Flag on the moon?

[MacDawg]

A private group is launching a satellite to orbit the moon and take hires imagery - they're planning on taking a ton of pics of the all the Apollo landing sites - so when this finally happens, I'm sure you'll have your image of the flag on the moon

D

Kinda reminds me of that old movie "Salvage" I think it was called. It was a made for TV movie I think, with Andy Griffith. A private company built a rocket that went to salvage stuff off the moon. They hacked in to the NASA computers. Entertaining movie as I recall.

Site for those interested: Salvage1

Woof, Woof – Dawg

 

[Aeolius]

Kinda reminds me of that old movie "Salvage" I think it was called. It was a made for TV movie I think...

It was a series...I was quite addicted to the show. Salvage 1

 

[Timepass]

I do think it is kind of surprising that we don't have the technology to see it considering all of the images we get on the NASA site.

If someone had asked me off hand, I would have said that I was pretty sure it could be seen.

I never cease to be amazed at how little I know.

Woof, Woof – Dawg

yeah but rememeber those groups will just call foul on those pictures saying they are goverment controled so they are facted

 

[XNine]

Just wait, I'm having LASIK done on Thursday, after which, I will be able to tell you if there is a flag or not, and who's it is (most likely an alien's flag with big a middle finger on it)....

 

[Aeolius]

If someone had asked me off hand, I would have said that I was pretty sure it could be seen.

Most people think that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space, as well - another myth. You'd see it in low geostationary orbit perhaps, or with magnification, but not with the naked eye. After all, you can't see highways from space either.

 

[someguy]

No human being from any country on earth has ever been to the moon, end of story.

 

[WinterMute]

No human being from any country on earth has ever been to the moon, end of story.

Not quite...

Don't you think that one of the other "enlightened" nations just might have used this "hoax" as a way of discrediting the USA in the past?

The sheer amount of data and artifacts generated by the moon programme and the huge number of people involved in it make it extremely unlikely that it was faked...

Still, give it a few more years and you'll be able to go on holiday there and see for yourself.

 

[Queso]

Not quite...

Don't you think that one of the other "enlightened" nations just might have used this "hoax" as a way of discrediting the USA in the past?

The sheer amount of data and artifacts generated by the moon programme and the huge number of people involved in it make it extremely unlikely that it was faked...

Still, give it a few more years and you'll be able to go on holiday there and see for yourself.

Will they have "Whalers of the Moon" like on Futurama?

 

[Cloudgazer]

What I can't figure out is that they sent an expedition to the moon using the total computing power of a powerbook 140 (if that).


Surely it would be easier to send a manned expedition today, simply considering the computational power we now have.

Why is it so difficult and expensive?

 

[Airforce]

What I can't figure out is that they sent an expedition to the moon using the total computing power of a powerbook 140 (if that).


Surely it would be easier to send a manned expedition today, simply considering the computational power we now have.

Why is it so difficult and expensive?

It's expensive. It always has been. It's not an easy thing to do getting a load of people and supplies that far. A mission is planned for 2018.

 

[Queso]

What I can't figure out is that they sent an expedition to the moon using the total computing power of a powerbook 140 (if that).


Surely it would be easier to send a manned expedition today, simply considering the computational power we now have.

Why is it so difficult and expensive?

It was the oil crisis that killed the Moon programme. It was always expensive, but before the 70s the USA had more money coming in than going out, and the economy was booming, so money was available. These days, with both budget and trade deficits, it's a lot harder to justify the expense.

 

[Cloudgazer]

It was the oil crisis that killed the Moon programme. It was always expensive, but before the 70s the USA had more money coming in than going out, and the economy was booming, so money was available. These days, with both budget and trade deficits, it's a lot harder to justify the expense.

Really?
The oil crisis?
Nothing to do with the Russians kinda opting out of the space race?

There wasn't really a budget or trade deficit during the 90's, but even then it seemed like manned moon missions were too huge to comprehend.

How is that during the technology dark-ages of the 60s it could be attempted, and now it takes more than a decade to plan such a mission.

It just doesn't seem right.

 

[Queso]

Really?
There wasn't really a budget or trade deficit during the 90's, but even then it seemed like manned moon missions were too huge to comprehend.

