Camera captures historic lunar flags

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by kozmo

 

Is the shadow not where the flag is supposed to be? If it is not a shadow, then please fill me in on what it is.

Are there not tracks running all around the site?

Only the ignorant still want to cling to the moon landing hoax.

Where does that put you?

I see everything in order the way that Nasa said they left it. If you see something different then that is your problem.

Please see my above post. That's twice I've proved your ignorance in one post. Cool.

Also, if we can take amazingly detailed photos of the Orion nebula, which is 1,344 lightyears from earth, how can we not take a high resolution photo of the alleged moon landing site? Instead we get a highly pixellated photo that looks like its from the 80s.

reply to post by Ryanssuperman

Also, if we can take amazingly detailed photos of the Orion nebula, which is 1,344 lightyears from earth, how can we not take a high resolution photo of the alleged moon landing site? Instead we get a highly pixellated photo that looks like its from the 80s.

It is a question of resolution. The Hubble can gather a great deal of light, but its resolution is limited.

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Also, if we can take amazingly detailed photos of the Orion nebula, which is 1,344 lightyears from earth, how can we not take a high resolution photo of the alleged moon landing site?

The Orion Nebula is 24 light years across.

If it fits into a single photograph that alone tells you it is not "amazingly detailed".

reply to post by Ryanssuperman

Also, if we can take amazingly detailed photos of the Orion nebula, which is 1,344 lightyears from earth, how can we not take a high resolution photo of the alleged moon landing site? Instead we get a highly pixellated photo that looks like its from the 80s

This has been explained to death.

Do some real research.

Oh, but you will not do that. You will just keep repeating the same old rehashed crap.

Who's calling who ignorant?

They took pictures from several different hours of the day and knowing where the flag was when the pictures were combined they had a shadow. Thats how they know the flag is still standing. Can't see the flag just a time lapse of it's shadow. Not standing no shadow they have a shadow so it's still standing. Should read the whole article or maybe 2 or 3

Good info on the moon flags here...

Six Flags on the Moon

I think it's safe to assume that NASA would not go through an elaborate imaging hoax to prove we went to the moon.

On the other hand, I think it's also safe to assume that if NASA catches (or caught) a glimpse something on the lunar surface that is out of the ordinary, like ancient ruins or the like, we would not ever hear about it.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
I don't see any flag... all I see are a couple of black pixels label "flag"

If you saw the flag, all in color and in clear resoltion. The rover too, with hubs on the wheels, would you believe it?

why is it that we can google map our house and see our cars thru atmosphere and polution and we cant get a clear picture of the moon....

reply to post by Doalrite


There are likely other factors in play, but the biggest one is altitude.

Although Google uses the word satellite, most of the high-resolution imagery of cities is aerial photography taken from aircraft flying at 800–1500 feet rather than from satellites

Source

Normally the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) orbits the Moon in a 50 km altitude, near-circular, polar orbit. The orbit is “near”-circular, as LRO’s altitude can vary between its lowest altitude (periapsis) of 35 km and its highest altitude (apoapsis) of 65-km over a twenty eight day period

Source

Even still…

Google maps view of the White House



I don't see a flag... only a shadow.

reply to post by Snakey


Yes. Was that question supposed to mean something

Originally posted by Atzil321

If we can send a rover to Mars, why not send 1 to the moon just to get some quality pics of where we supposedly landed?

Why would they waste time and resources sending a probe back to the moon, just to prove a few crackpot conspiracy theorists wrong

?

It wouldn't have to prove anything but it would be real historical to send a rover there just to film one of the landing sites.
I think it be a great mission to watch.

Originally posted by lambros56

Originally posted by Atzil321

If we can send a rover to Mars, why not send 1 to the moon just to get some quality pics of where we supposedly landed?

Why would they waste time and resources sending a probe back to the moon, just to prove a few crackpot conspiracy theorists wrong

?

It wouldn't have to prove anything but it would be real historical to send a rover there just to film one of the landing sites.
I think it be a great mission to watch.

Why don't you start up a campaign to raise money from congress to do such a thing? After all they killed the shuttle, and the Orion project because of the expense.

Nasa is under some serious budget crunches, and the private sector, well how are they supposed to make any money from a mission like that.

reply to post by raiders247

If we can send a rover to Mars, why not send 1 to the moon just to get some quality pics of where we supposedly landed?

