Did we land on the moon?

[rrrr]

How do we know that the images that China says are images of our fake moon landing are really images of our fake moon landing?

If I was China I tell you what I'd do...I'd make some realistic mock ups of what a moon landing site would look like, and then I'd release them to the world and say, "Oh, WE went to the moon too, see, here's some pics of the US's totally real moon landing sites."

By doing that they fool the world into believing their lie, AND they also get the US to confirm that the pictures they took were of the "original" US moon landing sites in order to shore up both country's lies about flying to the moon.

One, because American worldwide Earth based radar stations would track the spacecraft from the time it left Earth orbit until it landed on the moon.

I could produce about a dozen other reasons, but not going to bother.

 

[kurtis500]

Hubble telescope says "HI"

show us... not that difficult ...

what was left on the "Moon" if they actually landed..LOL

a. Any equipment left on the moon. Location are known.


Everyone wants to BELIEVE the Government NASA..

I'm not one...


Enjoy the Dream

So you demand pictures, that you’ll claim are fake, and maybe a trip to the moon yourself before you’ll believe?

Hubble doesn’t have the resolution to see that detail from that distance. The mirror sizes only allow certain resolutions. It’s science. You can do the math on it. Do you believe that is fake too?

 

[rmarion]

So you demand pictures, that you’ll claim are fake, and maybe a trip to the moon yourself before you’ll believe?

Hubble doesn’t have the resolution to see that detail from that distance. The mirror sizes only allow certain resolutions. It’s science. You can do the math on it. Do you believe that is fake too?

Kurtis

Happy Friday

Right back at cha..

Nasa's images on their website of the earth taken from the "Moon Landing" are the same size as moon image from earth.

Everyone knows the Earth is 4x larger than the Moon.
Show "ONE PIC" , just One, not 100, "ONE PIC"

How does that Government Math compute?

Hubble Telescope magnification rate 1440x. Should show a clear view of Moon. Maybe see equipment left on the Moon from the "MOON LANDING"

I'd like to believe and take the "BLUE PILL" also..

You have the majority "BLUE PILLER" on your side... Enjoy

 

[kurtis500]

Kurtis

Happy Friday

Right back at cha..

Nasa's images on their website of the earth taken from the "Moon Landing" are the same size as moon image from earth.

Everyone knows the Earth is 4x larger than the Moon.
Show "ONE PIC" , just One, not 100, "ONE PIC"

How does that Government Math compute?

Hubble Telescope magnification rate 1440x. Should show a clear view of Moon. Maybe see equipment left on the Moon from the "MOON LANDING"

I'd like to believe and take the "BLUE PILL" also..

You have the majority "BLUE PILLER" on your side... Enjoy

You are only hurting your cause by saying this. The Hubble telescope HAS NEVER had the resolution to see that detail on the moon surface. Their pic of the Apollo 17 moon landing area is as good as it gets. This was discussed before the satellite was even launched and while it was waiting to be repaired by the Space Shuttle. The intention is not to focus on the moon but draw in light to make an image. i.e. distant galaxies

Again, the Hubble telescope has never had the resolution to see in that detail.

Your assumption that it can scan that far down and they are hiding evidence against the moon landing shows you don't do math well. The capability HAS NEVER BEEN THERE. You have to close the distance then take a picture, like the Chinese did. But you probably don't believe the Chinese really orbited the moon and took a picture.

Do us a favor and show us the PROOF it has the resolution. Saying 1440x isn't it....

Low earth satellites that image the earth are at approximately 120 miles above the surface. The moon is 238,900 miles away. Do you have ANY IDEA what resolution is needed to see that far????????

Hate to break it to you but "RED PILL" is about facts. And you aint got em, I do

 

[hallett21]

But did you get the answer?

I really don’t know lol. Do I believe that humans have walked on the moon? Maybe.

Do I think that it was a great propaganda play? Absolutely.

I will say that time has not been kind to space travel. Some how (and I kid here) Tom
Hanks closed one eye and got the boys home. Meanwhile in 2024 Boeing needs months to figure out a way to get astronauts home. It’s weird that space travel has gotten harder over the years.

Every other part of technology has become exponentially simpler.

