This might be a dumb or niave question but here goes anyway!

Could the Hubbell telescope be aimed at the moon? If so, could it get images of sufficient magnification and resolution to pick out the Apollo landing sites? Surley, pictures of equipment left at the landing sites would help to debunk the HB'ers.

That's 'Hubble.' [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

And yes, it could and has been used to photograph the Moon, but the lunar landers are far too small for it to make out. There's a decent explanation of why here.

Besides, even if we could take the photographs, they'd obviously be fake, right? Because the Hubble is controlled by organizations in on the conspiracy.

__________________
"Went all the way to the Gap of Rohan only to discover that there is no Gap in Rohan... not even a Banana Republic!"

Here's a page about Hubble photographing the Moon:

Hubble Shoots the Moon

The crater in the image is 58 miles across and is imaged at Hubble's best (actually only) resolution. Imagine trying to find a 20-foot lunar module in that.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

A couple of previous threads on this: Telescope and Moons Perigee.The Ultimate Debunk? and I know a way to make everybody a believer!

Other moon shoots look what someone find in this pic of Copernicus
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...moon_9914b.jpg

Taken from this official site Copernicus is down the page:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gal...lery-moon.html

The strange thing in the image:

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_99...yenlarg555.jpg

More details here:
http://wiolawapress.com/food.htm

~Always there when things turns wild~

Aldrin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-17 23:23 ]</font>

It's nothing strange unless you're a Hoaglandite. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
~AstroMike

Enlarged pic OUTLINED FOR U TO SEE BETTER
http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_dr...linedcr555.jpg

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_cu...aterima555.jpg

From this site:
http://wiolawapress.com/food.htm

No Hoagland has nothing to do with this.

And cartoons drawn on top of aerial photographs means exactly what?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So you are saying Nasa draws cartoons on their original pics?Look carefully to the left upper side of the crater near the edge:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...moon_9914b.jpg

Taken from this official site -Copernicus is down the page
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gal...lery-moon.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/14/image/c

Copernicus
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1...s/full_jpg.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-18 00:47 ]</font>

You missed the three-headed hydra in the lower right.

So now you dont believe this is cartoons drawn on top of aerial photographs?What makes you change your mind?

So you are saying Nasa draws cartoons on their original pics?

I said no such thing.

I'm saying that if someone wants to draw a random outline around a random set of features and claim it looks like some stylized Puff the Magic Dragon or E.T. or Catherine Zeta-Jones, that proves absolutely nothing.

The human visual cortex specializes in trying to recognize patterns in things. It does this vigorously, and it's part of what makes humans intelligent. But it's also why people see shapes in tea leaves or clouds or the desert sands. Because the human mind tries so hard to pick out patterns it often "recognizes" "patterns" that are, by any objective measure, completely abstract.

Show me something less subjective and I'll listen. If someone has to "help" me see it, then it's by no means a "pattern" that means much.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So now you dont believe this is cartoons drawn on top of aerial photographs?

No, I realized I hadn't taken you to task for putting words in my mouth. See the new post -- it's the gist of the original with a well-placed objection added.

You're doing exactly what Hoagland does. Embrace it or change your tune.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Dont try to create a distraction about what could say Hoagland the fact of the matter is you begin by saying I cite *And cartoons drawn on top of aerial photographs means exactly what?*
Now than you see the same image from the original pics you say illusion, mirage...

Quote:
I'm saying that if someone wants to draw a random outline around a random set of features and claim it looks like some stylized Puff the Magic Dragon or E.T. or Catherine Zeta-Jones, that proves absolutely nothing.

Where do you see draw random outlined in that image this is a magnification from the original:
http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_cu...aterima555.jpg

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_99...yenlarg555.jpg

Original:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...moon_9914b.jpg

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-18 01:18 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-18 01:21 ]</font>

In this NASA image ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...rthamerica.jpg ), taken during Apollo 16, there is a distinct cloud-like shape in the form of an eagle, wings lifted, just to the west of the Baja peninsula.

Since it was taken during Apollo 16, is this proof positive that NASA had weather control in the early 70's?

I love cloud watching, but i don't fool myself that the patterns i imagine seeing are anything but imaginings.

The links listed above I've checked out, and i am having a great problem seeing anything beyond lunar surface!

Maybe it's like those 3d things and I have to carefully go cross-eyed for a while...

__________________
Popeye ate spinach because they wanted to market spinach to children. What a relief, then, that Superman doesn't eat Kryptonite.

Dont try to create a distraction about what could say Hoagland ...

