re so poor as to prove nothing,we have the technology the take a photo of a car number plate from earth orbit through a atmosphere,a very poor effort all round.
We probably went..we just didnt go when we said we did..which is why we have so many examples of the real like moon rocks and shit..and also have obvious badly faked photos and shit..
@rickythepitbull about rocks: some has been recognized as fake (it was nothing less but ..fossilyzed tree :s) -others are just some kind some age that could or could not be from moon -they could be from wherever. So, if rocks are the corner stone unfortunately they don't nothing.
So it's back to the lack of positive evidencies -among which overall we can't land there in 2011- and the presence of multiple negative evidencies...
No-fly zones will come into effect on the moon for the very first time by the end of this month! Why, even buffer zones that spacecraft may have to avoid will come into existence. The reason: avoiding any spraying of rocket exhaust or dust onto certain historical sites and artIfacts on the moon. (w)(w)(w).thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2432999.ece
Haha total bullshit i saw the same video somewhere else only that retard was claiming that dot was an alien base or some bullshit...your foolish to take anything the govt says at their word..my bad though i shouldnt have called you homo just cuz i disagree..
this doesn't prove absolutely nothing : with satellite we can see a man's face from earth orbit, what's this shit? - second: why nobody landed recently, maybe *it's too difficult? ahaha
@beegoodyy I tell u what it seems to me: it seems like they r trying to renforce the lie before more investigations and nothing else -they could have thrown any object from far away without landing - or it can be just photoshop, it's rly pathetic
About the prints of landing what is really funny is that in THE OFFICIAL PICTURES they forgot ahaha to make holes under the ship foot where it was supposed to have fire landed, check it out
@Jordaxe12 u r a beliver, but I like truth: nothing is demonstred up to now. And we have lot of convincing elements to affirm that it has been a hoax. Remember: when u want to demonstrate something start from the point of view and the arguments that discredit a theory or a supposition, that's the science principle. Otherwise u r making teology
This is your comment: " it seems like they r trying to renforce the lie before more investigations and nothing else -they could have thrown any object from far away without landing - or it can be just photoshop, it's rly pathetic
About the prints of landing what is really funny is that in THE OFFICIAL PICTURES they forgot ahaha to make holes under the ship foot where it was supposed to have fire landed, check it out "
Please explain why NASA, knowing that other countries in the near future would image the landing sites with LRO's resolution or better, try to continue to perpetrate a moon hoax after 40 years? That is equivalent not only to shooting yourself in the foot, but doing it twice.
So yes, your claims are pretty pathetic and ridiculous.
Don't just say "fake" because you don't comprehend or understand things.
@Rob260259 of course I am going to explain. First, let me tell u that Im just interested in truth, im not a "conspiracy theorist": if we had landed, it would be ok for me. But I reasonably say: we didn't and we couldn't.
@Rob260259 well, listen closely, one complementary evidence is the fact that all moonlandingbelivers act as histerics or as they were possed by some religious spirit. They go all the time: u have to belive it, why should even put it in doubt? and so on. That are signals of mental manipulations, and USA have been into that kind of policy with their own citizens apparently for a long time. They pushed on the desire of going to the oon and squeezed out people faith >>
That is not a fact. That is not evidence to say the least. I don't care what others say; again: please give us one shread of evidence that the landings were faked.
Dear friend, somehow there appears to be a general psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful.
However, I can't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
Have you got any clue about how many scientists and engineers acknowledged the landings on the Moon?
@Rob260259 so, first rule for analyzing anything: avoid getting into labyrihts. Let's have a look to the whole thing, for what it is. D u know that politics is what rule on earth and not scientists? D u know who the technology belong to? It belong to gov, not scientists.
But let's look at the core - we want the truth, don't we?
@Rob260259 preliminary fact: there's a big psycological issue about all of this. IVEN IF ALL THE SCIENTIST AOF EARTH WOULD TELL: WE NEVER BEEN ON THE MOON U WOULD GO ON BELIEVING THAT WE WENT!!!
I think it is absolutely impossible to convince you that NASA really did land 12 astronauts on the Moon. You already claim that the LRO photos are fakes and that the LRO should have much better resolution from 50km up in orbit since you believe that spy satellites can actually see a man's face. The LRO's two narrow angle cameras are telescopes with 8" apertures. Yet you can't do the math to calculate the limiting resolution from a distance of 50km. Can you??
- The truth has been in the public domain for many many years. If a math teacher tells you that pi = 3,14159265, you are going to question it? Fine, but in the end you'll find that the teacher was right.
