in an appropriate way before release.

But i doubt we are even allowed to study those areas in detail, as the photoshop experts among us would probably be able to detect these alterations, so don´t be surprised if they have conveniently pointed the telescope "somewhere else", unable to be maneuvered or zoomed in at our command.

Short version: Don´t get your hopes up.

So what your pretty much saying is that no matter what new information comes to light, you will never be swayed in your opinion. It seems to me your being a bit ignorant.

I dont mean to insult I am not saying you are an ignorant person. I am just saying your are acting ignorant

reply to post by pianopraze


In this article Phi Plait claims that Hubble doesn't have the resolution power to see the landing sites on the moon. This maybe true, but then how does the Hubble pick up the traces of light coming off Venus during its transit across the Sun?

Originally posted by epsilon69
reply to post by pianopraze

 

In this article Phi Plait claims that Hubble doesn't have the resolution power to see the landing sites on the moon. This maybe true, but then how does the Hubble pick up the traces of light coming off Venus during its transit across the Sun?

I've heard several reasons why it supposedly couldn't do it...

from the one your quoteing, to:

it's too close, the optics are designed to focus on objects further away...
it's to bright, the optics are not designed to focus on anything that bright...

to others... there seems to be no end of reason why hubble couldn't photograph the moon...

now it can???

Originally posted by epsilon69
This could be just what we need to prove/disprove the Apollo moon landings. If Hubble is watching the moon very closely and carefully for hours, we can check to see if the Apollo landing sites are actually there!

Angular resolution formula for a telescope:

a = 250000 x W / d, where:
a = angular resolution in arc seconds
W = wavelength in meters (lets just use 500nm)
d = telescope diameter in meters - for Hubble is 2.4 meters across.

so,
a = 250000 x 500 / 2.4
a = 0.052 arcseconds

for a distance to the moon of 390000 km, then thats a resolution of 98 meters.

Not nearly enough.

Edit - other sites give the Hubble resolution as 0.03 arcseconds and 60 meter resolution. Basically agreeing with me that this telescope cant do it.
LRO can, but conspiracy theorists dont believe the pics anyway.

reply to post by NeoVain


Hi neo,
Of course they are that dumb.
They have never hit one out of the park yet.
What the heck do they have to gain.
How many moon mapping missions??
Almost every nation has mapped the moon.lol Is this another attempt to waste the tax payers money and beat them silly with the results.
??? ljb

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 yourself

reply to post by Renegade2283


I remember some people believing that when Hubble was first put up and they had to "fix it" , people were saying that it wasn't broken at all just tuned to spy on Earth instead of looking into space.

reply to post by alfa1


Seems kinda pathetic really

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by epsilon69

 

So Nasa points Hubble to the moon... and that would give us an opportunity to prove them as liars by studying if the landing sites are there?

You really think they are that dumb? Any pictures released of those areas would of course first be altered in an appropriate way before release.

But i doubt we are even allowed to study those areas in detail, as the photoshop experts among us would probably be able to detect these alterations, so don´t be surprised if they have conveniently pointed the telescope "somewhere else", unable to be maneuvered or zoomed in at our command.

Short version: Don´t get your hopes up.

So the excuses begin already!

Not only have you made one excuse, but two to cover both possible outcomes!

If they capture the Apollo landing sites, apparently they are going to be photoshopped so we will believe they are there.
If the Apollo sites are not captured, it was on purpose because they do not want to be caught by self professed "photoshop experts" who have never proven NASA has altered images in the first place, because these "experts" have no formal training in image analysis!

You people are NUTS. Will you accept reality any time soon? How irrational can you get? You have a bias so you will refuse any further information that will prove you wrong. HA

reply to post by epsilon69


There is no "radiation problem":

What makes me question the validity of Apollo was the radiation problem....

That's total hogwash.....not for such short trips, lasting a mere week, or two at most.

i never had to rely on the photographic evidence.

What a crying shame.


About Hubble: NO, the Hubble cannot resolve items the size of the Apollo hardware. It simply does not have that capacity. The LROC (the camera that was part of the LCROSS experiment) is currently in orbit, and is still photographing the Moon's surface, and acquiring more and more precise imaging. Down to 0.5 meters per pixel. This is more than enough to get quality images of Apollo equipment, especially the Descent Stages, still there.

And, of course, this has been shown.....it's everywhere on the Web.

There is simply no excuse for the "Moon Hoax" nonsense to exist, anymore.

(eta): Never was, actually. The "Hoax" idea was made-up.....concocted decades ago by a disgruntled ex-North American Aviation employee (NAA was one of the Apollo contractors).

Bill Kaysing. He claimed to be an "engineer" at NAA, but in fact was a proof-reader for the technical documents that they published, about their projects. He made-up the entire "Hoax" out of anger.....anger at NAA (and by extension, NASA) but primarily, anger at the United States Government.....because he was violently opposed to the Vietnam conflict....and thought this would be his way to "embarrass" the U.S. Government.

So, from one crackpot (Kaysing), it took only a few others (notably, a complete moron named Ralph Rene') to keep spreading the idiocy....to the tiny, tiny fringe minority who couldn't (or wouldn't) do the science for themselves, and check these men's alleged "facts" and claims.

Originally posted by pianopraze
I've heard several reasons why it supposedly couldn't do it...

it's too close, the optics are designed to focus on objects further away...
it's to bright, the optics are not designed to focus on anything that bright...

to others... there seems to be no end of reason why hubble couldn't photograph the moon...

now it can???

Conspiracy theorists like to make stuff up.
The actual NASA Hubble telescope web sites says yes it can view the moon, and here's a picture of the moon to prove it can, in 1999....
hubblesite

A quick google search could have told you that.

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Really?? Hubble doesn't have high enough resolution? I remember hearing once that American satellite could "pick the date off a dime".

Except that its not actually true.

Do some research on telescope optics, see some pictures released by double crossing spies, and read about the state of the art and you'll realise the best spy sats cant even read a car license plate.
About 5 inches resolution is the very best.

reply to post by ProudBird


Really? Now thats what Im talking about. I knew there had to be something that could get clear pictures. You gotta a link to those pictures of the landing sites? Just so we can put this theory to rest already