"The Hubble Space Telescope can observe objects in the universe that are approximately 13.4 billion light-years away." 🤔

Duh!

The Japanese lunar satellite has providede photographs of the landing site. You have lost any and all rights to ever claim to be correct in any argument at social media for the rest of time. If you cannot even bother to do the most rudimentary research on a topic, there's absolutely no reason anyone should take you seriously.

@@stevedoetsch You mean the highly pixelized dark spot they say it's the flag's shadow? And I would lose credibility over questioning that? LMAO you shills are pathetic!

@@stevedoetsch But they still didn't see the flag. You have lost any and all rights to ever claim to be correct in any argument at social media for the rest of time. If you cannot even bother to do the most rudimentary research on a topic, there's absolutely no reason anyone should take you seriously.

"The Hubble Space Telescope can observe objects in the universe that are approximately 13.4 billion light-years away." 🤔

What trouble are you having?

@@markmaxwell2765 i am having trouble using it to navigate planets and stars etc.

What a load of technobabble,

Ridiculous Can you spot an ant 50 meters away? Can you spot a big building 20 kilometres away? Dou you understand now?? I hope so

@@ulisessolis3182 you should learn to pay attention. The key word is "visually", and there is also a realistic comparison within the abilities of the device. Specifically, a human can't see tiny objects 50 meters (3.1 ft. X 50=155 ft. I think is the math) away. However we CAN see, without much detail, a large building 20km (or 20km x .6= 12 miles, which is the horizon, at sea level). Again a function we are not built for. HOWEVER the James web telescope IS made to see things SOO SMALL, at such a long range, that our brains can't even comprehend, as you have shown, the magnitude of its ability. "Engage brain before opening mouth". I was taught this when I was young. You should learn it to.

I hope you actually mean 13 billion light years, because 13 billion miles is only 0.22% of a light year and only about 1/1,920 times the distance to the nearest star that is outside of our solar system (Proxima Centauri). Even the smallest galaxies are about 600 light years across, while the largest known galaxy (IC 1101) is approximately 16 million light years across. So, assuming that you meant a typical galaxy at a distance of 13 billion light years, let's look at the math. Because the angles are VERY small, the simplification known as the "small angle formula" is appropriate: angle in radians = size / diameter. -- A 4-foot-wide object at the Moon's distance (about 238,000 miles) subtends an angle of (4 ft) / (238,000 miles * 5,280 ft/mile) = 3.18*10^-9 rad = 1.82*10^-7 degrees. -- A typical full-size galaxy is very roughly about 100,000 light years across. So, the angle this hypothetical galaxy would subtend at a distance of 13 BLY is (100,000 LY) / (13*10^9 LY) = 7.69*10^-6 rad = 4.41*10^-4 degrees. In conclusion, our hypothetical galaxy subtends an angle that is about 2,400 times larger than an Apollo flag on the Moon. So, you are still wrong.

@@skysurfer5cva oops. My bad. I meant light years. I was nearly spent when I wrote that.

​@@user-if5bv7de2lyou can't watch bacteria with binoculars. Nor a mountain with microscope. Hubble or jwst are designed to look at very distant objects. And very dim. Probably KH-11 could spot flags, but I doubt they will bother.

The footage is right there And it costs more to Fake it then do it

Lo sabemos solo por lo que nos contaron en el vivo y directo en 1969 y solo por eso. es raro no? que ahora no puedan hacer una transmision en vivo y solo muestren imagenes generados por cumputadora de las misiones chinas indias o japonesas. mientras en el 69 con muchisima menos tecnologia lo retransmitieron al mundo entero.

Because they did multiple times.

​@@sebastiansansa780in all those missions you see footage of both landers and area. Simply during Livestreams you see computer generated images. Why? For the same reason why you can't watch you tube when you are in middle of nowhere and you have only Edge. Data transfer is too slow. In 69 and followed landing was transmitted in very low resolution and very low framerate, despite using big antenna. High quality videos were recovered after astronauts were back. Same with modern landers. They transmitted video, but painfully slow. So no live coverage.

And you expect to be believed?

@@robguyatt9602 He posted it on the internet.. obviously it's real.

@@Michael-gp3vl LOL yep :)

It's not optical! Hahahahhahahah so you didn't try and see it. You need optics to SEE! Hahahahaha

@@MrT------5743 So you can't see the images the JWST produces then. They are taken in wavelength range not visible to the human eye. Hahahahaha back at you.

Probably the shuttle

@@ajrk95 the shuttle wasn't on the surface of the moon.

Remote controlled camera

do you think they couldn't just place a camera on the ground and film it? These troll questions are getting annoying

The film 🎥 is from Apollo 17 and is stage before leaving controlled from Houston…

If i recall one of probes over the moon (not sure it was US or Indian) took photo of that landing area and flag was visible. It's not covered in dust too much, but its white due to paint degradation from UV exposure. So there is no American flag on the moon anymore. They are all white.

Yes, that's the very same exhaust that looks like confetti and doesn't disturb any lunar dust...Got it !!!