reply to post by scrounger
I am sorry to the OP but even with my glasses and blowing up the image on my computer I still don't see the "clearly visible" flag .
It's the flag's shadow, actually. The flag itself is much too small to be resolved.
Even the lander part looks more like an out of focus hollow point bullet head on.
It is what it is.
As others have pointed out the flag looks like a black speck, no matter how hard/loud the moon landing "case closed" supporters rant.
Nevertheless, there is something where something is supposed to be.
I will keep my comments only on this presented evidence of the moon landings.
While I think it is probable we went to the moon, these pictures DO NOT help prove this at all.
I agree. I do not believe it was offered as proof, simply as something to say "gee whiz" over.
The major issue I have, had, and harp on is that the pictures are poor quality even by the standard of the technology used for the moon
In what way are they poor quality?
NASA HAS ACCESS TO technology from the military and other types not commercially available to the public.
The imaging equipment used to produce the image under discussion is an example of such equipment. It is commercially available, but most people
couldn't afford it.
At minimum it is reasonable to presume they have photo technology in their spare parts/leftovers/unused AT LEAST EQUAL to what google maps use
to give satellite photos of your house.
Google uses NASA images for their large scale maps, and aerial photography for their closeups.
I can go on-line anytime and get photos so clear I can see and identify my make and model of mini-van, kids swingset (its a basic small model),
and my chimney.
Photographs taken from several hundred meters in the air, as opposed to a hundred kilometers
There main argument has been the size of the supposed equipment to take good photos.
Not exactly; it is a question of the resolution of the imaging equipment.
Well thats BS of the highest order.
1. They put a camera on the mars lander that takes (and we have been shown) STUNNING CLEAR COLOR photos of the martian mountains that have to be miles
from the lander. Given all the other equipment and space limitations they seem to have done ok.
First of all, those are not really color pictures; secondly, do those images resolve anything the size of a flag on those distant hills?
2. They make a big winney crying deal how they need PR due to lack of funding in the space program.
What does that have to do with the image you are discussing?
Then brag up the anniversary of the moon landing and how they are sending a probe up to take pictures of the landing sites.
Where do they say they are sending up a probe to take pictures of the Moon landing sites? I seem to have missed that. Please provide a link.
Then give us pictures IMO even worse than from the 1970's.
Which pictures from the 1970s? Prior to the Apollo missions, this was the quality of imagery from automated lunar probes:
There were no more American probes until 1990.
Given the anniversary, technology available, and PR blitz as a whole HOW CAN A REASONABLE PERSON NOT HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT.
I'm sure we can both agree that the quality of the imagery from the current LRO is superior to that of the original Lunar Orbiter series of the
If this were a court of law these pictures would not even convince a grand jury to indite, and at a grand jury you can get an orange indited
I don't follow you. What would be the charge? Are you saying that NASA is presumed guilty of faking the Moon landings until proven innocent?
I am not saying we did or did not go to the moon.
You are just hinting we didn't.
But those who use these photos to say "case closed" to anyone who questions the moon landing I have to ask who's wearing the tin foil
The case was closed long ago. There are mountains of hard evidence supporting the fact that men have walked on the Moon. This image is simply the
latest addendum to that massive file.