OK, so let me get this straight. People think NASA faked the moon landing and those that don't believe that think NASA's own picture proof, proves the case? OK, so the suspected faker, authenticates a previously suspected work by providing more suspect media? What am I missing? If they faked landing, would they not fake these too? It's MUCH easier to fake a photo in 2011 than a whole movie, years and years ago no? Now if some millionaire builds some supertelescope or something...
Nooo! Jesus had grey alien illuminatii build those so reptilian Annunaki could take them into the hollow moon so nazi valkeries could put them on the moon with their rolling moon rock tractors. Miss anyone?
The pitiful anarchist *faggots who follow these conspiracy theories are the same ones who have tried to assassinate half of the US Presidents.... nothing new here. They'll tear down anything, building or idea, and maim and kill anyone that gets in their way.
*used with no animosity to gays.... just conspiracy faggots. :)
The pictures in this video are the first taken from LRO. Then LRO took other pictures with better resolution (50cm/pixel). Search the "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera" (LROC) web site, the titles of the last Apollo pages are: "New View of Apollo 14", "Apollo 16, Footsteps Under High Sun", The Apollo 15 Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector", "High Noon at Tranquility Base", "Apollo 12 Second Look".
@hunchbacked Thanks for noticing the shadows facing the opposite direction of the "Sun". Yet I still am called crazy for mentioning it ... even photos are not accepted by the believers.
Did any one notice or is it just me, But isn't the shadow from the lander pointing in the wrong direction. I mean Please if you are going to do something do it right.
@MrMarkanthony10 As soon as I saw the first photo it struck me as a fraud. No my friend there are other people capable of critical thinking and reason. Guess there was a solar spotlight to mark the greatest achievement of man.
Hoax believers use your brains - it's absolutely been proven that un-manned moon landings left mirrors on the moon (scientists on earth shoot laser beams off them). The hard part is just landing on the moon period, not landing people on it.
We can see here interesting shadows and clues about apollo landing site and LM, but not details at all. Unfortunately. Such an importante mission like LRO could have justified the installation of amuch better camera than this... Why didn't they install on LRO a spy-satellite-similar camera? On earth orbit they can even read car plates.....
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landing were a hoax? LOL Earth to morons: Men landed on the moon, six landings from 1969 to 1972. Get over it and move on to something else.
follow these - both at img153 . image shack . us _ img153 -
1. 8443_23935680 dot png
2. 7681_78845017 dot png
change _s to slashes
the 1st one shows google earth at about 1000 ft eye alt zoomed in on the liberty science center. the parked vehicles show up nicely. any sane person can make out about 8ft objects.
the 2nd one shows google moon at 5feet eye alt. on a11. anyone sanely explaining that is welcome!
The satellite used for GMoon has an image resolution of between 7-20m/pixel. GEarth uses a combination of aerial photography for popular areas such as cities or landmarks with image resolutions as low as 15cm/pixel, and satellite photography for remote areas, with resolutions around 15m per pixel. The altitude readings in GMoon are not very accurate. Do you think at 5ft altitude from a birds eye view you would be able to see dozens of craters? Any sane person would understand that
@brdasi: moon doesn't have features that could be compared to any on the earth. in google earth, even trees are distinguishable at thousands of places.
i do agree with you in that at 5' no one would see dozens of craters. but on the moon, i'll, and millions more, would be the last of ones to explore craters instead of searching for the apollo leftovers. even at 1000' eye alt, any average educated person should be able to clearly see the lem and other equipments. in the least, the flag (contd)
Like I said, the satellite images used for Google Moon have resolutions between 7-20m per pixel. That means one pixel on image is 7-20 metres of landscape. The lunar lander would register as a tiny pixel which would be impossible to identify. The Google Earth pictures are aerial photographs, which are much higher quality, that's why you can see trees, cars and people
@brdasi: i accept that. but not every google earth picture is aerial photograph. w_w_w. gearthblog. com/blog/archives/2006/06/huge_database_u. html. the hi-res ge pics are not whole snapshots of huge area. they're in strips taken where ge found satellite imagery won't do any good to produce even 10m/px res. of course, it was announced more than 7 months back that the lro would be snapping 1m/px or greater res pics. that's still not materialized.