Yeah, but during the 90s Clinton was in charge, and "launching your rocket into the void" meant something different to him

 

[someguy]

Not quite...

Don't you think that one of the other "enlightened" nations just might have used this "hoax" as a way of discrediting the USA in the past?

The sheer amount of data and artifacts generated by the moon programme and the huge number of people involved in it make it extremely unlikely that it was faked...

Still, give it a few more yours and you'll be able to go on holiday there and see for yourself.

I don't know, I just don't buy into it, I guess.

Data and artifacts can be acquired by any number of unmanned crafts that NASA has sent to the moon.

The people involved in this "event" don't seem to comfortable with talking about it one-on-one, do they?

Also, there are many, many questions and facts out there that I cannot locate answers or explanations to, such as:

"The distance that Man allegedly had to travel to get to the Moon was the equivalent of 30 Earth diameters. Now compare that with the greatest distance that Man has travelled since then (in the Shuttle) which is 400 miles."

"Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?"

"Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?"

"Consider the recent announcement from NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already?"


I'm not saying these (and plenty more I've stashed away) are proof that it was a hoax, but it does make you think, doesn't it?

btw, if anyone has more information on why these statements are wrong or irrelavent, please let me know. I'm not a firm believer in either direction, just a curious skeptic.

 

[zami]

One of the main problems they are going to have if and when they get there is covering up the fact that they have never been there before.

Moon Landings using the power of a pocket calculator? Yeah right, just like those WMD's and Saddam being responsible for the twin towers.

Here in the UK we have a problem with our government that lies to us and through various Italian connections can allegedly be linked all the way to the M*fia but you, you have been conned to levels beyond belief.

 

[yippy]

Has it occurred to anyone that part of the reason we haven't been there in a while, and that we aren't trying very hard to get there, is that the moon just isn't that interesting. When you have a limited budget and time, what are you going to spend it on? Trying to find out new things about the ridiculously large universe or exploring a large space rock that we already have good data on?

Also, the tech used to get there is old technology. It is probably considered unsafe or at least inefficient or uncomfortable. I mean even if we were to rebuild what we had (which we can't since apparently we don't have the blueprints) how do we get it up there? Send the lunar module up in a defunct space shuttle? NASA right now is currently recreating everything they use to get into space so it is reasonable that it will be a bit before we get to the moon.

One thing, why does everyone assume that it takes a huge amount of computing power to get to the moon? I mean people have crossed continents with only a compass and no map. Besides, look at what they are putting in the unmanned probes. What landed on mars has essentially a G3 processor and that has to navigate and move using its own brain, no human to help like in the lunar expeditions.

Just some more food for thought.

 

[Motley]

The real reason we haven't been back to the moon is simple, the space shuttle. With the shuttle we retired our big rockets that could get people to the moon. Skylab had to be destroyed because the shuttle was supposed to boost it back into orbit but the shuttle kept getting delayed and was not ready in time. The shuttle along with the good idea terrible execution space station just sucked a lot of the money out of NASA.

 

[WinterMute]

The people involved in this "event" don't seem to comfortable with talking about it one-on-one, do they?

The stinger, as alway: "Your money back" If it's such an easy thing to prove why isn't it in the public domain already, why pay for it? Oh, I have a bridge you might be interested in...

Also, there are many, many questions and facts out there that I cannot locate answers or explanations to, such as:

edited spurious "facts"

I'm not saying these (and plenty more I've stashed away) are proof that it was a hoax, but it does make you think, doesn't it?

btw, if anyone has more information on why these statements are wrong or irrelavent, please let me know. I'm not a firm believer in either direction, just a curious skeptic.

I'm sure you have a ton of them, but no-one has yet to deliver comprehensive proof that a huge and public undertaking was completely faked over many years, the sheer size of the fake would make it a target for media companies with a ton of money to find the one engineer or cameraman who would spill the beans...

Why do NASA seem shifty one to one? Because they are being called liars by the media.

If Nixon couldn't keep Watergate quiet and Clinton couldn't shag an intern or two what hope would there be for such a huge conspiracy.

It would be genuinely shocking news to discover that it was faked... Truly the story of the century, why then hasn't it broken?

