Hubble captures images of Apollo 17 landing site

Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:57 am » by **Frutty**

will69ease wrote:By the way...
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.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/fa ... cat=topten

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/sol ... m/full_jpg

Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:58 am » by **Shaggietrip**

Umm ok. Not! I am sorry but I am still a non believer. Only in the fact that they got there in that tin foil craft and space blanket suit.

I am just gonna throw this out there once again. If NASA can protect them there astronaughts from the radiation going through the Van Allen belt. then land that topsy turfy tin foil craft on the moon. THEN walk around and or drive in that rover Ye haw and Hee Haw. Send a few suits around to clean up these nuke reactor sites. Yes ok they may not be able to with stand the full brunt of the waste but hell man they survived some solar ass flare back in the 60's with them on. So surely they will help on clean up. Hell putt some tires on the lem and make in a transport to get them close. Russia clean up crew had 1-2 minutes top to shovel shit over the edge. The robot malfunctioned and committed robotic suicide. look up chernobyl . Shit with the Apollo suits they could have at least 10-20 min clean up if not more.

:bullshit:

Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:02 am » by **Will69ease**

frutty wrote:
will69ease wrote:By the way...
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.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/fa ... cat=topten

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/sol ... m/full_jpg

And I am suppose to see what?

Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:13 am » by **Frutty**

will69ease wrote:
frutty wrote:
will69ease wrote:By the way...
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.

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/fa ... cat=topten

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/sol ... m/full_jpg

And I am suppose to see what?

Sat Aug 06, 2011 5:28 am » by **Frutty**

I got good news for the ones following this thread. i could retrieve in the internet archive the original version of the page where the apollo 17 landing site was published. There was no warning about the image being so big as to be able to hang your computer then.

But additionally the crosshair points to the EXACT spot where Apollo 17 allegedly landed. Now all you have to do is zoom in on that blue spot and see for yourself the impossible BLUE landing site of the imaginary mission

http://web.archive.org/web/201003170219 ... r2005029m/

:hiho:

Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:52 am » by **Will69ease**

So this is your proof that man didn't set foot on the moon...right?

Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:46 pm » by **Frutty**

will69ease wrote:So this is your proof that man didn't set foot on the moon...right?

Oh noooooo ...

Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:55 pm » by **Frutty**

As per the Apollo's photographs, one of the most known objections to their authenticity, was that according to the hundreds of images released, no lunar module left any mark or crater on the surface of the Moon, that would be expected as a consequence of their powerful thrusters discharge on their landings.

But according to the LROC smoking gun images of the landings, each one of them not only left marks , but dug deep trenches around them.

Additionally the topology of the terrain depicted in the LROC images without exception, show very rugged terrains contrary to the corresponding 1960's-early 70's smooth full of sandy regolith areas where the astronauts frolicked happily while on their moonly stays .

Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:08 pm » by **Kuniva101**

I lost faith in NASA's pictures ever since I learned that they make Mars more red than it actually is.

Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:17 pm » by **Frutty**

kuniva101 wrote:I lost faith in NASA's pictures ever since I learned that they make Mars more red than it actually is.

That deserves a whole new chapter in the history of fakery :alien51:

http://alienanomalies.activeboard.com/t ... /?r=132052