@brdasi: (contd.) should be able to be pointed out, even if the flagcloth's not distinguishable. and do you think if the lem is 4m across and made out as a small dot, then the footprints should not be visible at all? after all the astronauts weren't walking sideways too to have impressed such strong soil depression.
i'm not saying anything like we didn't walk on the moon, but these pictures are a little bit of a disappointment. i mean hell, when were these taken, 2008?? the pictures are so grainy and from such a high distance. hell you go on google earth and you can see your backyard clear as day, plus the satellite has to take the image through the atmosphere. i would think taking pictures of the moon from a satellite would generate much clearer images.
i hope we can get some better high res shots soon!!
Very cool. As I was watching this I was thinking "That's great, but it'd be even better if we could see some footprints" then the last picture came up. Ask and you shall receive :-)
funny how on these photos there is only 1 light source (sun) while on the original photos of the Apollo missions with the astronauts, there are multiple light sources.. hmmm...
Have you ever heard of moonlight? Now, how bright would moonlight be if your standing on the moon? Damn bright.
The light is reflected off the moon's surface, it provides multiple diffusei light sources. That is why shadow areas, outside direct sunlight are not completely dark, its due to moonlight.
Multiple light sources? What the fuck are you talking about? That little myth as debunked years ago. Look out your window and you will see that shadows converge and diverge depending on your perspective and the topography of the ground. You are an idiot.
there is one light source on the moon. And if you are talking about unparralell shadows it was the topography on the moon that made them look not parralell. This has already been proven.
1) There is almost certainly no spy satellite that can read a newspaper.
2) LRO has objectives which do not require that kind of resolution.
3) Within the next few weeks LRO will be dropping down to a much lower orbit and we will be able to see better detail. These photos were never expected to be all that great. Check again in September.
@Qhater Yes it did, as planned, and it took much better pictures. You could see the foot pads on the lander in some of them. GoneToPlaid has done some fine work in enhancing these pictures to get maximum detail. Check with him and I'm sure he'll be glad to give you the link to some of his work. I can't find it right now.
As you've no doubt heard, LRO will circularize its orbit and bring it down to 31 miles and a resolution of 0.5 meters (19 inches) per pixel. It's currently imaging at 1.4 meters per pixel. The images will improve as will your elaborate fantasies about how the photos were faked.
licence plate? thats bullshit the lro was never set up too see detail THAT great a car yes you are right about that but the lro is not in its final orbit path yet as it gets closer we will see beter photos
Wrong, photos are not doctored. You just got your hat handed to you and it's all over. In the coming weeks as the LRO orbit is refined images with better resolution will be posted. Hoaxtards have be begging for years for photos of the landing sites, well you got em' now and still you call it fake. Oh, by the way, the images sent back by the LRO are no encrypted.
if these were the only proof, I would also doubt.
but add to that thousands of photos, hours of video, 200 thousand people that worked directly or indirectly in the Apollo missions, hundreds of kilos of lunar rocks brought back to Earth, mirrors left on the moon the reflect lasers and are still used by astrophysicists around the world, the fact that the soviets tracked the Apollo missions, etc... with ALL THOSE PROOF together, only crazy dumb people can deny.
We have the proof. Well.. the extra proof because we have the pictures and videos and everything from the surface, but this is just going to make the hoaxers say 'Photoshopped' 'Fake' 'Doctored' and all of that other shit..They'll never give up because that would mean admitting they were wrong. They won't stop..
As there were not any large bolders in the immediate vicinity of the landing sites the descent stages shadow will be the most prominent feature in the images.
Fake and Gay Footprints... hahaha
helalumo 1 week ago
OK, so let me get this straight. People think NASA faked the moon landing and those that don't believe that think NASA's own picture proof, proves the case? OK, so the suspected faker, authenticates a previously suspected work by providing more suspect media? What am I missing? If they faked landing, would they not fake these too? It's MUCH easier to fake a photo in 2011 than a whole movie, years and years ago no? Now if some millionaire builds some supertelescope or something...
CarlyleSpeaks 2 months ago
So fake, just overhead pictures of the simulation models.
akirafactor 5 months ago
Nooo! Jesus had grey alien illuminatii build those so reptilian Annunaki could take them into the hollow moon so nazi valkeries could put them on the moon with their rolling moon rock tractors. Miss anyone?
Bramak17 5 months ago
The pitiful anarchist *faggots who follow these conspiracy theories are the same ones who have tried to assassinate half of the US Presidents.... nothing new here. They'll tear down anything, building or idea, and maim and kill anyone that gets in their way.