What about videos and pictures taken, tracking telemetry from Earth, H and J missions, astronauts that went there, the 60 scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, satellites launched from the SIM bays into lunar orbit, reflectors left at the landing sites, etc. etc.... talking about EVIDENCE...
@Rob260259 i go capitals because that's the first question, and u did not answer yet::: u just go on and on and on "you don't know what is like moonlanding" "why thinking that it is fake"
So, would u accept the truth if the truth was the american government put in place a fiction for political and technical reasons?
@Rob260259 would u accept the truth whatever it is?
if the truth was NASA is still producing manipulated images in order to keep up the fiction? Would u accept it if there was plenty of evidence of that OR NOT?
* what's important is the reality and it's hard for most of the people only consider what would mean tyhe possibility of a mass fraud of such a scale
So let's just look at the main facts, intelectually awaken and without prejudice - what d u know and what d u see apart from ur desires*
Your ridiculous questions are totally irrelevant. The 'truth' is that 2+2=4. The 'truth' is that water is wet.
Obviously you didn't read my comments very well.
You fail to produce one (1) ounce of evidence that the Moon landings were faked. You started with "a lot of convincing elements to affirm that it was a hoax" a week ago and being asked for those elements you start your psychobabble. Which is failing, too.
For the last time: what 'convincing elements' are you talking about?
@Rob260259 OOoOooo it's a matter of METHOD, d u understand?
whatever the truth is, for me is Ok, can u shift to the scientifical point of view BEFORE concluding anything?
Maybe * political truth got over the issue -have u ever thought about this possibility¿?
If u accept the scientific point of view AND the ethic issue behind any examination of whatever, we can talk and have some conclusions. If u can't accept it or unable to focus on this before, it just can mean u r mentally not awaken
@Rob260259 bye* xd yes, I can mention, don't worry, and it's what id like to do
But: d u accept the scientifical and ethical starting pointnecessary? If so, let's just have a look at reality
If u fail to accept it., in any case u would go on believing what u like to belive, that is NOI EVIDENCE EVER WOULD BE ENOUGH. Like we were talking about Santa Claus
It's kind of strange: I JUST ASKED U IF U R INTERESTED IN TRUTH OR INSTEAD JUST WILLING TO DEFEND UR BELIEFS
@Rob260259 I repeat, if u r interested in truth, I can get u there -then u will draw ur own conclusions
But if u r not interested in truth, or u feel to "weak to accept the responsability of looking and considering with ur own eyes, instead of some power's eyes, well, u would just demonstrate that slave life is possible and real on our planet -when u give away ur intelligence u give away ur rights*
@Rob260259 u see, from any side u approach the issue u get across the trick. And the core is: just belive in it, it is so beautiful... And things like that
Of course it would be beautiful and possibly it will happen soon. NASA launched a mission in these days, to study the gravitational field of the moon. They said hopefully they will be able to launch a manned mission to the m* in the next years
@Rob260259 i told u, in anycase it is impossible to analyze if u r not intellectualy awake and honest. There's pretty much of psycological in all of this -can u accept it for a while? It would be the first step
Again, you did not answer the simple questions. And again, you did not provide one ounce of evidence to support your claim.
So because you are unable to check my 'intellectual awakeness and honesty" you're saying you can't trust me? I'm not a US citizen, I'm not paid by NASA, I'm just interested very much in engineering and astronomy.
@Rob260259 so 1) d u know what the moonlandingbelivers always said about all the inconsistencies dicovered? They answered: u don't know what moon landing is like -and that's the whole argument about it, the ignorance of people. That's what NASA (more precisely AMerican government) played on from then up to now. 2) NASA knew what was the state of technology then and knew that it was impossible to solve the trip to the moon and landing issue in the short term. We r still at this level
@Jordaxe12 there's a big problem about this as about the real nature of north american political power as seen in the last 50 years. They developped a policy based on manipulating the public opinion thru media and communications technology and systems
Here we have plenty of evidencies of IMAGE MANIPULATION at every level and in every aspect
They succeded manipulating people and this is evident coz many ARE JUST NOT INTERESTED IN TRUTH
they ar interested in anything supporting the belif*
Is this what we are expected to accept as definitive proof of an Apollo landing site...a bunch of pin pricks of light, boulder trails, distorted hills, rills, and valleys? Good grief! They might as well just sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Google Earth has satellites up there that can take detailed pictures of cars and buses from over 200 miles up while peering down through the earth's dense atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere whatsoever and the LRO is only 60 to 100 mile above its surface.
