Regarding the whole moon landing conspiracy and the flag on the moon

This has been bugging for quite some time and I feel I need to ask it, apologies in advanced if you don't think it's worthy of a whole new thread but I figured my question would be answered better in its own thread than bumping an old thread with the question.

Ok the question is, if we did indeed land on the moon, we left a flag and a lunar module (well half of it anyway) up there right ?

Then why not, to end the conspiracy of whether we did or didn't just use a telescope to look at the moon and find the flag and landing section of the module we left ? Surely there's telescopes available with the magnifying power to find it ? I mean a friend on one of the other forums I use posted a fantastic picture of Venus which he'd capture with DSLR camera and a high powered lens so I would imagine some avid stargazers have high powered telescopes which should have enough magnification to spot the moon landing area right ? Surely if the flag is there we can find it and end this whole theory quite easily ?

I look forward to your responses and no, I don't know much about telescopes and their magnification powers

Nasa are going to re photograph the landing site as part of the 40 year celebrations

Probably whacking it through Photshop as we speak

I don't know the math off hand but to view a flag on the moon from earth you would probably need a telescope about the size of the 200 incher on top of Palomar Mountain in san diego..... I could be wrong though. I'm no expert.

Originally posted by druid1
Nasa are going to re photograph the landing site as part of the 40 year celebrations

Probably whacking it through Photshop as we speak

See this is what I mean, NASA taking the photo's does nothing for us seeing as they're the ones who have made the conspiracy.

Is there no way for a trustworthy outside source, like an astronomer who has access to a high magnification telescope to snap some pics of the landing site ? Surely it's possible ?

it would be hilarious if we check the Exif data of the upcoming image. and it came up kodak 12 mp shutter speed.. iso etc.

and then 'opened with Photoshop CS3'

reply to post by MR BOB


I would hope that the NASA photo guys aren't that stupid.... but i wouldn't be the least bit surprised either. It's not like they're very good at patching over pictures any way. Theres some killer pics of the aristarchus crater that have been 'fogged' over with photoshop... either photoshop or a dust storm on the moon which as we know is not possible.

Got this from the new zealand post
"Nasa has confirmed that its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will be taking photos of the Apollo landing sites as they scout out new landing sites and seek to prove that we really did take one giant step for man-kind on the moon.

Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is a robotic spacecraft designed to map out the moons surface to help prepare for future lunar missions.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will orbit 50 kilometres above the moons surface to carry out it's mission of mapping the Moon's surface in high-resolution (1 metre per pixel) images of the Moon's surface from pole to pole.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will also carry instruments that will enable it to make detailed 3-D maps of the Moon's surface.

Nasa has yet to give specific timelines for the flyby and photo shoot but sometime soon there will hopefully be concrete proof consisting of hi-definition photos of the Apollo lunar module's descent stage (the bottom part of the lunar module that housed its propulsion system), which was left on the Moon's surface when the Apoolo astronauts re-joined the lunar command module orbiting the Moon.Other remains left on the Moon include a golf club, US flags, as well as the Lunar Rovers used in the Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 missions.

www.nzherald.co.nz...

Personally I think that they went there but faked a lot of footage to stick it to the Russian's. I have got a friend who is a prof photographer and he says the lighting is all wrong in Nasa's photo's. My telescope never seems to see anything in that area but it is not very powerful

It's impossible to see the American Flag on the moon. You would need a telescope mirror of about 100m in diameter.

Even Hubble can't see it. Hubble can't take clear pictures of lunar objects smaller than 27m.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TimeBandit]

Originally posted by TimeBandit
Even Hubble can't see it. Hubble can't take clear pictures of lunar objects smaller than 27m.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TimeBandit]

I'm not too clued in within the realms of lenses and magnification, if the Hubble cannot take clear pictures of lunar object smaller than 27m then how can it take such wonderful pictures of galaxies & celestial bodies millions of lightyears away, or does distance not factor into clarity of an object only its actual size ?

reply to post by TimeBandit


but isnt that because of the lens type. it is made to look for things thousands of lightyears away. not as close as the moon.

it would be like using binoculours to look at an ant on your hand

Absolutely, your right. Hubble is designed to see far.

I'm just saying that it's not possible atm, even with a "powerful" telescope.

You'll need an orbiter to get good pictures, like we have our satellites here on earth.

Hi, real moon landing fans !

What could be easy to see are the loooooong tracks/traces
made by the lunar vehicules ??

Blue skies.

reply to post by druid1


"I have got a friend who is a prof photographer and he says the lighting is all wrong in Nasa's photo's."

Is he experienced in shooting in a near zero g environment? or does he shoot weddings for a living?

Sorry to rubbish the statement but there are basically NO UK based photographers with the experience to back up such a claim.

And I know a few experienced cameramen at Pinewood, Shepperton and in the mainstream media who would disagree.

If you read enough Good Astronomy sites on the net your will see enough data to probably question his judgement.

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by TimeBandit
Even Hubble can't see it. Hubble can't take clear pictures of lunar objects smaller than 27m.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TimeBandit]

I'm not too clued in within the realms of lenses and magnification, if the Hubble cannot take clear pictures of lunar object smaller than 27m then how can it take such wonderful pictures of galaxies & celestial bodies millions of lightyears away, or does distance not factor into clarity of an object only its actual size ?

Resolution (the smallest item resolvable) changes with distance. Clarity changes with focus.

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by TimeBandit
Even Hubble can't see it. Hubble can't take clear pictures of lunar objects smaller than 27m.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TimeBandit]

I'm not too clued in within the realms of lenses and magnification, if the Hubble cannot take clear pictures of lunar object smaller than 27m then how can it take such wonderful pictures of galaxies & celestial bodies millions of lightyears away, or does distance not factor into clarity of an object only its actual size ?

Galaxies (or planets as in your friends case with venus) are farther away but also *slightly* larger than your average car ....

Originally posted by Discotech
Then why not, to end the conspiracy of whether we did or didn't just use a telescope to look at the moon and find the flag and landing section of the module we left ? Surely there's telescopes available with the magnifying power to find it ?

Perhaps you answered your own question.

I look forward to seeing this topic revisited again. Disregard the grumpy old-timers.

Also remember, there were 6 landings in total. At least two of which carried the Lunar Rover. (Moon buggy.)

Link to landing sites:

www.boulder.swri.edu...


Regards.....KK




[edit on 14-7-2009 by kinda kurious]

Then what? if a moon landing DID happen and they showed us the evidence, we would say its been photoshopped.

If it was a hoax, and they did indeed photoshop the moon landings, we would point the finger, and say it was photoshopped, be fair they cant win.

If there was disclosure that we did not land on the moon, and the evidence was presented, it could still be a double bluff, for reasons we are not privy to.

If we do go back to the moon and find no lunar module, it could have been moved for reasons unknown, once again reasons we are not privy to.

If we do go back to the moon, and there is indeed a lunar module, it could have been planted there for reasons unknown.

So there you have it, I doubt there will ever be closure in our lifetimes.

Phage has covered this before and recently on another thread.
In the meantime,there are some striking Moon pics from Lunar World,you can use it like Google Earth,

www.lunarworldrecord.com...

reply to post by Silk


Erm actually he is Danish has worked in Holywood and earns his living shooting vids for Rock bands.....And for a laugh we faked a UFO over Denmark. Check it out on You tube - The band is called the low Flying object and the track is called I Miss You
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by dan steely


And what's to say it's a hoax of us returning to the moon when we only have NASA to go off ?

Sadly even if we did return people would still likely say NASA are lying, the only way they'd truely believe is if they could visit the moon themselves or view the landing site through a telescope.