*used with no animosity to gays.... just conspiracy faggots. :)
threeddd33 6 months ago
FOOTPRINTS !!!!!! muhuhahahaha ! explain that away you conspiracy nut jobs !
1MtnBoy 6 months ago 4
@1MtnBoy yeah now i'm so sad for that skeptik idiots... science won once again
enomis9393 6 months ago
Have you noticed the shadows in all the photos face the opposite direction of the "Sun"?
To funny. what am i missing here true believers?
These photos are fakes
joecanukk 7 months ago
The pictures in this video are the first taken from LRO. Then LRO took other pictures with better resolution (50cm/pixel). Search the "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera" (LROC) web site, the titles of the last Apollo pages are: "New View of Apollo 14", "Apollo 16, Footsteps Under High Sun", The Apollo 15 Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector", "High Noon at Tranquility Base", "Apollo 12 Second Look".
diegotrystero 7 months ago
@diegotrystero aka "ok we can fake them better" section
helalumo 1 week ago
Look at closely the shadow of the so called lander; it is totally abnormal, impossible.
I don't believe any man ever walked on the moon.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked Thanks for noticing the shadows facing the opposite direction of the "Sun". Yet I still am called crazy for mentioning it ... even photos are not accepted by the believers.
joecanukk 7 months ago
Did any one notice or is it just me, But isn't the shadow from the lander pointing in the wrong direction. I mean Please if you are going to do something do it right.
MrMarkanthony10 10 months ago
@MrMarkanthony10 As soon as I saw the first photo it struck me as a fraud. No my friend there are other people capable of critical thinking and reason. Guess there was a solar spotlight to mark the greatest achievement of man.
joecanukk 7 months ago
Damn we can see jupiter clear as day from earth with a telescope.....we can get clear photo of the apollo landing sight while orbiting the moon?
yankee22167 10 months ago
Hoax believers use your brains - it's absolutely been proven that un-manned moon landings left mirrors on the moon (scientists on earth shoot laser beams off them). The hard part is just landing on the moon period, not landing people on it.
luridplanet 11 months ago
Photoshop.
protelboy 11 months ago
We can see here interesting shadows and clues about apollo landing site and LM, but not details at all. Unfortunately. Such an importante mission like LRO could have justified the installation of amuch better camera than this... Why didn't they install on LRO a spy-satellite-similar camera? On earth orbit they can even read car plates.....
1965christian 1 year ago
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landing were a hoax? LOL Earth to morons: Men landed on the moon, six landings from 1969 to 1972. Get over it and move on to something else.
BbearWARRIOR 1 year ago 5
Photoshop...There are high res images taken on other spots but conveniently the equipment are shot in low res.
TIKOMIX 1 year ago
LOL That looks more like a shadow of a crater.
dragnet53 1 year ago
fuck WMG
bastards believe they have rights to Carlin's voice as well.
dragnet53 1 year ago
WOW,,,THIS IS PROOF,,,,,,,,NOT.LIARS.
fear946 1 year ago
LOL, conspiritors (spelled right) are sad!
ClinicallyObeseMule 1 year ago
follow these - both at img153 . image shack . us _ img153 -
1. 8443_23935680 dot png
2. 7681_78845017 dot png
change _s to slashes
the 1st one shows google earth at about 1000 ft eye alt zoomed in on the liberty science center. the parked vehicles show up nicely. any sane person can make out about 8ft objects.
the 2nd one shows google moon at 5feet eye alt. on a11. anyone sanely explaining that is welcome!
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
The satellite used for GMoon has an image resolution of between 7-20m/pixel. GEarth uses a combination of aerial photography for popular areas such as cities or landmarks with image resolutions as low as 15cm/pixel, and satellite photography for remote areas, with resolutions around 15m per pixel. The altitude readings in GMoon are not very accurate. Do you think at 5ft altitude from a birds eye view you would be able to see dozens of craters? Any sane person would understand that
brdasi 1 year ago 2
@brdasi: moon doesn't have features that could be compared to any on the earth. in google earth, even trees are distinguishable at thousands of places.
