Apollo 16 Flag is Still Casting Shadows

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by radkrish
 


I agree..NASA is so desperate to have us believe little splotches on the lunar surface is proof of Apollo......

NASA suffers from pixlitious




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

seabhac-rua

Xcathdra
reply to post by wildespace
 


The other question is do these photos of the landing sites put to rest the notion that humans never set foot on the moon?


Unfortunately not.

Nothing short of dragging their asses up to the moon and shoving their faces into the astronauts footprints would change some hoax believers minds.

I can just hear Jarra White's sneery voice now....


Yes we have all heard of the proposed one way trip to Mars, now if that was to the Moon I would like to see JW sent OH and few others!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

radkrish
Which pixel is the flag and which spot is the shadow?

When NASA shows a crappy quality image of a suspicious flag-pole and shadow, it is right on the money for the believers. Would you, if shown a similar photograph of an UFO, believe it without a doubt? Just my two cents.
edit on 5-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-4-2014 by radkrish because: (no reason given)


Just to give you some help on how to compare like for like the Apollo missions are well DOCUMENTED with pictures taken by the astronauts on the surface and documents like the Apollo 16 Traverse Map this allows you to compare what was documented 40+ years ago with images taken by the LRO, unlike your supposed spots and dots on photographs and youtube videos CLAIMING to show Mog from Zog on a day trip to Earth which are usually posted by someone who can just about switch a camera/camera phone on but hasn't a clue what they are doing.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nomickeyshere
 


At the end of the day the flag is still standing, are they(the flags, and other material) in the same condition as they were when they were put there? Hardly.

It boils down to whether you are a believer of the hoax myth or not. Same goes for the 'pixel' argument when it comes to the LRO imagery, I don't have the time nor inclination to argue about that with anybody, I've read that debate multiple times here on ATS. If you think it 'doesn't add up' then add it to your pile of 'moon hoax proof'.

For some people no amount of data, imagery, testimony, or whatever will sate their moon hoax appetite.

I can truly say that I have never encountered a single person who had a relative grasp on the complexity and enormity, both in a technical aspect and on a human level, of the Apollo program, and who believed the hoax theories.

The lame rhetoric about not 'believing the government' that you hear all the time is no excuse for wilful ignorance. Am I telling you to trust your government? NO. But using the reverse, and retarded, logic that if the government says this or that then the opposite must be true is asinine. Even so, when it comes to Apollo, we're talking about a historical narrative, not just some spiel thrown at us from a press podium at the White House. The Apollo program involved over half a million of some of the smartest people on the planet, it was an international effort, and like I said, every moon hoax person I've met didn't seem to know very much about the Apollo Program, space or science in general, but they somehow doggedly held the belief that 'they weren't being fooled' whilst back in the 50's and 60's some of the finest minds in the world were. To me this is a symptom of the modern day internet age, the myopic shallow thinking of 'cyber-sleuths' and the prevalence of narcissism in the conspiracy world.

Also, a fact that is always ignored by moon hoax theorists on here(and no doubt it will be again), the people who have pushed this theory over the years, Kaysing, Sibrel et all have all been caught deliberately twisting evidence and lying, they always ignore historical and theoretical material that counters their arguments and they have been proven wrong time and time and time again.....but no, that's not enough for some people is it? If they really have a case to argue then why the hell do they need to deliberately deceive people???? The true irony of the moon hoax is that the people who say it was a hoax are really the ones being hoaxed themselves. BRAVO!!

edit on 5-4-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

deadcalm
This can't be stressed enough. They have spy satellites that can read a newspaper headline from space THROUGH Earth's dense atmosphere....and these photos are the best that NASA has to offer?

Total garbage. Those photos prove absolutely nothing.



That's consistent with what Mark Lowenthal, a former intelligence official, thinks, too. According to Lowenthal, president of the Arlington-based Intelligence and Security Academy, commercial satellite imagery can make out objects that are as small as 20 inches across. But Lowenthal notes that according to various press reports military satellites are about twice again as good, capable of resolution down to 10 inches. The Federation of American Scientists has a great side-by-side comparison of the same image sampled at various resolutions.


www.washingtonpost.com...

So...the US can make satellites that have a resolution of 10 inches potentially....and we are supposed to believe that this is as good as we can do from a spacecraft orbiting at a mere 50 km from the Moon's surface?

Most spy sats are in geosynchronous orbit at a distance of 22,160 mi [35,663 km]....REALLY folks.

And I'm the one thats crazy?

Yep, you're the one that's crazy. 10 inches is about 25.5 centimeters, which is approx the resolution LRO achieved when it went into the 50 km orbit. You can't read a newspaper headline at the resolution, but you can see the Apollo hardware left on the Moon, as I mentioned in my post. What exactly are you ranting about? How do these photos prove absolutely nothing, if we can see so much in them?


It also must be stressed that high-res Google Earth imagery is aerial, not from satellites.


radkrish
Which pixel is the flag and which spot is the shadow?

When NASA shows a crappy quality image of a suspicious flag-pole and shadow, it is right on the money for the believers. Would you, if shown a similar photograph of an UFO, believe it without a doubt? Just my two cents.

The flag itself is practivally impossible to see, as you're looking at it top-down. What you see is the location where the flag was planted (it's surrounded by lots of disturbed soil), and the shadow which changes position and length depending on time of the day. By comparing different images, you can tell that the shadow comes from something that is elevated above the ground! Now, how many rocks can you imagine are floating above the ground on the Moon?
edit on 5-4-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

deadcalm


LoL....you can't be serious ....google earth has better detail of your neighbor kids bike sitting in the driveway..