Do people not realize that the stated goal of this mission was NOT to take pictures of the landing sites for proof, but to map the topography of the lunar surface. As such the pictures taken were made with a WIDE ANGLE CAMERA or WAC. It was just a cool side note that they grabbed photos of the landing areas while performing this mission. There was not intended mission to grab "close up, and detailed" images of the lunar landing sites... THEY KNOW THEY WENT TO THE MOON...
I thought it uses space technology to improve life on earth! google technology normally come from the spatial experience, to get images of the earth clean and clear, while the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter sends images of the 60's
@Horse6power .....Stop looking at fuzzy pictures and complaining that they're fuzzy. Search *Stereo View of the Apollo 15 Landing Site* in the YouTube search bar.
I can zoom in a pile of dog shit in my yard w/ google earth. This thing can make it all the way to the lunar orbit but can't get decent shots of the rover? Piss Off!!!!
You call this proof??????? You are the biggest homo out there..before you spout your trash buddy. Get some actual proof. This is actualy gonna work in the other sides favor you retard.
The proof has been in the public domain for decades. Most significant are the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back.
Only self absorbed fools think they are smarter than all those astronomers and physicists that acknowledged the Moon landings.
This is bullshit, shows nothing - there is tech that could read a open book on the moon, yet, no REAL photos. This Does Not show Anything. Again, bullshit! Fuckin Retarded!
a spy sat can take a photo of your face in hd but the LRO orbiting closer to the moon can only show some white specks? Funny how part of the LRO's mission is to scan the surface and look for safe landing sites? why would it do that we had all the info 40 years ago, and actually landed on the surface??? oh yeah right WE DIDN"T. P's we did not have the technology back in the 60's to do it. IT WAS JUST A BOLD DREAM. EVEN THE RUSSIANS NEW IT.
it is physically impossible to see a footprint trail from 500m away... i doubt ud be able to see tire tracks either. why would the rovers tire tracks be as large as the lander module? this isn't very convincing...
Well you can check the complete lunar rover videos travel miles and miles on the surface of the moon to mountains, craters for many hours if you don't believe.
...and gays. u have to be taken it from behind, in a manly style...by other men. to believe these photos! and im talking about getting it right in the arse, of course. to the smell of shit, that is.
Bullshit -there are NO real pictures of evidence we ever went to the moon. The Hubble has seen the farthest into deep space ever but cant take any pictures of our moon landing sites. Again Bullshit! This video proves nothing!
cavlar. titanium..supercomputors.better rockets. better spacesuits. .. more experience. safer faster techknowlogy... more money more resouses.nasa hasnt killed seven astronouts in quit aawhile... they might have to change thier name to naur.. need another unmaned robot..
nasa... need another seven astronauts... these guys fail at evey test prior to lift off.. fail drasticly at every pre opp demonstrations.. then miraculously get it all right not once but six time in a row.... then stop and never go back..for forty years.. lmfao... all on the computing power of a modern poket watch.... lmfao..if they did all that on poketwatch tech.... thats making todays.scientist. look pretty fkn stupid. eh...we should be coming and going at will.
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.... Good book, and it mathematically demonstrates the physics of orbits which have everything to do with going to the moon. The USA landed a robot on mars yet some still doubt we took men to the moon. I find it to be very sad many people doubt the abilities of humans and technology to accomplish such an enormous goal. By doubting our past, we limit our future. I'm afraid to see how mankind might limit itself...
The issue with proof either way is unless you take the person to the moon and they SEE or DON'T SEE the modules with their own eyes, then no one is going to be swayed either way. People are too caught up in their "investigating" to actually see what is or isn't real and come up with a conclusion on their own. It is far to easy to doctor photos for the government who wants to cover it up and a back room computer nerd who wants to start drama by saying its all a hoax.
we choose to go to the m oon not because its easy but because it hard.. lol.. how bout we choose to photoghraph the fuking moon with some clear up close and personal photos.. that seems to be the holy grail of technology ... not goin ther..
The LRO had many other instruments aboard. The sort of camera that is needed for higher resolution would have meant those instruments could not be put aboard the LRO. The LRO is mapping the moon for water, radiation and terratin. In any case, many of the google Earth pictures are taken from an aeroplane. People were expecting to see google Earth quality. Those who knew about the LRO knew what it would deliver.
also love how u can see a row of so called footprints but u cant see a fkn flag lol...u people are fkn stupid if u think these are real piks of a real landing site..we got satalites that can read a licence plate from space through and atmosphere. but we cant get a close up of anything on the mooon without and atmousphere or dust thats lit up like a christmas tree... eh lol.. those landing sites and 757 s hitting the pentagon are just to hard to see.. on camera..