i do agree with you in that at 5' no one would see dozens of craters. but on the moon, i'll, and millions more, would be the last of ones to explore craters instead of searching for the apollo leftovers. even at 1000' eye alt, any average educated person should be able to clearly see the lem and other equipments. in the least, the flag (contd)
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
Like I said, the satellite images used for Google Moon have resolutions between 7-20m per pixel. That means one pixel on image is 7-20 metres of landscape. The lunar lander would register as a tiny pixel which would be impossible to identify. The Google Earth pictures are aerial photographs, which are much higher quality, that's why you can see trees, cars and people
brdasi 1 year ago 3
@brdasi: i accept that. but not every google earth picture is aerial photograph. w_w_w. gearthblog. com/blog/archives/2006/06/huge_database_u. html. the hi-res ge pics are not whole snapshots of huge area. they're in strips taken where ge found satellite imagery won't do any good to produce even 10m/px res. of course, it was announced more than 7 months back that the lro would be snapping 1m/px or greater res pics. that's still not materialized.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@brdasi: (contd.) should be able to be pointed out, even if the flagcloth's not distinguishable. and do you think if the lem is 4m across and made out as a small dot, then the footprints should not be visible at all? after all the astronauts weren't walking sideways too to have impressed such strong soil depression.
zambi007i 1 year ago
i'm not saying anything like we didn't walk on the moon, but these pictures are a little bit of a disappointment. i mean hell, when were these taken, 2008?? the pictures are so grainy and from such a high distance. hell you go on google earth and you can see your backyard clear as day, plus the satellite has to take the image through the atmosphere. i would think taking pictures of the moon from a satellite would generate much clearer images.
i hope we can get some better high res shots soon!!
njracer34 1 year ago
why can't telescopes on earth take picture of sites on th e moon?
msam1970 1 year ago
Very cool. As I was watching this I was thinking "That's great, but it'd be even better if we could see some footprints" then the last picture came up. Ask and you shall receive :-)
TonyN737 2 years ago
Comment removed
cripplewoox 2 years ago
funny how on these photos there is only 1 light source (sun) while on the original photos of the Apollo missions with the astronauts, there are multiple light sources.. hmmm...
ranquixx 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of moonlight? Now, how bright would moonlight be if your standing on the moon? Damn bright.
The light is reflected off the moon's surface, it provides multiple diffusei light sources. That is why shadow areas, outside direct sunlight are not completely dark, its due to moonlight.
Diamonddavej 2 years ago
Multiple light sources? What the fuck are you talking about? That little myth as debunked years ago. Look out your window and you will see that shadows converge and diverge depending on your perspective and the topography of the ground. You are an idiot.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 2 years ago
you said it. funny how people don't want to hear/read the truth
MixingLaboratory 2 years ago
there is one light source on the moon. And if you are talking about unparralell shadows it was the topography on the moon that made them look not parralell. This has already been proven.
joachim2464 1 year ago
LMAO this is the best Nasa can do? give me a break ,all that talk about close up high res pics and all we get is is this nonsense.
harooni22 2 years ago
Review the mission profile of the LRO. You will discover that more images taken at higher resolution will be forthcoming.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
Where's Apollo 12 site?
Qhater 2 years ago
It has not passed overhead of 12 yet.
ytmoog 2 years ago
with todays technologhy why couldnt they get a closer picture. we have spy satelites in orbit that can read a newspaper on a park bench on earth?
ribenababy2008 2 years ago
1) There is almost certainly no spy satellite that can read a newspaper.
2) LRO has objectives which do not require that kind of resolution.
3) Within the next few weeks LRO will be dropping down to a much lower orbit and we will be able to see better detail. These photos were never expected to be all that great. Check again in September.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago 3
NASA says August for the High res photos!
amadablam1 2 years ago
@Astrobrant2 Did the LRO ever drop down to a lower orbit and take better detailed pictures?
Qhater 9 months ago
@Qhater Yes it did, as planned, and it took much better pictures. You could see the foot pads on the lander in some of them. GoneToPlaid has done some fine work in enhancing these pictures to get maximum detail. Check with him and I'm sure he'll be glad to give you the link to some of his work. I can't find it right now.
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2 Thanks for the info.
Qhater 9 months ago
Tha'ts not true. The highest resolution is 20 metres on the ground from space. It's all a myth that you can read papers etc.
lyniseuk 2 years ago
hoax should change his name to dummy,makin a fool of himself,funny guy
cripplewoox 2 years ago
The LRO is not yet at it's final 50km orbit.
And the resolution of the current images are at 1 metre per pixel.