 

[rmarion]

You are only hurting your cause by saying this. The Hubble telescope HAS NEVER had the resolution to see that detail on the moon surface. Their pic of the Apollo 17 moon landing area is as good as it gets. This was discussed before the satellite was even launched and while it was waiting to be repaired by the Space Shuttle. The intention is not to focus on the moon but draw in light to make an image. i.e. distant galaxies

Again, the Hubble telescope has never had the resolution to see in that detail.

Your assumption that it can scan that far down and they are hiding evidence against the moon landing shows you don't do math well. The capability HAS NEVER BEEN THERE. You have to close the distance then take a picture, like the Chinese did. But you probably don't believe the Chinese really orbited the moon and took a picture.

Do us a favor and show us the PROOF it has the resolution. Saying 1440x isn't it....

Low earth satellites that image the earth are at approximately 120 miles above the surface. The moon is 238,900 miles away. Do you have ANY IDEA what resolution is needed to see that far????????

Hate to break it to you but "RED PILL" is about facts. And you aint got em, I do

Kurtis

thanks for the reply...

attached image of Jupiter... 405 million miles away... I guess they learned how to focus on some distance objects...

what I'm suggesting is there are Telescopes with better technology than a $300 camera made by Nikon that should be able to focus on equipment left on the Moon surface.. (since 99% of RDPERS) say NASA landed on the moon.

My 1st request which has NEVER been proven "YET" is the image of Earth in actual size taken from the Moon Surface. Many pictures are in NASA website... just seems VERY strange, the actual size of Earth is incorrect on ALL THOSE THOUSANDS of Images..

Prove me WRONG... show me A PIC of Earth from the Moon surface.

Keep Living the Dream...

you are not alone, with your belief..

 

[rmarion]

View attachment 1374625

Keep the DREAM ALIVE

 

[kurtis500]

Kurtis

thanks for the reply...

attached image of Jupiter... 405 million miles away... I guess they learned how to focus on some distance objects...

what I'm suggesting is there are Telescopes with better technology than a $300 camera made by Nikon that should be able to focus on equipment left on the Moon surface.. (since 99% of RDPERS) say NASA landed on the moon.

My 1st request which has NEVER been proven "YET" is the image of Earth in actual size taken from the Moon Surface. Many pictures are in NASA website... just seems VERY strange, the actual size of Earth is incorrect on ALL THOSE THOUSANDS of Images..

Prove me WRONG... show me A PIC of Earth from the Moon surface.

Keep Living the Dream...

you are not alone, with your belief..

You said Hubble has a 1440x and should show a clear zoom of the moon. Are you now running away from this claim? Did you realize math didn't support your false assumption. It doesn't and you are harming your view trying to dodge the reality.

Jupiter is 405mm miles away and 1300x the size of earth. Hubbles mirrors can zoom only so much based on mirrors and triangulation, why is math so hard for you?

How can you prove that image of Jupiter isn't a fake? Prove it

 

[rmarion]

You said Hubble has a 1440x and should show a clear zoom of the moon. Are you now running away from this claim? Did you realize math didn't support your false assumption. It doesn't and you are harming your view trying to dodge the reality.

Jupiter is 405mm miles away and 1300x the size of earth. Hubbles mirrors can zoom only so much based on mirrors and triangulation, why is math so hard for you?

How can you prove that image of Jupiter isn't a fake? Prove it

please reread post 1256

I'm not hiding or running anywhere LOL...

use any Telescope for that matter..

Hubble telescope states close up magnification of 440 x..
should be able to ZOOM in for close up pics of the Moon..

Nikon P900 85x magnification.. shows clarity pics of the moon..

NO ONE HAS PROVEN NADA.

BTW. 300k images Nasa has taken on their so called "Lunar Missions"

No one has been able to find a Pic of Earth from the so-called Moon Landings...

Maybe you can be the 1st..

Have a great evening.

I misinterpreted Hubble description..

I am SO WRONG...

We must have landed on the Moon since my misrepresentation... of the Hubble Telescope...LOL

 

[kurtis500]

please reread post 1256

I'm not hiding or running anywhere LOL...

use any Telescope for that matter..

