A gathering and discussion area for the Hollywood Investigator's (and Weekly Universe's) hugely vast family of readers to gather and discuss the shocking articles in America's favorite family newspapers!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LUNAR HOAX: "A week to swap out Hubb
"We've all heard for decades now how powerful satellites cameras are, that they can read newsprint from 50 miles up."
There is no satellite that can read newsprint. You are confusing satellites with aircraft recon.
"Assuming the worst case scenario: that there are zero of such satellites revolving the moon,"
Why would there be spy satellites obiting the Moon? Really, please answer this, because it makes you look like a lunatic.
"and that the nearest of these satellites is never within 250,000 miles from the lunar surface. The math is straight forward grade one:
typical newsprint is about 1/10" high;
250,000/50 = 5,000. 5,000 X 1/10" = 500 inches.
Therefore, the very same satellite camera that can read newsprint on earth can
easily see a 500 inch (42 ft) object on the moon. Those buggies churned up the lunar soil for miles and miles."
First, there are no satellites that have the resolution you speak of.
Second, even if there were, assuming your math is correct, you'd need a 42' object. Nothing man made on the Moon is that large. Tracks do not count, because you can't take the sum of smaller objects spread out over a larger area and assuming its visibility is the same as a larger object.
If you can't read a 10 point font at 20 feet, it wouldn't matter whether you are looking at a single page or thousands of miles of paper. You still couldn't read it.
You are arguing that you could read a line when you couldn't read a word!!
"That would appear in the lense as clear as day
with the zoom off!! But nope, no photos! Tho this in itself doesn't prove anything, don't you smell the cover up?? "
No, I smell a lack of knowledge on your part, and an inability to learn from ones mistakes.
"If you consider that the earth has an atmosphere for the cameras to contend with, snapping a clear (undisputable) shot of mile-wide tire tracks on the moon are even more convincing. "
The tires would have to be a mile wide to have mile wide tracks. Perhaps you meant mile long tracks, but that is very different.
As soon above, the length doesn't matter as much.
Think of it this way, if you can't see a river from an airplane, it doesn't matter how LONG the river is. If it is too narrow to see, then length does not matter.
"Don't you think that someone back then would have had the brains to get one of the astro-nUts to moon write the word "HELLO" or just "HI" or "NA" (Neil Armstrong) with one of those so called moon buggies??"
While you couldn't really write anything, they did engage in fun activity, but optics don't allow us to see them.
Now, there are mirrors on the Moon that you can bounce a laser off of if you have enough knowledge.
BTW, we placed the mirrors there.
"It would take all of five minutes on the outside to write a few mile-big letters in the sand yet it would convince the entire world we were there. This would guaranteed be one of the mission objectives. True it wouldn't prove humans were there, but it would at least prove machines were there."
A few minutes!! No, it would take hours and hours. Assuming a speed of 60 mph, that's one mile per minute. Each mile draw would take one minute, miles high letters would take hours, even at speed unobtainable.
As for proving we were there, I doubt anything would convince you.
It would take far more technology to fake the Moon Landings than to actually land on the Moon.