Moon Fakery: Q

[Ed]

...but that still doesn't fix the Apollo-15-landing-site-picture-link I posted.

What, you mean this one?

http://moon.google.com/


;-)

[Vic Hays]

I clicked on the Google link Ed provided and when I zoomed all the way in I discovered that some people had been right for a long time. There is some definite unique topography at close range.

[rlortie]

So...you're not increasing resolution, you're just making it look better?

Better is in the mind of the viewer, to some it is the opposite of better. from what I see I think I will go with the latter.

Ralph

[Wheeler]

Stay open to anything you see, it may reveal truth.
Science works by using all results, and combining them. They sometimes lead to the answer.
You may not like what you see, but it is a step in the right direction no matter if you like it or not.

Once people were afraid of the moon, then they were not.
Now we want to go to it and see it as close as we can.
Trying to take pictures of it and land on it is just another way to know it.

Take a picture and then take another picture. Compare them with each other, and then try again and again.

If Bob stops takeing pictures, Cindy may try something she always wanted to do with the same camera.

I believe Albert Einstein once stated that fantasy was a his means of discovery, more than education.

[trevie]

I thought with all the technology to take pictures of galaxys millions of light years away with such high detailed resolution pictures and still we are unable to take a picture of a landing site on the moon, and prove that man did once land there. Comparing a buggy size moon craft and distance proportional to a size of the galaxy and the distance from it, you would of thought we would be able to see the buggy from here, if it were there, Hubble telescope should see it no problem. I guess Nasa can't afford to point the telescope towards the moon, maybe its long-sighted or they don't want us to know the truth!

[Wheeler]

I have to agree with you.

Lets get a petition going to get the Hubble turned!

Anyone know PR person who can make a motion in the House of Representatives?

[Jonathan]

You'd think so, but I just did the math, it can't resolve anything on the Moon less than 10.256m wide.

[Wheeler]

at what range?
Is there any craft (under $1,000,000 that can fly close enough to photo it and report by signal before it falls to the surface?

[Jonathan]

You mean the range from Hubble to the lander?
I couldn't remember, so I just recalculated it, I used 375 598km. Lucky you asked, because I made two mistakes before. Worst, was that I lost tract of the units, that should have been km, and the other, was bad but fortunately minor. The correct size something on the Moon must be to be seen by Hubble is 10 433m, or 6.483 miles.
I don't think your suggestion will stop the theorists, they'll just say that mission was a hoax too.

[ken_behrendt]

I think I read that there is a legitimate reason that the Hubble telescope can not be pointed at nearby objects like our moon or the other planets in our solar system. The reason is that, with the Hubble's incredible magnification ability, those objects would appear so bright that they would actually damage the electronic components responsible for converting the image into a signal to transmit down to Earth!

I wonder, however, why they did not consider this problem when they were originally designing the orbiting observatory by including some sort of filter that could be moved into position to greatly reduce the glare so that the electronics would not be damaged? May we could "retro fit" it with these filters so that it could be used to spot the debris we've left on the moon. Then, digital enhancement technology might be able to bypass the resolution limit to, finally, prove to the doubters out there that we did, in fact, land men on the moon...

ken

[Wheeler]

Sounds like a good idea Ken.
I think light filters are simple too.

[Ed]

I think I read that there is a legitimate reason that the Hubble telescope can not be pointed at nearby objects like our moon or the other planets in our solar system. The reason is that, with the Hubble's incredible magnification ability, those objects would appear so bright that they would actually damage the electronic components responsible for converting the image into a signal to transmit down to Earth!

At least if you are going to engage in rambling, please be accurate. :-)

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... s/1999/14/

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/199 ... /9914z.jpg

-Ed

[ken_behrendt]

Ed...

I did check out the link to the archived Hubble article you provided and noted that the images there of the Moon were still wide-field images...they were not extreme close-up's of the lunar surface. As such, I do not think the brightness problem would manifest itself at that low level of magnification. But, I do think if they tried to zoom in to the limit of close-up resolution, then there would be the risk of burning out the electronics aboard the orbiting observatory...

The only way I can see around this problem is to either employ filters to cut down the glare or change the circuitry involved to make it able to withstand the glare.

ken

[trevie]

Another Solution is to build a new telescope and place within the orbit of the moon and thus overcome the resolution problem. It will also give us an idea of what is on the dark side of the moon.

There could be a hidden Alien base with aliens waiting to attack us at any moment. They are just waiting for re-enforcements to arrive from the Galaxy M3. They said about three weeks.

[ken_behrendt]

There was a book written during the '70's titled "Someone Else Is On Our Moon" (I am not sure of the title or the author) and it presented some very mysterious photographs that were taken of various surface features on the moon. Often the photos were taken on different missions that were years apart.

In the photographs, one can see strange geometric patterns of light on the dark surface of the moon, weird dome-shaped surface structures on the back side, and strange X shaped objects on the floor in the middle of large craters.

One series of images was really spooky. It showed the Tycho crater (I think). In the first and earliest image, the rim of the crater is sharp and well focused. In subsequent images, one sees the rim being progressively worn down as what appears to be debris falls down the slope of the crater's inner wall. The images look remarkably as though someone (or something!) was slowly working its way around the rim of the crater and scraping up the material there.

Was it some sort of extraterrestrial mining operation? Unfortunately, unless we can, as you suggest, place more surveillance satellites into a close lunar orbit or, better yet, send manned missions to the orb, we will not know for sure.

However, the idea of extraterrestrials mining various metals from our moon does not seem so far fetched to me. If they have the ability to build craft that can overcome the limitations that gravity and inertia impose on massive spacecraft, then carrying out such mining operations in star systems other than their own seem very likely.

I think that until we establish a permanent human presence on Earth's nearest neighbor in space, such activities will continue...


ken