Calling all Moon Hoaxers Hubble is staring at the Moon!

Is kinda funny, we study the sun closer than I see most moon images.
and the one's I see are always of the same crap, I understand there's a side we can't see, maybe its there lol.

Originally posted by Zippidee
reply to post by ProudBird

 

i
So let me get this straight.....we got sattelites orbiting the Earth that can read newsprint all to watch over us or whatever you want to speculate that they do with it. However, we can only build a .5 meter per pixel telescope for viewing the surface of the moon or other potentially useful scientific research. Out F'ing Standing!

FFS not another one WE CAN'T do what you claim and if you read the posts above you would know

www.fas.org...

reply to post by wmd_2008


After some research, I stand corrected but my post is more of a vent of frustration regarding what remains hidden from Joe public. I understand the angular and the size lens needed to accomplish what I tauted but remember when the SR71 blackbird was declassified and how long we had that technology prior to the public's awareness. Thats my point! If They want to see the landing sites in detail, They will!

Originally posted by Zippidee
reply to post by ProudBird

 

So let me get this straight.....we got sattelites orbiting the Earth that can read newsprint all to watch over us or whatever you want to speculate that they do with it. However, we can only build a .5 meter per pixel telescope for viewing the surface of the moon or other potentially useful scientific research. Out F'ing Standing!

edit on 8-5-2012 by Zippidee because: (no reason given)

The difference is LOW EARTH ORBIT satellites taking images of Earth from 100-1000 miles away versus snapping pictures of the Moon which is an average of 240,000(ish) miles away. I hope this clears up your confusion.

The technology exists to take great pictures of the Moon - the issue is funding. There is a lot more to learn from deep space, so that's where the interest and therefor the funding is. Maybe you should start passing around a collection plate to get a satellite telescope into orbit that is designed to take images of the Moon. I'd gladly donate.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

I understand that but I was referring to an orbiting telescope not a land based one. Either way I was wrong and concede. My point however remains the same.

Now, I will remove myself from this thread as I am taking away from the OP's original content. Sorry for the derail OP!

reply to post by wmd_2008


This is what I mean: This is no proof of any moon landing. It is just proof of a radio signal received from any kind of probe. You could take a simple radio repeater and send it to the moon and any nation on earth will proof that it received a signal on the way to the moon landing there. But where on earth is this solid proof for a man on the moon?

If I want to fake such a landing it is very easy to do that. With just a radar and a receiver you could never look into a probe to see if there are real humans inside. Would be impossible even today. We did have a lot of teleskopes back in 1969 and some pretty good radio equipment. It would have been very very easy to provide rock solid proof. They just had to allow some ordinary folks live on tv/radio to ask simple math questions like 'What is 4+3?' and answer with a 7 strong light pulses from the moon surface visible with a teleskope. As computers weren't that advanced back in 1969 the calculation would be proof of a human being and the pulse from the surface would at least proof that they made it close to the surface.

I bet that there would be many other ways to definitely proof this and in my opinion every nation would have provided such proof as it was on of the most important races. In my opinion it is always much more important to look at the missing evidence than all the millions of signs provided.

It's the same with ads today. If any of these products would be revolutionary they don't need to tell me about all the ingredients or whatever. They would just take a few people to test their product and send them in a tv show to tell the world about it. If this is missing you know for sure that it's just another product like all the others already in existance no matter what they tell you about it.

reply to post by UnixFE

This is what I mean: This is no proof of any moon landing.

It's up to you to prove the landing didn't take place. Not the other way around.

Remember the Moon is basically a dead rock. We have our samples so why spend more money on it.
But the Sun is dynamic so we need to continue studying it. The other planets need attention until we have samples and put as much effort into them.

No conspiracy just watching the wallet.

Originally posted by samkent
It's up to you to prove the landing didn't take place. Not the other way around.

Why should I proof that they weren't there? I don't believe it and anyone telling me there were there has to provide proof for it.

Or maybe I should state that I just send you a million dollar you wanted to give me back tomorrow. Hey it's your turn to proof that I didn't send you the money

reply to post by epsilon69


I remember when we were told that Hubble could not image any object close, the Earth, the Moon or Mars.
That was before they discovered a problem with the original mirror system.

Hubble is seen by the public as a wonderous work of Science (Capital letter) if a abit pricy at two billion. In truth, Hubble was an afterthought stemming from over a dozen military telescopes that had gone before. Total numbers are unknown but said to have been over twenty launches of scopes over 60-inch diameter.

The most interesting aspect of Hubble is that insiders believe that its first mirror system was sabotaged by US intelligence agencies through their connections with the mirror maker that also did their mirrors

If that topic interests you, you may want to find a 1994 book by Eric J. Chaisson entitled The Hubble Wars. A former scientist on the project he revealed that aspect and the internal battles between the scientific teams and the engineering teams as they worked together and fought each other to complete the device. You won't want to believe it.

