Science is tough isn’t it?
You cannot have it both ways there [silly attempt to insult]...
This is nothing but pure [expletive deleted]...
You cannot resolve an object the size of a[n] [expletive deleted] automobile from Earth at the reported distance.
It's not resolved in the images.
We knew exactly where Apollo was and there were no [expletive deleted] telescopes tracking that [expletive deleted] back then or else photos would have been pouring in for all the [expletive deleted] shots...
You betray your youth with claims like that. Despite information like that being easily available now, "we" (meaning the general public) did not know exactly where Apollo was at the time those missions were being conducted, almost 50 years ago. No internet, no Google; the concept of a "personal computer" was still a futuristic dream.
That said, it was possible to get that information if you knew where to ask and what to ask for (which few of the public did back then). It wasn't going to be in a digital form, though, so even getting it meant reading the data, interpreting it, and putting it to use, which required some skill and training. In other words, this was the realm of professional astronomers. It was a lot harder too get and to use the information then than it is now.
Some did successfully photograph the Apollo missions in flight. Especially Apollo 8, since it was first to the moon and there was a real need for detailed confirmation of the trajectory.
The technical rationale for these observations, as a more or less coordinated program, was to explore the power of optical tracking for refining spacecraft orbits. In comparison with the usual Doppler range/rate data, optical [observations] trade poorly determined range and line-of-sight velocity for excellent angular location and transverse motion.
That's an interesting article, and provides images and commentary about ground-based observations of that and other Apollo lunar missions.
The images were made using photographic film or TV technology of the day, not nearly as easy to use, nor nearly as sensitive as, modern electronic image sensors. And they didn't "go viral on teh interwebz" because that wasn't a thang yet.
You want to know what the excuse was then?
The excuse was: "You cannot see those objects at that great of distance for they are too [expletive deleted] SMALL!"
Citation needed.
Also, see above.
You fucking SCHPAYZE NUTZ have really stepped into the shit big time on this one...
Nope. You did.
Now, as I have told you so many times here on this forum...
I predict you're going to keep repeating irrational angry nonsense. As a friend, may I respectfully suggest you post only while you're calm enough to think clearly. Remember, this is one of the publicly-readable forums here. Mind your manners if nothing else.
There would have been hundreds of [expletive deleted] photos of the CSM's of Apollo on its exact course to the [expletive deleted] moon if this was even possible...
See above.
Calm, down, dude.
[Edit] Oops... missed one. Apologies.