Primary and associate researchers on our lunar team as well as other scientists suspected long ago that we were being deceived and misled by STScI and the Hubble Telescope powers-that-be when we were told that the moon was too bright to image. At the height of the controversy a year or so ago before it was photographed, I recall listening to Richard Hoagland on a popular radio show visiting with discriminating and intelligent callers, answering relevant questions about how and why the moon could and should be imaged by Hubble despite STScI's refusal to do it at that time. "How about a filter, guys?!" This was a sensible question!
Well, Hubble eventually and recently used filters in the first lunar images. In the July issue of Astronomy, an article by Richard Talcott on pages 60-61 reveals that James Caldwell of NYU, Toronto belongs to a group of Guaranteed Time Observers with assured access time to observe with Hubble. He persuaded the technicians at STScI to figure out a way to test Hubble's potential. His plans included taking spectra of Saturn's moon Titan and Jupiter's moons. The test object was our moon. So Tony Roman and Andrew Lubenov at Hubble figured to use Wide Field Planetary Camera #2and TO USE FILTERS to let smaller amounts of light to pass through them keeping exposure times to less than one second. And the pictures are remarkable! So suddenly, it can be done?
They say eight pictures were taken. What is remarkable is that they were taken at HIGH SUN two days past full moon phase! It is equally interesting that the most publicly released photo is of an area PRECISELY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRIMARY AREA OF MY ANALOG ANOMALY INVESTIGATION. 18 ANOMALOUS AREAS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN THE VICINITY OF COPERNICUS AND KEPLER ON LUNAR ORBITER AND APOLLO RAW DATA!
And Alex Storrs, leader of the Hubble team now confesses, "HUBBLE'S PERCEIVED LIMITATIONS HAVE MORE TO DO WITH LACK OF FUNDING RATHER THAN ANYTHING INHERENT TO THE TELESCOPE." What a blinding contradiction to the groan and moan regarding lunar brightness of yesterday!
Pictures were taken at the moon's maximum brightness. I think that near terminator photography would have been a more productive target! As the terminator passes across the moon particularly in the region of Copernicus and Kepler, topographic relief in the shadows would certainly reveal as much detail as the Apollo terminator photography did. Much of the crater flank GEOMETRY and LARGER ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE PRESENT THERE COULD CLEARLY BE SEEN AT LOW SUN. It has already been seen on the early Lunar Orbiter data.
It is still there, Storrs! The clincher is that if the theoretical resolution of Hubble is really 280 feet (85 meters) - slightly better than Clementine - relief resolution would be greatly improved at terminator rather than high sun!
A "mineralogical map" was put together from exposures taken through 3 filters in the region of Milichius and Milichius A craters that show aged ejecta and surrounding mare areas - the area where Copernicus and Kepler ray systems cross. Once again, this has been an area of my three-year analog investigation. (Reports are forthcoming.) This photomap is in blue and yellow, the blue indicating fresh deposits and craters, the yellow, the ejecta and mare material. Suspicions are easily raised when looking at it. It is reminiscent of the APP172jpg Clementine infrared spectral data in the Triesnecker region of Sinus Medii!!
Ah, Clementine! It is interesting that possible future Hubble lunar photography (according to Talcott's article) may be used to "HELP INTERPRET MANY OF THE CLEMENTINE IMAGES." Come now!! Interpretation? The first pristine Clementine data was of course honest before it all went behind closed doors prior to public release. So now the integrity of the Clementine data-set is questionable. Why 'interpret' it? One can't get blood out of a turnip! I wonder if the Hubble data will be doctored, too.
They've known they could shoot-the-moon all along. I suspect they've photographed it prior to the release of the eight photos. There is nothing wrong with their tracking capabilities and Fine Guidance Sensors. They're exact enough. It'd be revealing to have a giant mirror on the moon and to have STScI image themselves through it. Wonder what they'd see. Would it be an HONEST picture? Would they release THAT ONE?
In addition to the issues raised by Steve above, there is a definite backtrack going on by STSCI on this issue. An e-mail posted to Terry James Moon Lite Talk discussion board and ostensibly from Zoltan Levy of STSCI claimed that "Richard Hoagland (sic - I wrote the article - MB) has taken my statement out of context." Just to remind you, Levy statement was a direct reply to a specific interrogatory:
> ...has Hubble taken any photos of the moon?
No, the moon is too bright (even the dark side) to observe with HST.
Zolt
I am hard pressed to conceive how this is "out of context." If anybody else can explain it to me I'm open to hearing it. Even from you, Zolt.
MB
:: 
:: 
::