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)

Why does your op say the Telescope is staring at the moon?
Do you mean WILL be staring?
Why address Hoaxers with this?
Is there something to see here?
Practice image!
frump ljb

reply to post by UnixFE


Would a soil sample almost identical to the ones NASA brought back but collected by another country convince you?

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by UnixFE

 

Would a soil sample almost identical to the ones NASA brought back but collected by another country convince you?

Not really. The soil samples are indeed a strong indication but not a proof for a manned landing. The Russians for example used the unmanned probe Luna 16 to return soil samples (alos much less material). A soil sample is just proof of a probe that made it to the moon (like Luna 16) but not for a human collecting it. And it's not even sure that this material is from the moon. Would be easy to create a soil sample here on earth as it was known what to expect thanks to the Luna probes that landed earlier.

Originally posted by UnixFE

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by UnixFE

 

Would a soil sample almost identical to the ones NASA brought back but collected by another country convince you?

Not really. The soil samples are indeed a strong indication but not a proof for a manned landing. The Russians for example used the unmanned probe Luna 16 to return soil samples (alos much less material). A soil sample is just proof of a probe that made it to the moon (like Luna 16) but not for a human collecting it. And it's not even sure that this material is from the moon. Would be easy to create a soil sample here on earth as it was known what to expect thanks to the Luna probes that landed earlier.

YES and the soil sample for Russia was about 4oz , the Apollo missions 840 lbs of rock

For the love of God...
We went to the moon.
That bs " a funny thing happened" crapumentary
was the Hoax, not going to the moon.

Edited sound bites and film chopped to oblivion.
That movie and how they did it is the hoax.
Not an entire space program.
All that it proved to me
was the power an aristocratic English
accent can have in convincing people.

Now think... what is more likely?
Crapumentary or the entire Apollo space program?
It has been explained
again and again.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


Read the thread and you questions will be answered.

I state in my second post the relationship.

reply to post by UnixFE


Care to explain this then

This image first posted by Jra shows the Apollo 17 landing site.



The top half is a still from the DAC film as they left the moon so was taken almost 40 years ago, the bottom half was taken by the LRO both match. That DAC film has been available since Apollo 17 flew back.
The tracks left by the astronauts in 1972 filmed as they left the Moon 40 years ago match
the image from the LRO

reply to post by UnixFE


Oh, well......once again, this is the sort of misinformation that allows the "Moon Hoax" (and hoaxes of all kinds, in similar vein) to flourish...amongst those who never bother to fact-check:

Would be easy to create a soil sample here on earth as it was known what to expect thanks to the Luna probes that landed earlier.

Sorry, but the first successful Soviet robotic Lunar return soil sample wasn't until Luna 16.....in September, 1970!

Just for the record, Apollo 11 returned, with about 22 kg of samples, and on 24 July, 1969!

Oh, and Apollo 12? Returned on date 24 November, 1969! Still a full year before the Soviets' mission. SO, how, again, could those tiny few ounces of regolith that Luna 16 brought (no rocks, just soil) be used, as you assert?

Can't wait to see the answer......

Originally posted by pianopraze


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.

That's exactly where my brain went instantly. I remember debating people as far back as 2003. I always brought up hubble (only telescope I knew the name to), and always wondered why they didn't use it.

I would always get an answer like this:
"it's a deep field telescope. You can't view things that are close by." "It gathers the light over a long period of time to get those images, you can't look at something as bright as the moon."

hahaha...

guess you can?



That being said I have since changed sides. I still call conspiracy, but it's more of a coverup, than a full on hoax. We DID go to the moon.

reply to post by Zippidee


No.

However, we can only build a .5 meter per pixel telescope for viewing the surface of the moon....

Given sufficient budget, then satellites similar to what the DIA and CIA and every other 'alphabet agency' have currently in orbit around Earth could be sent to orbit the Moon.....with the same sort of image resolution clarity.....it's a matter of money.

If the DoD wanted to spend upwards of several Billion dollars, then it would get done.....NASA doesn't have that sort of budget.....not to waste that much of on such a frivolous mission. They devote their tiny sliver of the Federal budget that they are allowed to maintain many other projects.

The LRO camera was not designed to "prove" the reality of Apollo.....and any imaging conducted by Hubble of the Moon obviously is not for that purpose, either (Hubble will be doing spectroscopic imaging, not optical, visual holiday snapshots).

The LROC's mission was to terrain-map the Lunar surface. For that purpose, 0.5 m resolution is more than sufficient, to provide extremely detailed data.

The fact that there is a camera on-board, and that most of the major Apollo hardware is able to be resolved at that resolution, is just a bonus. Although, it would seem safe to presume that in the backs of many of the designers' minds, they were excited to be able to image the Apollo sites....anyone would naturally think that way, since it was just a perk of the main mission.

Why all of the sudden are they able to use Hubble on an object so close?

What has changed?

Peace