@tinman842 the license plate's diameter/distance ratio is by far bigger than those on the lunar landing sites. do you seriously believe that the lack of resolution by atmosphere/dust is equivalent to 200.000 miles of distance? you might have to think a few seconds longer before posting such BS.
lmfao i love how the astronauts footprints are in a nice row strt to the equipment and back to the space ships... but in the videios their all over the place... runninig hopping around like idiots. yet here their just one single file row of tracks.. lol.... should be prints and trails all over the place... just proves its faked..
@AhileyGusani You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
@morochis You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
Aren't all the shadows for the landing modules facing the wrong direction, all the photos have light shining from the right casting a shadow on the left of the rocks and peaks, but the landing module has the light from the left casting a shadow in a right direction, the the shadow also looks pretty fake. But I believe that NASA did land on the moon, but these pics look pretty crap.
@shomitb what you think are shadows from rocks and boulders are actually shadows in craters. of course the illuminated inside of the crater must be on the same side as the shadow of the orbiter which is convex, not concave. simple logic.
though i DO believe we went to the moon. i also think there is more to the story than we've been let in on. i would like to point out that it is interesting that we could get a very good picture of the mars rover landing site looking through an atmosphere and from a much higher alt and from a poorer quality cam than the 2 that have photographed the apollo landing sites. considering the rover is less than a 1/25 the size of apollo and you can even see its com. antenna. hum... interesting indeed.
Not good enough NASA. These images will not put peoples doubts at ease, once they take images in which most of the LEM is dicernable not the topography of the moon, then it will be a different situation.
This is proof that we did it. Only jproblem is, those brain-dead hoaxers aren't going to accept this as proof. Amazing the resilience of stupidity LOL
One more thing next time you might want to reference your own photos and make sure you don't forget to put in the hills and maybe more foot prints and buggy tracks.
Hey NASA, you need to send your people back to PhotoShop class. I can clone without duplicating pixel patterns better than that blind folded. Run your images through known algorithms to catch your sloppy artists work. What, did you start with a macro shot of a Brownie? Call me if you want a pro to work on your images, I'm REALLY expensive especially for high security clearance work. You know where to find me.
@NerdSferatu You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
@NerdSferatu HAUAHUA AUHUA YOU ARE ALL RIGHT BUT AT THE END ALL THIS PROVES THAT MY PHYSICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT THE VIDEOS FROM THOSE FAKE THEORISTS WERE ALL RIGHT! THEY DID LAND ON THE MOON lol
@NerdSferatu Where there is no light there is sucky pictures, unless you have an idea for a flash big enough to light the mooon right before taking the shot.
Awe man, what a disappointment. Everytime I confront them w/ physics and/or logic they disappear. I wanted to find out more on this sublimator yt spoke of, I understand the concept and it is rational.
I am not so naive to buy n2 astronut or sir, but I am willing to follow yt's POV should he choose to teach it.
Cheer, the only disappointment I see on YouTube is the appearance of a few delusionals and hoaxtards, who all think they are smarter than 40 years worth of scientists and engineers.
Show me foot paths in Apollo 15, 16, or 17. Oh, you didn't know that they were the only missions which had a rover? Figures.
OTOH, I can see some objects in the LRO photos of those 3 sites which could be the rover. Apollo 12 and 14 are the only ones I know where foot paths can be seen, and they did NOT have a rover.
I know where the rover is in A-16 and I think the arrow is covering it.
If you CTs had any specific knowledge and some common sense, you'd figure these things out for yourself.
I am well aware of which missions claim to have carried a lunar rover, myth believer. If these are clear enough to see foot paths, it stands to reason buggy tracks would be much easier 2c, and yet where r they. Ru saying the buggies were parked a mile away and not w/i walking distance of the LM??
How was cooling accomplished w/o convection SA?
The astronuts won't even explain that one.
Bring it on, I have physics, not photos to back my claims. Where is a second source of conformation?
"Bring it on, I have physics, not photos to back my claims."
Ah physics.. then you must know what an eccentric orbit is, right? You are aware that not all the Apollo landing sites were photographed at the same altitude, right? And as such some of the Apollo landing sites were photographed in more detail than others... Of course now that we are settling in to the low orbit, the real party is just about to start ;)
"U r aware convection cooling won't take place in a vacuum, correct?"