It's not a distraction because it's not irrelevant. You're doing exactly what Hoagland does. Why is your version of that approach different or better?

I cite *And cartoons drawn on top of aerial photographs means exactly what?*

Yes, that's what I said. I want to know what you think this proves. You're obviously trying to make a point. What is it?

Now than you see the same image from the original pics you say illusion, mirage...

I don't see the same image. I don't see that the added outline follows any particular salient set of features. Without the added outline, there's nothing. Therefore I argue that the "image" you're seeing is formed more by the added annotation than by anything in the photo.

Where do you see draw random outlined in that image this is a magnification from the original

Good heavens, "Aldrin", are you even paying attention?

You posted this link

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_dr...linedcr555.jpg

which appears to be

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_cu...aterima555.jpg

with an outline drawn on it to "emphasize" a certain shape. This is the image I claim has been annotated with what I have called a "cartoon" image.

I don't claim NASA drew the outline on any photo, original or otherwise.

I do not agree that the figure suggested by the outline is necessarily evident or indicated by the enlarged, unannotated originals.

I do not agree that any recognizable image or figure is suggested by the enlarged, unannotated originals -- aside from random patterns.

As I said, show me something which isn't entirely subjective and then I'll be interested.


_________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2003-01-18 01:40 ]</font>

Ho! wonderful cloud i was sure nasa had weather control in the early 70's. (sic)!

Next!

Yes but if you go to the site you remark than the outlined image appears only at the end .I dont have any problem to see the image on the original pics from Hubble by paying attention where the image is located.

http://wiolawapress.com/food.htm

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...moon_9914b.jpg

It is 2:20 am here.To tired to discuss now.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-18 02:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-18 02:13 ]</font>

Yes but if you go to the site you remark than the outlined image appears only at the end.

Who cares? I followed your links and saw the pictures you asked me to look at. I disagree with your interpretation.

I dont have any problem to see the image on the original pics from Hubble by paying attention where the image is located.

I can indeed see where in the original image the enlargements came from. I do not agree that they depict anything out of the ordinary, and certainly not what the outline suggests.

Your approach is purely subjective. It proves absolutely nothing. It's no different than someone seeing shapes in clouds. We know the human brain "fills in" detail in abstract images. It thereby attempts to leap to the recognition of some familiar object. It takes more than "I see something" to show that there's actually something there.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Can anybody explain to me what that figure is supposed to be? Even with the outline it just looks like a squiggly closed loop to me -- maybe an amoeba with bunny ears?

Without the outline it seems purely random. Oh my, I guess my pattern recognition circuits are fried!

That web site is pretty strange... are we sure it's not somebody's idea of a joke?

You're not alone, Donnie. I can't tell what it is either. A large wallaby? That's my best guess.

Maybe this is some type of twisted Rorschach test...

__________________
Popeye ate spinach because they wanted to market spinach to children. What a relief, then, that Superman doesn't eat Kryptonite.

Images can be so much fun!

I have been on a few cave tours and canyon tours, and it is amazing the images the natural rocks create. In Canyon de Chelly, AZ, there is a rock formation called Duck Rock because it looks exactly like a duck lying down with its neck stretched out on the ground (no stretch of the imagination needed)! In another cave near Tucson, AZ (forgot the name) one of the more rememorable images is an opening that looks exactly lie Big Bird had run through the wall and left an exact outline of his body (the way you see in old cartoons). The ironic part is that, according to our guide, a Sesame Street episode was actually filmed in that "room" of the cave! There's a cave within Mammoth Cave NP, KY called The Great Onyx Cave that has a stalagmite formation that appears strikingly like a Nativity Scene. Seriously!

I wish I could provide pictures for all of these, but here is one I could find on the web: THE RUINS OF KARNAK inside Mammoth Cave itself. Hey, a hoaxist could have fun with this one. Since it is known that the more ancient Native peoples did venture and even live inside the Cave, how much does it take to say these images were carved and that there was actually a tie to Egypt going on? They probably won't do it, though, as it would be harder to grab a following.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I live in Utah, which has some pretty striking geology. There are some mountains down in Monument Valley that look just like the Sorting Hat from Harry Potter, and in Goblin Valley (cf. Galaxy Quest) ... well, enough said.

But down in Bryce Canyon there is some really weird stuff. One of the hoodoos is a dead-ringer for Queen Victoria in her classic statue pose.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hey Aldrin, I tried to approach this objectively and give you the benefit of the doubt. I downloaded each of your links in order, including the zoom of Copernicus. I did not see your amazing discovery. Nothing in that picture drew my attention. I scanned the image looking for any shapes or strange objects, and nothing.