Hubble telescope states close up magnification of 440 x..
should be able to ZOOM in for close up pics of the Moon..

Nikon P900 85x magnification.. shows clarity pics of the moon..

NO ONE HAS PROVEN NADA.

BTW. 300k images Nasa has taken on their so called "Lunar Missions"

No one has been able to find a Pic of Earth from the so-called Moon Landings...

Maybe you can be the 1st..

Have a great evening.

I misinterpreted Hubble description..

I am SO WRONG...

We must have landed on the Moon since my misrepresentation... of the Hubble Telescope...LOL

View attachment 1426375

You're citing some camera available on Amazon and doing the math for the Hubble telescope. You said Hubble can do this. You telling me you're wrong now?

How can you prove that pic of Jupiter is real?

 

[rrrr]

please reread post 1256

I'm not hiding or running anywhere LOL...

use any Telescope for that matter..

Hubble telescope states close up magnification of 440 x..
should be able to ZOOM in for close up pics of the Moon..

Nikon P900 85x magnification.. shows clarity pics of the moon..

NO ONE HAS PROVEN NADA.

BTW. 300k images Nasa has taken on their so called "Lunar Missions"

No one has been able to find a Pic of Earth from the so-called Moon Landings...

Maybe you can be the 1st..

Have a great evening.

I misinterpreted Hubble description..

I am SO WRONG...

We must have landed on the Moon since my misrepresentation... of the Hubble Telescope...LOL

View attachment 1426375

If you're old enough to need reading glasses it should be obvious why the Hubble can't take super zoom photos of the moon. It was built to explore galaxies, not take those photos.

Jeez.

 

[Crazyhippy]

I will say that time has not been kind to space travel. Some how (and I kid here) Tom
Hanks closed one eye and got the boys home. Meanwhile in 2024 Boeing needs months to figure out a way to get astronauts home. It’s weird that space travel has gotten harder over the years.

Every other part of technology has become exponentially simpler.

If the Apollo astronauts had the capabilities of sitting around for several months waiting for a rescue... they would have!!

 

[hallett21]

If the Apollo astronauts had the capabilities of sitting around for several months waiting for a rescue... they would have!!

Absolutely! And I think those astronauts need to be brought home safely.


But once again….. lol. 60s tech with one eye open, while the “computers” occupied entire building floors. Something’s gotta give lol.

 

[Crazyhippy]

Absolutely! And I think those astronauts need to be brought home safely.


But once again….. lol. 60s tech with one eye open, while the “computers” occupied entire building floors. Something’s gotta give lol.

Since the ISS was finished (late 90's if memory serves), there has been a floating hotel. Flat tire happens on a road trip, you call AAA and then stop at the holiday inn... shit happens. Same flat tire in Compton at 1am? You drive that fucker home on the rim!

Apollo 13 was a drive that fucker home on the rim moment. There wasn't any other option.

Technology has provided options to makeup for Boeing's issues. If there wasn't those options available, the astronauts up there now would be driving home manually, one eye open as needed.

 

[hallett21]

Since the ISS was finished (late 90's if memory serves), there has been a floating hotel. Flat tire happens on a road trip, you call AAA and then stop at the holiday inn... shit happens. Same flat tire in Compton at 1am? You drive that fucker home on the rim!

Apollo 13 was a drive that fucker home on the rim moment. There wasn't any other option.

Technology has provided options to makeup for Boeing's issues. If there wasn't those options available, the astronauts up there now would be driving home manually, one eye open as needed.

I’m not in disagreement with anything you’re saying.

It’s just weird to me that space travel with humans has almost gone backwards over the last 50-60 years.

Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits?

I’d be embarrassed to say that we did more incredible space maneuvers in the 60-70s with humans than we did presently.

 

[Taboma]

I’m not in disagreement with anything you’re saying.

It’s just weird to me that space travel with humans has almost gone backwards over the last 50-60 years.

Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits?

I’d be embarrassed to say that we did more incredible space maneuvers in the 60-70s with humans than we did presently.

" Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits? "

Maybe there's far less motivation making the risk of "Pushing the Limits" as much of a necessity given that today's missions are far more about the science and much less about the political " America's Amazing " boasting.
The first person to reach the summit of Everest is famous forever, the 2nd person, or the 1st person doing it a 2nd time is rarely remembered at all.

 

[Kachina26]

I’m not in disagreement with anything you’re saying.

It’s just weird to me that space travel with humans has almost gone backwards over the last 50-60 years.

Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits?

I’d be embarrassed to say that we did more incredible space maneuvers in the 60-70s with humans than we did presently.

Think of other industries that have "gone backwards" with the advent of technology. Metrolink annuls trains when the locomotive A/C stops working. Steam locos didn't have A/C and they ran in the summer. When safety ramps up and options to do the job safely rather than just do the job are available, you take the safe course.

 

[kurtis500]

I’m not in disagreement with anything you’re saying.

It’s just weird to me that space travel with humans has almost gone backwards over the last 50-60 years.

Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits?

I’d be embarrassed to say that we did more incredible space maneuvers in the 60-70s with humans than we did presently.

We kind of gave up on it. Im a fan of space travel but what is there really left to do? Mars...thats another moon landing just farther away. The newness of doing it is over really. The Viking and Mariner missions gave us more 'firsts'. We can only improve on the detail from those missions. The 1950's-early 1980's is really the golden age of space exploration that can't be repeated.. IMO

The Apollo and Space Shuttle programs were the cream of the crop. There were so many 'firsts' in those programs that nearly everything since is a copy of those technologies. Russia stopped at the functional Soyuz rocket and relies on that.

 

[TonyFanelli]

Think of other industries that have "gone backwards" with the advent of technology. Metrolink annuls trains when the locomotive A/C stops working. Steam locos didn't have A/C and they ran in the summer. When safety ramps up and options to do the job safely rather than just do the job are available, you take the safe course.

Look at Boeing too! Seems those in charge continue to fuck things up...they'll take DEI over growing some balls nowadays

 

[riverroyal]

Epic boating thread.

 

[rrrr]

" Maybe we just don’t have the balls to push the limits? "

Maybe there's far less motivation making the risk of "Pushing the Limits" as much of a necessity given that today's missions are far more about the science and much less about the political " America's Amazing " boasting.
The first person to reach the summit of Everest is famous forever, the 2nd person, or the 1st person doing it a 2nd time is rarely remembered at all.

You would be mistaken if you believe the 60s space program did not advance American technological knowledge more than today's shoddy farce run by NASA. It's not even close.

 

[Taboma]

You would be mistaken if you believe the 60s space program did not advance American technological knowledge more than today's shoddy farce run by NASA. It's not even close.

Wasn't speaking to the results, but the motivation to be numero uno, and as such, the willingness to take bold risks.

 

[rrrr]

Wasn't speaking to the results, but the motivation to be numero uno, and as such, the willingness to take bold risks.

The pinnacle of that risk taking was Apollo 8, even moreso than the Apollo 11 moon landing. While lower powered versions of the Saturn V had been flown with and without crews prior to the second half of 1968, it had never been flown manned and all up with the big S1-B first stage and its five 1.6 million lb thrust F-1 engines. It propelled the command and service module (CSM) stack into lunar orbit on a decision made just 14 weeks before the planned liftoff, which swapped the Apollo 8 and 9 missions, totally changed NASA's plans, and required intense training.

It was a gutsy move. The flight, with Jim Lovell, Frank Borman and Bill Anders (who died at age 90 in an aircraft accident just three months ago), was a huge success. It included the reading from Genesis on Christmas Eve, and Ander's iconic Earthrise photograph.

In 1965, Lovell had shown exceptional skills in hand flying the Gemini 7 spacecraft to a orbital rendezvous Gemini 6 after a computer failure, coming within 6' of the other capsule while traveling 14,000 MPH. In 1966, he commanded Gemini 12, the final mission in that pre-Apollo era.

When Lovell, combined with the efforts of thousands on the ground, safely returned to Earth commanding the ill fated Apollo 13 mission, no other astronaut had logged more time in space, accomplished more goals, or successfully dealt with critical life threatening emergencies, with the exception of Neil Armstrong's save of Gemini 8 when a stuck thruster sent it spinning at an incredible 60 revolutions per minute while in orbit (link below).