Uh...... what does that have to do with the topic at hand? So does that mean you don't know what an eccentric orbit is?
"THE TRUTH WILL OUT (PERIOD)"
The truth is being outed with every photo LRO returns to us, and surprise surprise it turns out the truth is pretty much in line with the story they have been telling for 40 years.
Ice to water, solid to gas. Ice water sublimates in a vacuum.
Not sure about the LM but the later A7L Apollo suits carried 5 litres of water for cooling. Which could be replenished at the end of each EVA.
"1 pixel per 1/2 meter,"
That is high enough for the purpose of the mission.
As for the radiation, the few hours they were out on EVA were insignificant. And even the limited protection offered by the LM or CM easily stopped the vast majority of the protons in the solar wind.
"If you CTs had any specific knowledge and some common sense, you'd figure these things out for yourself."
If they had any common sense they would wait until the low orbit pictures come out before making any specific claims (Yes, I'm looking at you, Jarrah)
The fact that you don't see a crater is a great example of CT stupidity and blindness. I'll use this in one of my videos.
This is one of the MANY things that make CTs so annoying: you simply ignore evidence that is as plain as day. Yes, by all means look at the Apollo 16 photo at 2:05. What do you think that large round dark area to the right of the LM is? The one with the bright crescent on the far side, like ALL THE OTHER CRATERS HAVE. And it shows the LM's shadow going across it.
The Chinese moon program plans to salvage all the junk left behind as abandoned property on the surface and sell it to the highest bidder at auction back on Earth Maritime laws apply in Space. I wonder if they'll keep the American Flag?
That will never happen, the Chinese will never build or have the technology to land on the moon, much less remove heavy objects off the lunar surface. What a joke
I see nothing in these photo's?when is it the closer ones are due? Whats the betting we never get them the lro will break down and before anyone starts mouthing off wait and see first.truth is the hardest pill to take.
Just wait until the good shit comes in. The stuff we've gotten is just brilliant in its clarity. But it's going to plae in to comparison once LRO gets in it's proper orbit (hopefully :p ) But for real, check out Geology Station 6. It's without a doubt one of the most recognisble features on the moon. The hoaxers have no way of explaining how we can see it in both the LRO pics AND the original Apollo pics. Theyll just dismiss it as shops and present no eveidence at all to back up that claim
Sir, just Google "geology station 6" and choose the most detailed mapping picture. This map originated some weeks right after the missions' Preliminary Science Report from 1973. Save the picture, because it will be fully acknowledged by the coming LRO photos.
And it will result in some more 'hoaxial suicides' I'm afraid.
Great pics, even at the high orbit, they have exceeded my expectations. Check out the big famous rock at Geology Station 6 during Apollo 17. It has a very distinct "double" shadow, and it's a feature which can be easily seen in the LRO photography. The more we look at the pictures, the more stuff we can see which was visited and photographed by those brave men during the Apollo missions.
lol because the Hubble isn't capable of seeing those 6 meter wide landers on the suface of the moon over a quarter a million miles away in Low Earth Orbit. If u read the description the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter isnt in its mapping orbit yet. when it lowers its orbit more to its final mapping orbit future photos of these sites will be 2-3 time better in resolution.
"are saying it cant focus on a moon landing spot which is 23kmiles away from hubble"
thats exactly right. there are actually bigger telescopes on earth than hubble. the advantage of hubble is that it isnt distorted by the atmopshere. the problem is size. the galaxies seen by hubble are immensley massive but are also very faint. the hubble telescope can point in the same directon for days to capture light from these galaxies. the landers are too small, below the limit of hubbles resolution
I agree. Hubble is built to see large objects like galaxies and nebulae at great distances. It was not built to look at the close moon and at a small LM descent stage.
@blueice8982 Well galaxies are thousands of light years across, and made up of billions of stars. It's not exactly hard to spot one against the blackness of space. The LM decent stages on the other hand are only 4 meters wide, and is on a surface that reflects just as much light as it does.
@Jordaxe12 who needs a satellite to look at the lunar landing sites when we have high powered telescopes here on earth that can do the exact same thing......
@Jordaxe12 ohh.. a quarter of a million mile is too much for the mighty Hubble eh! but it can take detailed pictures of nebula's, star clusters, and galaxies many light years away!?
hows that for being frigging fuckety convenient??!
@Jordaxe12 isin't it obvious man never walked on the moon. i mean think about it. if they can manage to get photos of the mars landers, which are prob less than 2 meters in diameter, then they really shouldn't have a problem getting some photos of the appolo stages, which are around 6 meters in diameter. yet 40 odd years later we're still waiting. what does that tell you.?