Enough to see your VW but not its plates.
Even when it is at 50km it will only have a 50cm per pixel resolution. Still not enough to see your licence plates.
There is no need to make stuff up hoax.
ytmoog 2 years ago
ahh the proof at last,tastes so sweet to be right
cripplewoox 2 years ago 15
@cripplewoox If they ever had any credible evidence against it, I would have needed such proof. This is just icing on the cake.
vozpit 6 months ago
As you've no doubt heard, LRO will circularize its orbit and bring it down to 31 miles and a resolution of 0.5 meters (19 inches) per pixel. It's currently imaging at 1.4 meters per pixel. The images will improve as will your elaborate fantasies about how the photos were faked.
JHBblueeyes 2 years ago
There is absolutely no way that CT retards like WhiteJarrah can continue to deny that the Apollo landings really did take place now.
boomshanka 2 years ago 12
Oh but he is...
since I can't post links, here's the video txt portion of the link to his latest piece of work.
v=P5kHPexBIWk
Of course, its just another in an ever lengthening lineup of epic fails on his part...
swguy201 2 years ago
@boomshanka
Erm, afraid not.... WJ has made new videos claiming the LRO pics are faked.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
White Jarrah can keep blowing it out of his arse. But retards like him will never be proven right.
boomshanka 1 year ago
@boomshanka
LOL... true. He's a first class douche.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
These pics look like shit... i'll wait till the LRO is in a lower orbit.
solgoode1 2 years ago
licence plate? thats bullshit the lro was never set up too see detail THAT great a car yes you are right about that but the lro is not in its final orbit path yet as it gets closer we will see beter photos
bluechair5 2 years ago
From Apollo 16:
Young: Well, don't come out until you see what we just passed over. Duke: It was a big rock, I tell you.
Young: No, it was a big hole. Duke: A big hole, huh? Young: Yeah. You ain't going to believe this.
[ohn is talking about the twenty-five-meter crater he flew over during the final approach. See pan frames AS16-107- 17430 to 17433.
What do you know, there's that big 'ol hole that the LM flew over in the LRO image. Choke on this hoaxtards!
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
Wrong, photos are not doctored. You just got your hat handed to you and it's all over. In the coming weeks as the LRO orbit is refined images with better resolution will be posted. Hoaxtards have be begging for years for photos of the landing sites, well you got em' now and still you call it fake. Oh, by the way, the images sent back by the LRO are no encrypted.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice try, NASA...
radiospirit 2 years ago
if these were the only proof, I would also doubt.
but add to that thousands of photos, hours of video, 200 thousand people that worked directly or indirectly in the Apollo missions, hundreds of kilos of lunar rocks brought back to Earth, mirrors left on the moon the reflect lasers and are still used by astrophysicists around the world, the fact that the soviets tracked the Apollo missions, etc... with ALL THOSE PROOF together, only crazy dumb people can deny.
rogerpenna 2 years ago 3
Lro has not reached its final orbit yet. Do some research before you speak. Future images will have two to three times better resolution
joachim2464 2 years ago 3
We have the proof. Well.. the extra proof because we have the pictures and videos and everything from the surface, but this is just going to make the hoaxers say 'Photoshopped' 'Fake' 'Doctored' and all of that other shit..They'll never give up because that would mean admitting they were wrong. They won't stop..
cryptor13 2 years ago 2
LOL @ moon hoax believers...... you had this coming
Waiting for higher resolution .... wanna see the buggies!!! :)
briandamage77 2 years ago 3
Lol, you are the first moron to say the images were doctored :)
These pics are not in better resolution because you are too lazy to see LRO is not in it's final orbit :)
Zvezdichko1 2 years ago 3
That's funny at 0:42 the LM shadow is 1000 times bigger than any shadow on the moon.
How tall was the LM lander 8-9 hundred feet?
monkeysflyoutomybutt 2 years ago
As there were not any large bolders in the immediate vicinity of the landing sites the descent stages shadow will be the most prominent feature in the images.
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
Comment removed
monkeysflyoutomybutt 2 years ago
There's nothing standing there than the Apollo LM :D..
Chrisjr2007 2 years ago
Comment removed
monkeysflyoutomybutt 2 years ago
Waiting for higher resoution, however, good pics NASA.
johnfru 2 years ago 3
Now the moon hoax morons will have to explain this
Zvezdichko1 2 years ago 3