Picture of flag on the moon

I dont think that would be enough reason to build a large enough telescope somehow

Actually, it will be possible to see something as small as the flag on the moon using an earth-based telescope.

This telescope array : www.eso.org... will supposedley be powerful enough to see an astronaut walking on the moon. Of course, it will not be at full power until the Interferometer is online.

"Once fully operational, the VLTI will provide both a high sensitivity as well as milli-arcsec angular resolution provided by baselines of up to 200m length."

www.eso.org...

I think I remember reading that the Interferometer will be online in 2005. I don't know if they have any plans of pointing that at the moon though.

its quite impossible, especially with a network of tellescopes, to see something that small from this far away. especially factoring in the distortion of the earth's atmosphere. im really getting tired of people saying 'well lets just point hubble at the moon' maybe now its realised that cant be done, atleast by the kind explaination that was pulled up. and at any rate, if china ever makes it to the moon, they can tell us what we already know. but i dont think china is going to the moon, considering the usa was already told to never come back.

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
its quite impossible, especially with a network of tellescopes, to see something that small from this far away. especially factoring in the distortion of the earth's atmosphere. im really getting tired of people saying 'well lets just point hubble at the moon' maybe now its realised that cant be done, atleast by the kind explaination that was pulled up. and at any rate, if china ever makes it to the moon, they can tell us what we already know. but i dont think china is going to the moon, considering the usa was already told to never come back.

I imagine China will get there but suddenly remove their plans for a moon base. The official explanation will likely be that its budgetarily unsound.

The telescope array sounds great, but even then I don't know if such a plan will be allowed to go into effect without censoring. I'm sure there is stuff on the moon that the civilian populace is kept in the dark about.

lets settle this like civilized people.

1.Known fact: there is no atmosphere on the moon, thus no wind...how do you explain the flag flapping in the wind?

2.multiple light sources...what up with that? The only light source on the moon is the sun. Yet there are many shadows going off in diffrent directions.NASA even said they have a limmited amount of time on the moon, bicouse the sun is only visible for like 30 min.(i think im wrong about this time frame, but you get the jist of it)

3.Radioactive field between the Earth and the moon.It would take a spacecraft made of 6 inches of lead to protect the austronauts. The design of the apolo space craft totaly condradicts this, the design of the space craft proves that there is NO LEAD in the space craft,anywhere.

4.The Landing. If the lander had the thrust that NASA said it did, it would have made a HUGE crater in the moon.As we all know the moon is basicly dust.Even if it dint have anywhere near that thrust level, there should have been a preaty big crater left from the thrust. ESPECIALY after takeoff from the moon.

5.A little history lesson.

The Soviet Union was about to launch their moon landing. Those plans DO show lead in their space craft. The United States would have been humiliated by the soviets landing on the moon. But on a test fire of the rocket engine,the rocket exploded and burned. It would have taken the Soviet Union up to a year to recover. (The lander and everything else that would have been needed for the landing was allready in the rocket when it exploded,)

So in this time frame the US quickly launched a 30 BILLION DOLLAR HOAX!

and SUPPOSEDLY, beat the Soviets to the moon.


Thus, NOBODY has EVER landed on the moon. (no humans anyway)

Thus, THERE IS NO AMERICAN FLAG ON THE MOON.

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by ProjectX]

Oh dear - Im begining to think that perhaps we should have a required reading list for people before they join the site ! - Im sure this link is probably the most posted rebuttal site listed on ATS - but for what its worth -

www.badastronomy.com...

Here the writer explains in very simple terms why these misconceptions are flawed - put even simpler - people equate everything they expect to see in terestrial conditions - rather than realising that the Lunar surface is a completely different environment - and not subject to the conditions we take for granted on Earth.

Thanks for that link. It proves all of the things I said.

Hrm, I think you have to read the text instead of just look at the pictures there ProjectX.

As far as the multiple light sources. This is probably the single most ignorant comment of all those made to 'prove' the moon landing was faked.

If there was multiple light sources, everything would cast multiple shadows. Try standing in a room with 2 lights on. If there were lights bright enough to cast all these different angled shadows, each object would be casting multiple shadows. They are clearly not spotlit.

ProjectX

It shows all the pictures - as it should - then goes on to explain why your assumptions are based on false information.

Please take the time to read - thats why "Deny Ignorance" is the ATS motto

Kano - thanks for that example - here is another

Watch a Soccer game - floodlit - ordinarily there are 4 flood towers at most grounds. Look at the players shadows - normaly you will see 4 shadows in a star pattern around the players.

Originally posted by ProjectX
lets settle this like civilized people.

1.Known fact: there is no atmosphere on the moon, thus no wind...how do you explain the flag flapping in the wind?

2.multiple light sources...what up with that? The only light source on the moon is the sun. Yet there are many shadows going off in diffrent directions.NASA even said they have a limmited amount of time on the moon, bicouse the sun is only visible for like 30 min.(i think im wrong about this time frame, but you get the jist of it)

3.Radioactive field between the Earth and the moon.It would take a spacecraft made of 6 inches of lead to protect the austronauts. The design of the apolo space craft totaly condradicts this, the design of the space craft proves that there is NO LEAD in the space craft,anywhere.

4.The Landing. If the lander had the thrust that NASA said it did, it would have made a HUGE crater in the moon.As we all know the moon is basicly dust.Even if it dint have anywhere near that thrust level, there should have been a preaty big crater left from the thrust. ESPECIALY after takeoff from the moon.

www.unmuseum.org...