@rollyunicorn ...here's pictures of Apollo 15 and the Rover on the right. In hi-def optical stereo. Plus all the rover tracks. Search ......Stereo View of the Apollo 15 Landing Site ....after seeing this you won't have any questions as to the validity of the Moon landings. Only brainwashed sheep still doubt the Moon landings after see this video.
It's statements like these that show the total ignorance of those with no education, other that a high school degree [maybe] & video game experience, that have no understanding how things work in the analog world, or how certain instruments perform specific task. Like saying, "why doesn't the shuttle fly to the moon, it's much higher tech than Apollo".
what is amount of energy required for an object to move away from the moon for 6 miles and stay there for 4hrs. consider the gravity of the moon as 4m/s2 and weight of the object on earth as 6000tons.
re so poor as to prove nothing,we have the technology the take a photo of a car number plate from earth orbit through a atmosphere,a very poor effort all round.
Kennyforever100 1 month ago
@Kennyforever100
"take a photo of a car number plate from earth orbit"
- Huh? How is that done? By what satellite?
Rob260259 4 weeks ago
These's
Kennyforever100 1 month ago
i don't see anything.
KristalynJ 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So fake, just overhead pictures of the simulation models.
akirafactor 5 months ago
Thies pic suck
sgwbyyy 5 months ago
We probably went..we just didnt go when we said we did..which is why we have so many examples of the real like moon rocks and shit..and also have obvious badly faked photos and shit..
rickythepitbull 5 months ago
@rickythepitbull about rocks: some has been recognized as fake (it was nothing less but ..fossilyzed tree :s) -others are just some kind some age that could or could not be from moon -they could be from wherever. So, if rocks are the corner stone unfortunately they don't nothing.
So it's back to the lack of positive evidencies -among which overall we can't land there in 2011- and the presence of multiple negative evidencies...
lotorobly 5 months ago
*INFO* all the non brainwashed people come up and join
lotorobly 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Moon to have no-fly zones by month end
No-fly zones will come into effect on the moon for the very first time by the end of this month! Why, even buffer zones that spacecraft may have to avoid will come into existence. The reason: avoiding any spraying of rocket exhaust or dust onto certain historical sites and artIfacts on the moon. (w)(w)(w).thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2432999.ece
mw5353 5 months ago
Haha total bullshit i saw the same video somewhere else only that retard was claiming that dot was an alien base or some bullshit...your foolish to take anything the govt says at their word..my bad though i shouldnt have called you homo just cuz i disagree..
rickythepitbull 5 months ago
Once the High Def LRO photos came out all the Moon Hoax threads got very very quiet, lol. 7-8 comments a month, why bother anymore.
teddysalad65 6 months ago
this doesn't prove absolutely nothing : with satellite we can see a man's face from earth orbit, what's this shit? - second: why nobody landed recently, maybe *it's too difficult? ahaha
lotorobly 6 months ago
Comment removed
beegoodyy 6 months ago
@beegoodyy I tell u what it seems to me: it seems like they r trying to renforce the lie before more investigations and nothing else -they could have thrown any object from far away without landing - or it can be just photoshop, it's rly pathetic
About the prints of landing what is really funny is that in THE OFFICIAL PICTURES they forgot ahaha to make holes under the ship foot where it was supposed to have fire landed, check it out
lotorobly 6 months ago
@lotorobly watch?v=LIui93E8kkE Heres your HD photos ur whinning about
Jordaxe12 5 months ago
@Jordaxe12 u r a beliver, but I like truth: nothing is demonstred up to now. And we have lot of convincing elements to affirm that it has been a hoax. Remember: when u want to demonstrate something start from the point of view and the arguments that discredit a theory or a supposition, that's the science principle. Otherwise u r making teology
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
There is ZERO evidence that NASA faked the Moon landings. Try to find one (1) ounce of proof that supports your ridiculous claim.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 to want truth is not a "ridicolous claim" -open up your eyes and use ur own neurons
lotorobly 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lotorobly
This is your comment: " it seems like they r trying to renforce the lie before more investigations and nothing else -they could have thrown any object from far away without landing - or it can be just photoshop, it's rly pathetic
About the prints of landing what is really funny is that in THE OFFICIAL PICTURES they forgot ahaha to make holes under the ship foot where it was supposed to have fire landed, check it out "
That is ridiculous.