It actually happened thats why.

Unregulated websites run by people who ask for money before parting with "proof" are not the best source of information.

 

[scem0]

No chance. Those pesky aliens cleaned it up a long time ago.

you didn't use a smiley. Are you joking or being serious ?

e

 

[Motley]

The stinger, as alway: "Your money back" If it's such an easy thing to prove why isn't it in the public domain already, why pay for it? Oh, I have a bridge you might be interested in...



I'm sure you have a ton of them, but no-one has yet to deliver comprehensive proof that a huge and public undertaking was completely faked over many years, the sheer size of the fake would make it a target for media companies with a ton of money to find the one engineer or cameraman who would spill the beans...

Why do NASA seem shifty one to one? Because they are being called liars by the media.

If Nixon couldn't keep Watergate quiet and Clinton couldn't shag an intern or two what hope would there be for such a huge conspiracy.

It would be genuinely shocking news to discover that it was faked... Truly the story of the century, why then hasn't it broken?

It actually happened thats why.

Unregulated websites run by people who ask for money before parting with "proof" are not the best source of information.

I always thought that if it was fake the Soviet Union would have gone out of its way to prove the hoax and embarass the U.S. to no end.

 

[Mr Skills]

Since the distance to the moon is only ten times the circumference of the Earth - i.e. not really a huge distance in the scheme of things - I don't know why people find it so unbelievable that we could have gone there.

Mars, on the other hand, is an order of magnitude further. I bet they've got the (ex-) Pixar team working on it right now... just look out for the rock formation that looks eerily like SJ's face

 

[Stella]

If Hubble can see light years away shouldn't it in theory be able to focus close enough to see the moon.

Nope. The Hubble lenses are way too powerful to focus in on a close object like the moon.

People use this reason - the americans not using the Hubble to observe the moon as a good reason why man never went to moon. Its just bad theory on their part - or lack of.

 

[takao]

thanks yippy for your posting...

seriously who is still interested in the moon ? for the geologists there might be a detail here and there but apart from that there isn't that much to discover

that aside some would think that that at the climax of the cold war the Soviets would have revealed that it is fake ... you know they sent unmanned probes up there too.. and listened to the signals of the american moon "ship" as well..

that aside moon rocks are scatter to labs through the whole world and you can guess it: the microscopical small glass drops embedded in the are speak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax

that aside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
was perhaps one of the most funny movies about the topic.. don't know if it was ever aired in the US

edit: forgot to mention one soviet probes did indeed bring a small amount of rocks back.. not as mch like the hundreds of kg the manned Apollo missions did

 

[Queso]

you didn't use a smiley. Are you joking or being serious ?

e

That's why I have four in my sig, so there's plenty spare if I'm having an off day.

Of course, I could be lying....

 

[someguy]

To me, the arguments for and against believing that we went to the moon successfully are equally strong, but I just don't believe it. By now, we should be going back and forth on a weekly basis with today's technology - and saying the moon isn't interesting enough to want to go back is just silly, we've been trying to go back for decades. The US had a lot to gain by beating other nations to the moon in the first place.

As far as the moon rocks, Apollo 11's lead scientist could've easily collected those during his trip to Antarctica about 2 years earlier - "moon rocks" can be found fairly easily in Antarctica as well as many other parts of the world. On top of that, it has already known that over 90% of the moon rocks we have collected were not collected by hand, but by machine.

And what about those who have died almost immediately after speaking out openly about the cover-up? That is why no one wants to admit to it - they fear for their lives, and with good reason.

On top of all that, many of you are image/video editors - just look at some of the videos and images. There are shadows where none should be and in vice versa (which is more common), sudden changes in the light source's direction, very odd movements by the astronauts themselves - many that could only be possible by either sudden changes in gravity levels or if they were merely dangling from a support cable similar to how they do in training videos at NASA (reflections from these cables can even be spotted in several videos).

Nearly all aspects our trips to the moon (or lack thereof) show definite cause for suspicion. This is just one of many cover-ups lead by our government for the sake of things they don't want us to know about.

btw, I'm not out to change anyone's mind, I'm just surprised at how many believers there are out there.