Why does anyone need to do that? Oh thats right because there are people in the world who do not believe it actually happened.

So lets spend millions of dollars on putting a rover on the moon, to prove that we already went there?

Yup, that makes sense.

i didnt read thru all the posts..didnt really have time thus far.. so someone may have already brought this up..but maybe not.

1. I dont think its a question of did we go to the moon or not.. more like when did we go..
I personally wouldnt trust cold war propaganda..The government does lie..No matter if you believe it or not
and
2.It's my understanding if you believe they went that during liftoff, the blast concussion from the lunar lander "blew over" the flag and it fell to the lunar surface. (buzz also mentions this in his book)

reply to post by PaperMetel

2.It's my understanding if you believe they went that during liftoff, the blast concussion from the lunar lander "blew over" the flag and it fell to the lunar surface. (buzz also mentions this in his book)

This is true per Buzz and also evidenced by LROC imagery (well, we don't really know what knocked the flag down, but it sounds plausible)



The flags from other Apollo missions appear to still be standing.

source

From the LROC images it is now certain that the American flags are still standing and casting shadows at all of the sites, except Apollo 11. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin reported that the flag was blown over by the exhaust from the ascent engine during liftoff of Apollo 11, and it looks like he was correct! The most convincing way to see that the flags are still there, is to view a time series of LROC images taken at different times of day, and watch the shadow circle the flag (see movie below; the flag is just above the LM descent stage).

Google Earth like Navigation for Apollo 16 site: wms.lroc.asu.edu...

LROC Explores Apollo 16 Video:lroc.sese.asu.edu...
LROC Explores Apollo 12 Video: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Every couple of months somebody creates a thread with one of these pics in it and we get to hear the same old moon-hoax-retard arguments over again, and some people spend a lot of time trying to educate and inform the unknowing and the ignorant, the thread peters on for a while then it's forgotten about.

It's like a scratched friggin record.

edit: I'll add this, for those people out there who believe that the landings were hoaxed, do some real research, look up the originators of the whole moon hoax myth. Try to think objectively. There are actual explanations for every straw a hoax believer clutches at. If you are completely honest with yourself and are not suffering from a mentally-debilitating-myopic-conspiracy-malady, then you might learn something.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by raiders247

 

If we can send a rover to Mars, why not send 1 to the moon just to get some quality pics of where we supposedly landed?

Why does anyone need to do that? Oh thats right because there are people in the world who do not believe it actually happened.

So lets spend millions of dollars on putting a rover on the moon, to prove that we already went there?

Yup, that makes sense.

People's disbelief is completely justified. NASA, the government or any of you kool aid sippers haven't done anything to prove that the footage/images are genuine.

Why not spend a few millions on something far more meaningful then a president's lunch or gifts to China.

Makes perfect sense.

reply to post by raiders247


No it's not.

There is no real evidence that the landings were faked, the theory was cooked up by charlatans, and any supposed evidence is speculative at best and usually very easily explained.

Therefore the idea that "people's disbelief is completely justified" is not correct. Sure, people are entitled to ask questions but when the evidence for verses the evidence against so starkly highlights the actuality of the landings having occurred then a person's disbelief betrays something else in that individual, either a profound lack of intelligence, a mental illness, or they themselves are trying to deceive others.

The government are liars, does that mean everything, historical events et al, are clever hoaxes and fabrications? To assume so would be just plain stupid.

You're the 'kool aid sipper'

Originally posted by mainidh

Originally posted by raiders247
Have you ever asked yourself why, in the year 2012, with our amazing advancements in technology can we still not see a detailed color image of the closest body in space to us.

Google street view can do things NASA still can't??? Makes no sense to me, and where there is smoke there most certainly is fire.

We the people are not intended to know the truth about the most amazing thing in the night sky.

Well when they can get air craft to fly over the moon to take those detailed photo images you see on google earth, perhaps we will be able to see the same resolution.

Until then, and with our satellites above the Earth, and not the moon, we have to put up with this.

edit on 29-7-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)

Are you saying satellites aren't on par with 1916 technicolor technology yet? I find that hard to believe. Albeit, the tech is different but that was 97 years ago.
Besides, we don't know which satellite that picture came from. Japan sent off SELENE after '08. And none of their high res pictures had any color either. Which I find highly unusual considering Hubble does just fine.