(cont)
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Please explain why NASA, knowing that other countries in the near future would image the landing sites with LRO's resolution or better, try to continue to perpetrate a moon hoax after 40 years? That is equivalent not only to shooting yourself in the foot, but doing it twice.
So yes, your claims are pretty pathetic and ridiculous.
Don't just say "fake" because you don't comprehend or understand things.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 of course I am going to explain. First, let me tell u that Im just interested in truth, im not a "conspiracy theorist": if we had landed, it would be ok for me. But I reasonably say: we didn't and we couldn't.
>>
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"we couldn't"
- Again: who told you? Did you find it out yourself or what?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 u see, u r in it, in the paranoid psycological warfare. Let's just look at facts and at reality
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"just facts and at reality"
- Start with some facts and start with one (1) ounce of evidence that proves that the landings were fake.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 well, listen closely, one complementary evidence is the fact that all moonlandingbelivers act as histerics or as they were possed by some religious spirit. They go all the time: u have to belive it, why should even put it in doubt? and so on. That are signals of mental manipulations, and USA have been into that kind of policy with their own citizens apparently for a long time. They pushed on the desire of going to the oon and squeezed out people faith >>
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
That is not a fact. That is not evidence to say the least. I don't care what others say; again: please give us one shread of evidence that the landings were faked.
And please answer my questions.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Dear friend, somehow there appears to be a general psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful.
However, I can't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
Have you got any clue about how many scientists and engineers acknowledged the landings on the Moon?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 so, first rule for analyzing anything: avoid getting into labyrihts. Let's have a look to the whole thing, for what it is. D u know that politics is what rule on earth and not scientists? D u know who the technology belong to? It belong to gov, not scientists.
But let's look at the core - we want the truth, don't we?
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"politics is what rule on earth"
- And you say you are NOT a conspiracy theorist....?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 please, just look at facts. Don't tell d u know how many scientists told this and that.. that's just blablabla
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"facts"
- That is what I said earlier today. WHERE are the facts that support your claim of a faked Moon landing?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 preliminary fact: there's a big psycological issue about all of this. IVEN IF ALL THE SCIENTIST AOF EARTH WOULD TELL: WE NEVER BEEN ON THE MOON U WOULD GO ON BELIEVING THAT WE WENT!!!
u-U
just to clarify the premises
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 d u know SCIENTIST discovered moon rocks given around by GOV was FAKE (it was fossilized tree!!!!!!!!!!)
and that the others are just not demonstrable, it is just certain age certain kind of rocks Oooo
so don't speak about what someone else said, let's just look at reality
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"fossilezed tree"
- Yes. Correct! Do you know how many scientists that 'discovery' needed?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 don't loose time with foolish things. Let's just look at the core
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"look at the core"
- Yes please. Answer my questions. But I think you are unable to. You just say "fake" because you don't understand things.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"moon rocks given around by GOV"
- misinformed again. It was one (1) petrified wood.
- it was not handed by any government. It was a gift to a former PM.
Now... what about your 'facts'...?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 fiRst. WOULD U ACCEPT WE DID NOT GO IF IT WAS REAL THAT WE DID NOT GO??
YES / NO
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Are you getting upset? Why use capitals..?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Evidence my friend, try to find a shread of evidence...
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
I think it is absolutely impossible to convince you that NASA really did land 12 astronauts on the Moon. You already claim that the LRO photos are fakes and that the LRO should have much better resolution from 50km up in orbit since you believe that spy satellites can actually see a man's face. The LRO's two narrow angle cameras are telescopes with 8" apertures. Yet you can't do the math to calculate the limiting resolution from a distance of 50km. Can you??
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"we want the truth, don't we"
- The truth has been in the public domain for many many years. If a math teacher tells you that pi = 3,14159265, you are going to question it? Fine, but in the end you'll find that the teacher was right.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@lotorobly
'The truth'...
What about videos and pictures taken, tracking telemetry from Earth, H and J missions, astronauts that went there, the 60 scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, satellites launched from the SIM bays into lunar orbit, reflectors left at the landing sites, etc. etc.... talking about EVIDENCE...
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 i go capitals because that's the first question, and u did not answer yet::: u just go on and on and on "you don't know what is like moonlanding" "why thinking that it is fake"
So, would u accept the truth if the truth was the american government put in place a fiction for political and technical reasons?
YES / NO
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 would u accept the truth whatever it is?
if the truth was NASA is still producing manipulated images in order to keep up the fiction? Would u accept it if there was plenty of evidence of that OR NOT?