I even looked in the box that narrowed the field down to a small corner, still didn't see anything.

Finally I get to the page with the pictures that have the feature in question outlined (that JayUtah described as a cartoon - the outline, not the feature). It was only then I identified the shape you claim is important. Straining my imagination, the top looks vaguely like the head of ET. It narrows to what could be interpreted as a neck, then spreads again at what would be shoulders. The left side of the image has what could conceivably be an arm and a hand and a stubby little foot, but the right side is obscured. And what is the tail thingy at the bottom?

In short, whatever interpretation is being given to that image is loony. There's nothing there but a Rorshach test. In fact, look at the shadow outlining the right shoulder and head, and it looks triangular, almost like a B2 bomber. It stands out a lot clearer than the image outlined on that page you link.

Jay's explanation is right on the mark. It is a random pattern of bright and dark caused by variation in the lunar terrain, that someone has found a pattern in like finding shapes in clouds. The pattern is only in the eye of the beholder.

The natural formation that always sticks out in my mind as being an astonishing match for something we'd expect to be natural is this rock in the Lewis & Clark Caverns (which, despite the name, were never visited by the famous explorers). It looks like a pretty unremarkable blob -- until the guide turns off the lights and shines a spotlight on the blob. The shadow cast on the far wall shows a man and a woman. Shine the light on different sides of the blob to project the shadow on different parts of the cavern, and you get a little soap opera about this amorous couple. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I have not say than the "feature" from the oringinal pic from Hubble is easy to localised.It took me many try to find it even after looking at the images from the site.And without the outlined i have even see nothing in the images why *simple because what is outlined is *very uncunventional* -even if you are looking for classical representation of "ET".

A simple magnification from the location on the hubble pics show the form of the *thing* easely.So try the process showing by the author to see if you have the same result.
Question:
How a near imperceptible *feature* from the original Hubble pic once magnified (see the process made by they author) is more and more clear? we should expect the contrary from an unclear image or a shadow.

As for the comparaison made by Nebularain or JayUtah no this is not a rock formation.

Other moon shoots look what someone find in this pic of Copernicus
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...moon_9914b.jpg

Taken from this official site Copernicus is down the page:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gal...lery-moon.html

The strange thing in the image:

http://wiolawapress.com/food/food_99...yenlarg555.jpg

More details here:
http://wiolawapress.com/food.htm

~Always there when things turns wild~

Aldrin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-21 15:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-21 15:52 ]</font>

It took me many try to find it even after looking at the images from the site.

That's the point. If you have to look really really hard to find it, it's not an "obvious" pattern. The harder you have to look, the lower your standards of "artificiality" will become.

what is outlined is *very uncunventional* -even if you are looking for classical representation of "ET".

Irrelevant. What you've outlined is not uniquely suggested by the underlying image. It doesn't matter that your outline is Elvis or Barney or Puff. The question is whether your outline can be determined objectively (i.e., by some deterministic procedure) solely from the data. It can't; you lose.

As for the comparaison made by Nebularain or JayUtah no this is not a rock formation.

You missed the point. The point is that the human mind assigns meaning to shapes even if the meaning is not necessarily appropriate. I know of a rock which looks like Queen Victoria. Does that mean it is Queen Victoria? Was there some deliberate force that produced it? Is there some mystical significance to it all? Or is it just the mind playing the game, "Hey, that kinda looks like ..."? After all, that's what our visual system does best. That's what makes it so useful.

A visual system that sees Queen Victoria in a rock known to have been formed by purely random natural forces cannot be trusted to meaningfully perceive Barney the Dinosaur in a lunar photograph.

I've said it a hundred times now. Show me something other than your subjective opinion and I'll consider it.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

1-My point is now than you know where to look in the original Hubble pic do you see the shape of the "feature".

2-About subjective opinion.I see nothing subjective in the fact than pointing out the precise location of the feature.

3-There are absolutely no reference frame for the brain to created an image like that.In other words have you ever see an image like that.

4-You have not consider that
Question:
How a near imperceptible *feature* from the original Hubble pic once magnified (see the process made by they author) is more and more clear? we should expect the contrary from an unclear image or a shadow.

5-I am not the author of the images the owner is:
barbara wiolawa

I would love to hear from you.

wiolawa@getnet.com

& wiolawa@swirvemail.com

Skeptic Pitied.

A good one from The Onion

http://www.theonion.com/onion3902/skeptic_pitied.html