Flag:

While the American flag was being put up on the moon it appears to wave. Skeptics argue that this was caused by a breeze on the set where the hoax was filmed because a flag cannot wave in a vacuum. This is wrong thinking, however. The flag waves because the astronauts were wiggling the flagpole back and forth trying to get it to stick in the lunar soil. Given that kind of motion, any cloth would wave whether it is in a vacuum or not.

Later on, still pictures show the flag apparently waving even after the astronauts have moved away from it. A glance at the moving video reveals that the flag is not waving. It simply had a ripple in it from not being fully extended across its length as it hung from its top supporting pole much like a gathered curtain. This was done accidentally on Apollo 11, but the astronauts loved this effect so much that they did it on every subsequent moonlanding.

Shadows:

Another argument often used to disprove the authenticity of the Apollo photographs involves the direction of the shadows. According to skeptics, the shadows in the NASA pictures appear to diverge. If the sun is the single bright light in the pictures, then the shadows should be parallel. This, according to NASA's critics, shows that the single light source was much closer to the astronauts than the sun, or there were multiple lights involved.

Clearly there were no multiple lights involved as there are no multiple shadows in the pictures. Whether the shadows appear to diverge, instead of running parallel is dependent on the camera lens used in taking the photographs. A slightly wide-angle camera, as was used on the moonwalk, can make parallel lines appear to diverge. Even so, some photographs (like the one to the right of Alan Shepard planting the flag) do not show any divergence at all, but the parallel shadows converge on the photo's vanishing point, just like they should.

Radiation:

The van Allen belts are a region in space where Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles from the solar wind. Skeptics of the moon landing argue that an astronaut would get a lethal dose of radiation if he were to pass through the belts on the way to the moon.

While continued exposure to the concentration of radiation found in the belts might well be fatal, the space capsule the astronauts were traveling in was going very fast and passed through the belts in a few hours. The metal hull of the capsule also gave the astronauts some protection from the radiation as well. While there was a certain risk in passing through the belts, as there is in every venture into space, the astronauts exposure from the van Allen belts was minimal: about 2 rem which is the equivalent of a 100 chest x-rays.

The dust:

There are any number of points skeptics of the moon landing can bring up that don't "look right" to them, but all have simple scientific explanations when examined closely. Let's try doing the opposite: Look at some things seen on the video or in the pictures that would indicate that these things really happened on the moon.

Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy site points outs that video footage taken of some of the moon rovers shows dust being thrown up by the wheels as it rolls across the lunar surface. The dust rises and falls in nearly a perfect parabolic arc. This can only happen in a vacuum. Dust thrown up in earth's atmosphere would float and swirl around as it was carried by eddies in the air. Wherever the rover was at the time the video was taken, it was certainly in a location that had no air. Skeptics might argue that NASA took the trouble to build a sealed set and pump the air out, but this would be a tremendously difficult undertaking. It would also contradict evidence of the "waving" flag, as described above.

Astronaut Dave Scott also did a quick physics lesson in front of the video camera during Apollo 15 that showed he was on the moon. He dropped a hammer and a feather and watched them fall to the ground. On Earth the feather's high wind resistance and low weight would have caused it to slowly drift slowly down. On the moon, however, the feather fell just as quickly as the hammer. Both dropped to the ground at exactly the same rate one would expect to see if the objects were being pulled to the ground by the moon's one-sixth Earth gravity.

Yes, that is a good example. But Im talking about that there were no additional lights on the lunar lander. The ONLY source of light was the sun. So there should only be ONE shadow. But there were 3 and in some cases even 4 shodows from the SAME PERSON.

Look at this: These shadows SHOULD be going in the same directions. But these yellow lines shows you the truth!




Think obout it...ONE SUN,NO ADDITIONAL LIGHTS...2 DIFRENT SHADDOWS GOING IN 2 DIFRENT DIRRECTIONS!!!!!


[Edited on 22-11-2003 by ProjectX]

check out my avatar

to see the pic hes using as evidence, copy/paste this link into your browser
mrbasheer.tripod.com...
add a space at the end and hit enter
tripod doesnt allow direct linking to pictures, please find another hosting company.

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by forsakenwayfarer]

third and finally, to debunk the picture it could be
the lens used on the cameras is thought to be a wider lense, lending to these kind of optical illusions
or you could be right. however, if they were in fact using multiple lights, there would be MULTIPLE SHADOWS, not simply differently angled shadows. i dont know much about the curvature of the moon vs the way shadows would be cast, considering the moon is how much smaller than the earth, but i still do not buy into this faked moon landings bs. theres too much proof against it, and too many times have the theories about it been proven wrong.

badastronomy.com

edit: uploaded/added the picture so it could be seen without all the bs

[Edited on 22-11-2003 by forsakenwayfarer]

show me one photo that has an astronaut with more than one shadow. the pic you provided does not show multiple shadows at all. i don't think you understand what multiple shadows are. it does not mean one shadow for one object and another shadow from another light for another object.

this is an example of multiple shadows: web.odu.edu... you can see roughly 4 shadows coming off each person. (though 2 of them are harder to see).

the photo you posted as an example has nothing to do with multiple light sources. you got to remember that the moon isn't flat and smooth. there are lots of bumps and small hills (not to mention big ones too of course) and that picture shows that well. the two small rocks look like they are on a small slope. thus causing the shadow to appear to be going at a differnt angle from the lander. if you'd like more, real world examples i suggest going here: www.clavius.org... (i'd suggest reading the whole site really)

good links jra, another theory bites the "dust."
pun intended

I think Homer put a flag on the moon. It's right... there.. between those.. "aw crap"... there's just a stick.

quite short on time.

www.geocities.com...

go there. that will give you some of the pics an explanations and stuff.