This can't be stressed enough. They have spy satellites that can read a newspaper headline from space THROUGH Earth's dense atmosphere....and these photos are the best that NASA has to offer?

Total garbage. Those photos prove absolutely nothing.
[


Unfortunately for you some of us ACTUALLY know a bit about the subject I suggest you read this Can you read a newspaper from a satellite

We are a long way from that yet!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


That was the one I loved,

Why would they add the detail that they messed up on the first flag by putting it too close?

It blew over when the lem took off, so next time they had to put it farther away.


The government is not that clever, Id buy almost all other moon conspiracies before the We didn't go one.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

nomickeyshere
reply to post by radkrish
 


I agree..NASA is so desperate to have us believe little splotches on the lunar surface is proof of Apollo......

NASA suffers from pixlitious

In all fairness, if the Apollo program never happened and I were shown these images taken by LRO, I'd immediately believe that it is evidence of alien activity. Can you honestly look at those shapes, shadows, and tracks, and believe that they are part of the natural landscape??? Quite clearly, someone has been there and left those objects and tracks.
edit on 5-4-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
LOL

Those pictures prove NOTHING!!!

They could be anything, for eg: Swamp gas or....Blurds!!!

Those pics DO NOT prove anything at all, LOL, please try harder!



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Yeah, I don't mean to interrupt your discussion, but do you really think that NASA would work so hard to cover up something silly as if is there still a flag on the Moon? Wouldn't you think that, if they were covering something up, it would be something more bigger than a simple flag?



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Nah, you try harder.

You'd believe anything.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

seabhac-rua
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Nah, you try harder.

You'd believe anything.

I didn't say what I did or did not believe! I merely pointed out that those pics are 100% useless, and yet you accept them as proof?



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Nikola014
Yeah, I don't mean to interrupt your discussion, but do you really think that NASA would work so hard to cover up something silly as if is there still a flag on the Moon? Wouldn't you think that, if they were covering something up, it would be something more bigger than a simple flag?



You're talking what is known colloquially as "common sense". However there is nothing common about it at all, especially when dealing with moon hoax people.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


They are only 100% useless to people who believe the landings were faked, as they 100% contradict the hoax theories....for the rest of us they are a testament to the achievements of Apollo program.

You either believe what they are stated to be or you don't. If you don't then the onus is upon you to demonstrate why.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   

seabhac-rua
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


They are only 100% useless to people who believe the landings were faked, as they 100% contradict the hoax theories....for the rest of us they are a testament to the achievements of Apollo program.

You either believe what they are stated to be or you don't. If you don't then the onus is upon you to demonstrate why.
Ok, show me a clear picture of a flag in those pics, because all I can see is a dark smudge.
edit on 5-4-2014 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Another interesting thing in LRO images (and in reply to everybody complaining about non-descript "splotches"), is that at different times of the lunar day the Sun will glint off various metallic surfaces of the Apollo hardware and experiments left there by the astronauts.

Here's an LRO image of the Apollo 14 site, taken from featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu...

Notice the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) towards the upper left corner. It's glinting in the Sun so brightly that it overloaded the camera's sensor.

Here's the same location imaged slightly earlier in the lunar day, showing a different arrangement of glints:


Clearly, these are some very shiny metallic objects. The varying glints and the arrangement of objects rules out rocks or other natural features.
edit on 5-4-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Take a look again at the OP.

There is an animated gif, it shows the flag pole shadow at different times in the lunar day.

Maybe the emphasis should be made that the actual flagpole itself is still erect, as for the cloth flag I can't say.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


So all the hoaxers are lying liars and NASA, God Bless them, are the saints who never lie? NASA is the Lucy holding that football for you, the Charlie Browns of this argument, believing That Lucy / NASA will hold that football........................
The physics of the Saturn 5 are enough to convince Rocket Scientists there is something definitely missing....like a bona-fide payload of Astro-nots....

Remind me to seek you out for all the other answers to the meanings of things



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

nomickeyshere
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


So all the hoaxers are lying liars and NASA, God Bless them, are the saints who never lie? NASA is the Lucy holding that football for you, the Charlie Browns of this argument, believing That Lucy / NASA will hold that football........................
The physics of the Saturn 5 are enough to convince Rocket Scientists there is something definitely missing....like a bona-fide payload of Astro-nots....

Remind me to seek you out for all the other answers to the meanings of things


Polarise much?

It must be difficult for you to get through your day.

Know much about the originators of your fantasy?

Edit: A complex delusion usually denotes some intelligence in the sufferer, so I guess I'll stick with "fantasy".
edit on 5-4-2014 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   

VoidHawk
I merely pointed out that those pics are 100% useless, and yet you accept them as proof?


How can they be useless if they show something that is quite clearly not part of the natural lunar terrain?


Again, I'll suggest that you used the "Flip Book" in the link I provided. The way that shadow is moving, you can tell that whatever is causing that shadow is above the ground!

If you see no signs of human activity in those images, then you must suppose that a lunar rock was hovering above ground, made those tracks that go this way and that, and then came to rest above ground, causing that shadow. Judging by the bright glints I mentioned in my previous post, there must also be some metallic rocks in peculiar arrangements there, right? Seems like the actual Apollo landing is easier to believe now, rather than going by your theory.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join