The repeated failures of NASA, Boeing, and the United Launch Alliance, or ULA (a combination of Boeing and Lockheed Martin), have been a ridiculous embarrassment.

‘Serious Problems Here’: Remembering Gemini VIII, OTD in 1966 (Part 2) - AmericaSpace

OTD in 1966, Gemini VIII returned safely to Earth after one of the most harrowing emergencies ever experienced in space.

www.americaspace.com

 

[Turnup]

Ya we landed on the moon, there's totally proof...and here's proof that India did too

 

[rmarion]

OP answers

 

[bentprops]

That's a complete fact , read up on the education and experience the original 7 astronauts had , amazing men !

That doesn't mean they went to the moon.

 

[Bigbore500r]

Having to abandon the crew at the ISS and bring their ship home must be a tough pill for Boeing to swallow.

Just 50 odd years ago they went all the way to the moon 3 times, and played king of the hammers absolutely shredding the moons surface with a lunar sandrail.

Man, wish we could get back to those good old 1971 days with all this 2024 technology.

Sending crews to the moon, bringing offroad toys with us, carving bowls and wacking golf balls back at camp before loading up and launching for the long trip back home. Over and over again....absolutly killin it. We just don't have the budget to do it though, that's all.

............................

.

 

[bentprops]

Dang, women are so vain.

 

[BoatWhipz]

I’ve faked it.

Likewise

 

[TonyFanelli]

Ya think they left her up there on purpose? With that chin and all...

 

[Racey]

Kurtis

thanks for the reply...

attached image of Jupiter... 405 million miles away... I guess they learned how to focus on some distance objects...

what I'm suggesting is there are Telescopes with better technology than a $300 camera made by Nikon that should be able to focus on equipment left on the Moon surface.. (since 99% of RDPERS) say NASA landed on the moon.

My 1st request which has NEVER been proven "YET" is the image of Earth in actual size taken from the Moon Surface. Many pictures are in NASA website... just seems VERY strange, the actual size of Earth is incorrect on ALL THOSE THOUSANDS of Images..

Prove me WRONG... show me A PIC of Earth from the Moon surface.

Keep Living the Dream...

you are not alone, with your belief..



View attachment 1426359

Uhhhhhh no. We didn't get super crisp focus, Jupiter is fucking massive. Like unfathomably massive.

North America placed near Jupiter's Spot.

Spy Satellites operate at altitudes of just a couple hundred miles, The distance to the moon is a couple hundred thousand miles

 

[Racey]

Kurtis

thanks for the reply...

attached image of Jupiter... 405 million miles away... I guess they learned how to focus on some distance objects...

what I'm suggesting is there are Telescopes with better technology than a $300 camera made by Nikon that should be able to focus on equipment left on the Moon surface.. (since 99% of RDPERS) say NASA landed on the moon.

My 1st request which has NEVER been proven "YET" is the image of Earth in actual size taken from the Moon Surface. Many pictures are in NASA website... just seems VERY strange, the actual size of Earth is incorrect on ALL THOSE THOUSANDS of Images..

Prove me WRONG... show me A PIC of Earth from the Moon surface.

Keep Living the Dream...

you are not alone, with your belief..



View attachment 1426359

You can make no judgement on the size of an object in the picture without having 2 key pieces of information 1) A reference object that lies within the same focal plane and prismatic distortion area. or 2) distinct information about the Lens, Focal Distance, Etc of the camera and distance to the object.

I have probably explained this 3 times in this thread but you don't want to hear it.

 

[rmarion]

You can make no judgement on the size of an object in the picture without having 2 key pieces of information 1) A reference object that lies within the same focal plane and prismatic distortion area. or 2) distinct information about the Lens, Focal Distance, Etc of the camera and distance to the object.

I have probably explained this 3 times in this thread but you don't want to hear it.

Racey

this is just me... but if I had a "billion dollar telescope".. I would image every possible lens would come with it...

oh I'd bet my life savings (two cents).. every state, university telescope has viewed the moon with " perfect clarity"..

it's difficult to find moon debris... if there isn't any... LOL

Happy Friday

 

[rivermobster]

Racey

this is just me... but if I had a "billion dollar telescope".. I would image every possible lens would come with it...

oh I'd bet my life savings (two cents).. every state, university telescope has viewed the moon with " perfect clarity"..

it's difficult to find moon debris... if there isn't any... LOL

Happy Friday

Tell me you've never owned a 35mm camera...

Without telling me you've never owned a 35mm camera.

 

[rmarion]

Tell me you've never owned a 35mm camera...

Without telling me you've never owned a 35mm camera.

Come on boys... please do better..

Telescopes have "MANY" eyepieces...

for the RPD non believers.. these eye pieces are interchangeable. They are used to focus on objects...

such as the "MOON"...LOL

the large telescopes can actually focus in on let's say... maybe a "foot print", SXS, Flag... if there were such items...LOL

Have a great day

 

[rivermobster]

Come on boys... please do better..

Telescopes have "MANY" eyepieces...

for the RPD non believers.. these eye pieces are interchangeable. They are used to focus on objects...

such as the "MOON"...LOL

the large telescopes can actually focus in on let's say... maybe a "foot print", SXS, Flag... if there were such items...LOL

Have a great day

Am I wrong?

 

[rivermobster]

 

[rmarion]

View attachment 1428336 View attachment 1428337
View attachment 1428338

RM

$300.00 camera vs Billion Dollar Telescope..

whose lying...

you tell me..

Happy Friday

Have a Great Day

 

[rivermobster]

View attachment 1428375

RM

$300.00 camera vs Billion Dollar Telescope..

whose lying...

you tell me..

Happy Friday

Have a Great Day

You have yet to answer my question.

 

[Racey]

Racey

this is just me... but if I had a "billion dollar telescope".. I would image every possible lens would come with it...

oh I'd bet my life savings (two cents).. every state, university telescope has viewed the moon with " perfect clarity"..

it's difficult to find moon debris... if there isn't any... LOL

Happy Friday

You need to go research how optics work.

"Every single lense".... no, the hubble was not designed to look at the moon, it was designed to park and stabilize itself taking very long exposures of very faint light in the areas between stars.

This is like looking at a Skater and saying "If i had a million dollar boat i would imagine a kitchen and shower would come with it"

 

[Racey]

View attachment 1428375

RM

$300.00 camera vs Billion Dollar Telescope..

whose lying...

you tell me..

Happy Friday

Have a Great Day

Lol, dude you post a picture that shows 3000 miles across. River Mobster posts one that shows 0.1 miles across and you are trying to compare the two???

River mobsters pictures are wayyyy clearer, all of the details shown in his post would fit into a fraction of a single pixel of yours.

LMFAO

 

[rivermobster]

Lol, dude you post a picture that shows 3000 miles across. River Mobster posts one that shows 0.1 miles across and you are trying to compare the two???

River mobsters pictures are wayyyy clearer, all of the details shown in his post would fit into a fraction of a single pixel of yours.

LMFAO

He's never owned a Real camera, so he doesn't know how one works.

There actually is a difference between F stop, and a DUI stop. The later it seems, like he might be familiar with?

 

[rmarion]

Lol, dude you post a picture that shows 3000 miles across. River Mobster posts one that shows 0.1 miles across and you are trying to compare the two???

River mobsters pictures are wayyyy clearer, all of the details shown in his post would fit into a fraction of a single pixel of yours.

LMFAO

so Racey and RM

please tell me in your opinion... which image is clearer???

IMO.. an image supposedly within one mile of the object should be without a doubt... "CLEARER"!!!!!!

my eyes... say the NikonP9000 has clearly a better image.


Gents.. this is semantics....

I'm suggesting a BILLION DOLLAR Telescope... should should the DUST particals on the moon...

as well as any so called MOON expedition!!

The only reason...

also.. you can shut up this OLD PHUQ "rmarion", showing one (1) earth image taken from the moon...
NOTE.. this image must be of actual size orientation of Moon vs Earth.

Good Luck..

I wish the Best...

Come on man.... 300k so-called images from Moon travels by NASA..

I routing for ya... cause this is getting OLD!!!

Have a great weekend

 

[rivermobster]

so Racey and RM

please tell me in your opinion... which image is clearer???

IMO.. an image supposedly within one mile of the object should be without a doubt... "CLEARER"!!!!!!

my eyes... say the NikonP9000 has clearly a better image.


Gents.. this is semantics....

I'm suggesting a BILLION DOLLAR Telescope... should should the DUST particals on the moon...

as well as any so called MOON expedition!!

The only reason...

also.. you can shut up this OLD PHUQ "rmarion", showing one (1) earth image taken from the moon...
NOTE.. this image must be of actual size orientation of Moon vs Earth.

Good Luck..

I wish the Best...

Come on man.... 300k so-called images from Moon travels by NASA..

I routing for ya... cause this is getting OLD!!!

Have a great weekend

Who give a fuck which image is "clearer".

You've made it more than obvious, that you have no clue how a camera works.

Do not know how Adobe Photoshop works either??

I'm gonna guess you don't, from the uneducated statements you make!

So you really should stop embarrassing yourself.

You remind me of a kid that took high school auto shop, trying to explain how volumetric efficiency works. You obviously have no clue!

And that's ok. No one can be educated on everything out there.

But you should realize, as they say...

"It's best to stay in your lane".

Come back to this thread next year, after you've taken a photograph class or two.

Good luck on educating yourself.

 

[Racey]

so Racey and RM

please tell me in your opinion... which image is clearer???

IMO.. an image supposedly within one mile of the object should be without a doubt... "CLEARER"!!!!!!

my eyes... say the NikonP9000 has clearly a better image.


Gents.. this is semantics....

I'm suggesting a BILLION DOLLAR Telescope... should should the DUST particals on the moon...

as well as any so called MOON expedition!!

The only reason...

also.. you can shut up this OLD PHUQ "rmarion", showing one (1) earth image taken from the moon...
NOTE.. this image must be of actual size orientation of Moon vs Earth.

Good Luck..

I wish the Best...

Come on man.... 300k so-called images from Moon travels by NASA..

I routing for ya... cause this is getting OLD!!!

Have a great weekend

Here's the picture you posted zoomed in...

Now tell us which picture is clearer?

 

[rivermobster]

Upon further review...

"The Hubble space telescope, conceived in the 1940s, designed in the 1970s, and built in the 1980s"

One would think that most any modern camera today, would have better resolution than something designed in the 40's?

 

[rivermobster]

So the Hubble equates to an 8 megapixel camera.

My POS Android phone has a 108 megapixel sensor.

Are we learning things yet?

 

[Racey]

What model of boat is floating in Thompson bay in this picture @rmarion?

 

[rrrr]

Come on boys... please do better..

Telescopes have "MANY" eyepieces...

for the RPD non believers.. these eye pieces are interchangeable. They are used to focus on objects...

such as the "MOON"...LOL

the large telescopes can actually focus in on let's say... maybe a "foot print", SXS, Flag... if there were such items...LOL

Have a great day

LMAO...

The eyepiece has nothing to do with the size of a telescope's mirror and focal length, and in the instance of Hubble and the JWST, their CCD pixel capabilities.

You need to "do better" in choosing which conspiracy websites to visit. Right now they're making you look rather, uh, uninformed.

 

[kurtis500]

so Racey and RM

please tell me in your opinion... which image is clearer???

IMO.. an image supposedly within one mile of the object should be without a doubt... "CLEARER"!!!!!!

my eyes... say the NikonP9000 has clearly a better image.


Gents.. this is semantics....

I'm suggesting a BILLION DOLLAR Telescope... should should the DUST particals on the moon...

as well as any so called MOON expedition!!

The only reason...

also.. you can shut up this OLD PHUQ "rmarion", showing one (1) earth image taken from the moon...
NOTE.. this image must be of actual size orientation of Moon vs Earth.

Good Luck..

I wish the Best...

Come on man.... 300k so-called images from Moon travels by NASA..

I routing for ya... cause this is getting OLD!!!

Have a great weekend

You’ve been told a couple times about how resolution works. The math is right there for you to do.

Do it and get back to us. Saying ‘it should’ and doing nothing is pure laziness