HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE AND NASA LIES
Part 1: The Moon
Starting in September 1992, Richard Hoagland began investigating a series of photographs exhibiting unusual structures found on the Moon. Our current understanding of the (limited) forces of nature occurring on the Moon cannot explain what is present in these photographs. The easiest explanation for some of these objects is lint or smudges on the camera lens or negative. This possibility is also the easiest to dismiss because it's so easy to tell lint from a real object.
According to our current lunar model, the surface of the Moon should look like this:
And it does in every picture you see in NASA books and on television. But there are some pictures that NASA doesn't like publishing because they don't obey the laws of nature on the Moon. Instead they appear to show artificially created objects made from a glass or crystalline material.
Like this "shard" towering one and a half miles and casting a shadow along the bottom right of the picture. The Lunar Orbiter 3 took this photo on February 1967. The "star" above the shard is a pre-exposed mark put on by NASA to help establish the geometry of the photos. How can this huge tower be standing on the Moon in defiance of the constant meteoric bombardment that should have flattened it like it has everything else? This is the closest photo available of this object, but it is not the only one.
Another mysterious object in this area is the mile wide "cube". After over exposing the negative to bring out hidden detail, this object was found to be hanging approximately seven miles above the surface of the Moon. The "shard" is in the bottom-right corner. Further computer analysis of this image has shown that the "cube" is definitely a 3D structure with optical depth. The brightest area on the "cube" is not on the outside as one would expect, but inside. The "cube" appears to be trapping light in its center just like a diamond. The "shard" and "cube" have also been found to exist in at least one other photograph proving it is not just an image processing anomaly. This verification comes from a photograph taken in May 1969 by Apollo 10. The photo was taken at twice the altitude of Lunar Orbiter 3 under a completely different lighting angle, viewing angle, time of day, mission and technology.
Frame 4822 from the Apollo 10 mission contains numerous small reflective specks. The above photo of the "castle" shows the geometric detail found within one of these specks approximately 30 miles above the surface. Some of the small specks appear to be linked by thin "cables" running in perfectly straight lines between them.
If someone were going to build towers or other structures on the moon, the best material to use would be glass. On the Moon, glass has the same structural strength as steel does on planet Earth. Since discovering these curious objects, Richard Hoagland and other fellow scientists have been asking NASA to re-image the Moon. The easiest and most cost efficient way of doing this, could be to swing the Hubble Space Telescope around and point it at the Moon. But for the last five years, NASA and the Space Telescope Science Institute (STSI) have consistently and categorically denied that this was possible. They have always used the "Too Bright" excuse. That is, the highly sensitive telescope instruments would be damaged if focused on such a bright object! Assuming this to be the case, it has been shown that it could still be done by using some of the various safety mechanisms, like turning down the gain controls to limit the amount of sunlight getting in. But none of these methods were supposed to work!
Image the shock to the scientific community when on April 16th 1999 an image of the Moon was released by STSI taken using the Hubble Space Telescope!
The reason for this photograph was to measure the colours of reflected sunlight coming off the Moons surface. This photograph contradicts NASA’s lies over the last five years even further because it was taken at high lunar noon. The brightest time of the day!
Even mainstream publications like Sky and Telescope noted the contradictory nature of NASA.
"The STSI released pictures of a celestial object that most people thought the Hubble telescope was not allowed to view: our own Moon."
So now the question is, Where are the rest of the photos? Hubble has a multitude of photographic instruments each capable of exposing different kinds of detail like infrared. Has NASA already taken photos of the areas containing these or other anomalous objects? If not, why not? There are so many unanswered questions regarding the Moon, shouldn’t we be trying to answer these questions, instead of making up lie after lie for five years?
Part 2: Comet Hale-Bopp
In 1996 - 1997 comet Hale-Bopp finally began to dazzle us with it's fabulous night time displays after a 4,200 year journey through the outer solar system. As it hurtled towards us at 95,000 miles per hour, we began to take photographs using every available telescope on Earth and in space. The best available resource to capture this once in a lifetime comet was the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). However after constant requests from the scientific community, the only good release of images from the HST were the ones shown below.
Take a close look at the quality of resolution in each photo over the 14 month period as the comet came closer to the Earth. The photos have the same field of view and yet the resolution of the images is dramatically reduced as the comet hurtles nearer! The resolution of the final 1996 photo has been reduced by a minimum of 600% compared to the first image! There are images of Hale-Bopp from several ground-based observatories at a greater resolution than that of the HST, which doesn't have the Earth's atmosphere to downgrade the quality of the image! The HST is widely publicized as having a resolution 100 times greater than ground based observatories!
NASA's theory on comets like Hale-Bopp is that they are "dirty snowballs" made from ice and dust. They only become visible when they begin to heat up and melt from the energy of our Sun. The HST's first image (and many others) show a companion orbiting around the nucleus of the comet. This totally contradicts NASA's theory and leans towards the theory proposed by Dr Tom Van Flandern that comets are debris from exploded planets. If comets like Shoemaker-Levy 9 that hit Jupiter are "dirty snowballs", how do they cause an explosion equivalent to the detonation of 214,285 twenty Megaton Nuclear Fusion Bombs like the first piece of Shoemaker-Levy 9 did??!! Wouldn't this be a good piece of ice to cool the beers with?!
A NASA press release boasts that it has taken a number of images of Hale-Bopp since 1995 and they are included at the STSI/HST page that contains over 4,500 images of Hale-Bopp. However the number of images at this site that are from the HST can be counted on two hands, all others are from ground based observatories.
For further information I highly recommend the following information sources:
Dr Tom Van Flandern's METARESEARCH
Space Telescope Science Institute
The Hubble Wars by Eric J Chaisson
Hoaglands Mars: Volume 3. The Moon / Mars Connection
