Moon landing
Forums › General Discussion › Moon landing-
ShytTAlker69 wrote:
I didn't say the flag. Good luck with that.Ｃｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
http://m.space.com/13485-moon-skywatching-craters-apollo-landing-sites.html
-
Correct exposure for bright sun:
ISO 100
Speed 1/125
Aperture f/16Bright sun goes for the sunny side of the moon, the sunny side of the Earth, on the beach or 300,000 miles above it.
The cameras on the suits were fixed at that exposure value to correctly expose sun-lit objects.
Find the most brilliant starry sky you have ever seen, set your camera at those settings and see what you get. Black sky.
Take a picture of the full moon at those settings. Perfectly exposed moon, no stars.
-
Ok what about the reflection in the top corner of the Astronauts visor , what looks to be somthing hanging from cables , a camera or lighting and the moon rock with a capital C on it ??
-
Papillon wrote:
You can find the info to debunk your silly theory quite easily. They got this newfangled thing called google. It's probably right next to your favorite conspiracy site.Ok what about the reflection in the top corner of the Astronauts visor , what looks to be somthing hanging from cables , a camera or lighting and the moon rock with a capital C on it ??
-
ShytTAlker69 wrote:
I have no fact to back this up but it's to my understanding the Hubble can see pretty darn far away so how could it not see the flag on the moon?Ｃｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
YOU wrote:
Just looked it up and the Hubble has images that are 10billion light years away. If it can't see the flag on the moon then we have a problem xDShytTAlker69 wrote:
I have no fact to back this up but it's to my understanding the Hubble can see pretty darn far away so how could it not see the flag on the moon?Ｃｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Maybe it's too close or a waste of a shit load of money to adjust and then readjust the Hubble. Keep in mind your talking about a telescope that takes photo graphs of awesomeness Billions of Light years away, and wondering why it hasn't photographed a supposed flag mere few miles away.ShytTAlker69 wrote:
I have no fact to back this up but it's to my understanding the Hubble can see pretty darn far away so how could it not see the flag on the moon?Ｃｏｐｐｅｒ Ｔｏｐ wrote:
What telescope is there that can see the flag on the moon? Not even the Hubble can do that...The answer is yes. With good timing and a decent telescope, a person can see the evidence themselves
-
Resolution! Hubble has a resolution of about .05 arc seconds. That equals 200 meters at the moon's distance. Hubble would see a football stadium on the moon as a one pixel dot. You would need a lens 100 meters in diameter to see a flag.
-
Hubble not beeing able to take that picture...
Isnt it simple to explain guys?
I mean just think of this:You cannot take a picture of microbes with a telelens. Why?
The the focus point of the lens is not set in the correct distance, meaning, you will only see a blurr.
As when you take an actual microscope lens, the focus point is set to a much closer distance giving you a clear image...I hope this comes iver the way i want it, as i find it hard to exactly explain what i mean, but im sure that all TW people that are into photography will know what i mean..
As to that theory of the moon landing...
Why not add the question of why we aint going back, and do more exploration on "the dark side" of the moon? -
Hubble can and has taken pictures of the moon. It just doesn't have the resolution to see something that small. Resolution is determined by the size of the lens, or mirror. Hubble's mirror is just too small.
-
I landed on the moon last night =-)
-
Dude... Maybe Hubble is watching us. NASA, NSA??
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
They can't watch you if you make a tin foil hat. blocks every thing ;-)Dude... Maybe Hubble is watching us. NASA, NSA??
-
Bernie Green wrote:
You mean, like a death star?No. I'm saying it may be hollow. Like a space station... Google it
-
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
It wouldn't make sense that the Hubble didn't have the ability to take close pictures. These are some pictures Hubble has taken of the moons surface to how it's capability. It's my understanding the Hubble sees just like the human eye except its ability to zoom and pick up lights exponentially dimmer than the human eye can pick up. It has the ability to see close just like we can but it can also pick up images drastically further away. -
Yea never happen it's USA was trying to beat the Russians there the shadows are on the wrong side in the video and why wouldn't any other country have made it there by now with an extra 40 plus years of technology
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
That's no moon...Bernie Green wrote:
You mean, like a death star?No. I'm saying it may be hollow. Like a space station... Google it
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/canyouseeobjectsleftbehindonthemoonarticle.cfmhttp://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
It wouldn't make sense that the Hubble didn't have the ability to take close pictures. These are some pictures Hubble has taken of the moons surface to how it's capability. It's my understanding the Hubble sees just like the human eye except its ability to zoom and pick up lights exponentially dimmer than the human eye can pick up. It has the ability to see close just like we can but it can also pick up images drastically further away. -
ShytTAlker69 wrote:
Might seem like a bold statement but I'm pretty sure my link is a but more credible than telescopes.com🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/canyouseeobjectsleftbehindonthemoonarticle.cfmhttp://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
It wouldn't make sense that the Hubble didn't have the ability to take close pictures. These are some pictures Hubble has taken of the moons surface to how it's capability. It's my understanding the Hubble sees just like the human eye except its ability to zoom and pick up lights exponentially dimmer than the human eye can pick up. It has the ability to see close just like we can but it can also pick up images drastically further away. -
We have satalight that can read news papers but not see the flag WHY.? Because it can't see through the top of film studios
-
☠ðůﾅ⌖ʟḁẘ☠ wrote:
I'll be landing on the moon sometime in September.I landed on the moon last night =-)
-
Papillon wrote:
Because R=11.6/DWe have satalight that can read news papers but not see the flag WHY.? Because it can't see through the top of film studios
But if you can't spell satellite you probably won't understand that either.
-
If we've been to the moon why didn't they photograph any Martians when they took all those pictures. We've been had.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
I read your link, no moon flag pic-sorryShytTAlker69 wrote:
Might seem like a bold statement but I'm pretty sure my link is a but more credible than telescopes.com🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/canyouseeobjectsleftbehindonthemoonarticle.cfmhttp://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
It wouldn't make sense that the Hubble didn't have the ability to take close pictures. These are some pictures Hubble has taken of the moons surface to how it's capability. It's my understanding the Hubble sees just like the human eye except its ability to zoom and pick up lights exponentially dimmer than the human eye can pick up. It has the ability to see close just like we can but it can also pick up images drastically further away. -
The LROC project has images of all the flags, (which are sun-bleached white at this point). You can see the landers as well. Google it.
If you think the moon landings are a hoax, it's only because you haven't put enough research in yet. If you aren't completely lazy, the delusional phase will eventually pass and all that will be left is your embarrassment for publicly spouting your contagious ignorance in the matter.
-
No but there's pictures where you can clearly see a human being. Assuming the person is, let's just say, 6ft tall. The flag is 4ft tall. You think we couldn't see the flag? It's that close of a difference that 2 measly feet makes it non visible. Come on now haha.
-
Hubble and earlier spy satellites actually used the same mirrors. But spy satellites are in low earth orbit at 100-1200 miles opposed to 250000 miles to the moon.
-
🔰darkmagician🔰 wrote:
Lol if the Hubble could see the moon flag and lander I guarantee you that would have been picture 1, day 1.No but there's pictures where you can clearly see a human being. Assuming the person is, let's just say, 6ft tall. The flag is 4ft tall. You think we couldn't see the flag? It's that close of a difference that 2 measly feet makes it non visible. Come on now haha.
-
Mythbusters said they did, so they did. 👍
-
Lizard people?
Fuck this thread.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC