There's nothing around the moon yet that has enough resolution to image the hardware left at the site directly
Yet somehow they take great videos from mars.
I think it was mars or was it that other planet ahhh Greenland or nevada er somthin.
Missing the point with this argument. If we have Hubble space images of clusters of galaxies that were supposedly taken by focusing on a blank section of the sky, why can't the same space-bound telescope take an image of the lander on the moon's surface to put the debate to rest?
If we have Hubble space images of clusters of galaxies that were supposedly taken by focusing on a blank section of the sky,
Why are you asking questions which have been answered forever ago? You just admitted you never research anything.
Focus into infinity at stellar distances and low luminosity is the exact opposite of very near focus at high luminosity.
Your claim is saying, the fact race cars are not used for commuters is proof roads don't exist. It's almost as if tools are developed for specific tasks and are unfit for tasks for which they were not intended.
We have satellite imagery of mountain ranges and glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland, covered in ice. Is that more or less luminosity?
That's a great question. Maybe it's because it will expose untruths.
Or, expose super truths. Like, we never stopped going.
(post is archived)