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?
Not from Hubble we don't. Hubble has covers to prevent damage to its sensors from bright light sources. Those pictures are from sats designed to do so in our orbit.
Why do you guys never know anything about anything?
That's a great question. Maybe it's because it will expose untruths.
Or, expose super truths. Like, we never stopped going.
Ohhh that "super truth" sounds like something I think you should elaborate on.
I loves me a fresh conspiracy.
Nazi camps on the dark side? Hollow moon interstellar docking station? That's where cheese really comes from?
(post is archived)