* what's important is the reality and it's hard for most of the people only consider what would mean tyhe possibility of a mass fraud of such a scale
So let's just look at the main facts, intelectually awaken and without prejudice - what d u know and what d u see apart from ur desires*
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Your ridiculous questions are totally irrelevant. The 'truth' is that 2+2=4. The 'truth' is that water is wet.
Obviously you didn't read my comments very well.
You fail to produce one (1) ounce of evidence that the Moon landings were faked. You started with "a lot of convincing elements to affirm that it was a hoax" a week ago and being asked for those elements you start your psychobabble. Which is failing, too.
For the last time: what 'convincing elements' are you talking about?
Rob260259 5 months ago 2
@Rob260259 OOoOooo it's a matter of METHOD, d u understand?
whatever the truth is, for me is Ok, can u shift to the scientifical point of view BEFORE concluding anything?
Maybe * political truth got over the issue -have u ever thought about this possibility¿?
If u accept the scientific point of view AND the ethic issue behind any examination of whatever, we can talk and have some conclusions. If u can't accept it or unable to focus on this before, it just can mean u r mentally not awaken
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
So you can't mention some of these 'convincing elements' you started with a week ago.
The two things I don't accept is your psychobabble and avoiding simple questions.
Bye.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 bye* xd yes, I can mention, don't worry, and it's what id like to do
But: d u accept the scientifical and ethical starting pointnecessary? If so, let's just have a look at reality
If u fail to accept it., in any case u would go on believing what u like to belive, that is NOI EVIDENCE EVER WOULD BE ENOUGH. Like we were talking about Santa Claus
It's kind of strange: I JUST ASKED U IF U R INTERESTED IN TRUTH OR INSTEAD JUST WILLING TO DEFEND UR BELIEFS
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 I repeat, if u r interested in truth, I can get u there -then u will draw ur own conclusions
But if u r not interested in truth, or u feel to "weak to accept the responsability of looking and considering with ur own eyes, instead of some power's eyes, well, u would just demonstrate that slave life is possible and real on our planet -when u give away ur intelligence u give away ur rights*
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Bye.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 well, u choose the brainwashed side. Say bye to urself **+* it's very sad
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 consulte with psycological therapist. Im sure he will give u some help. Of course just if u want to GET BACK TO REALITY*
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 that is in a state of hypnosys or mental manipulation
lotorobly 5 months ago
@Rob260259 u see, from any side u approach the issue u get across the trick. And the core is: just belive in it, it is so beautiful... And things like that
Of course it would be beautiful and possibly it will happen soon. NASA launched a mission in these days, to study the gravitational field of the moon. They said hopefully they will be able to launch a manned mission to the m* in the next years
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
" it will happen soon"
- Clearly you are misinformed. Again: where is the evidence that the Moon landings were faked?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 i told u, in anycase it is impossible to analyze if u r not intellectualy awake and honest. There's pretty much of psycological in all of this -can u accept it for a while? It would be the first step
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
Again, you did not answer the simple questions. And again, you did not provide one ounce of evidence to support your claim.
So because you are unable to check my 'intellectual awakeness and honesty" you're saying you can't trust me? I'm not a US citizen, I'm not paid by NASA, I'm just interested very much in engineering and astronomy.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Rob260259 so 1) d u know what the moonlandingbelivers always said about all the inconsistencies dicovered? They answered: u don't know what moon landing is like -and that's the whole argument about it, the ignorance of people. That's what NASA (more precisely AMerican government) played on from then up to now. 2) NASA knew what was the state of technology then and knew that it was impossible to solve the trip to the moon and landing issue in the short term. We r still at this level
lotorobly 5 months ago
@lotorobly
"We r still at this level"
- who told you? Do you trust that information?
Rob260259 5 months ago
@Jordaxe12 there's a big problem about this as about the real nature of north american political power as seen in the last 50 years. They developped a policy based on manipulating the public opinion thru media and communications technology and systems
Here we have plenty of evidencies of IMAGE MANIPULATION at every level and in every aspect
They succeded manipulating people and this is evident coz many ARE JUST NOT INTERESTED IN TRUTH
they ar interested in anything supporting the belif*
lotorobly 5 months ago
Is this what we are expected to accept as definitive proof of an Apollo landing site...a bunch of pin pricks of light, boulder trails, distorted hills, rills, and valleys? Good grief! They might as well just sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Google Earth has satellites up there that can take detailed pictures of cars and buses from over 200 miles up while peering down through the earth's dense atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere whatsoever and the LRO is only 60 to 100 mile above its surface.
fanbutton 6 months ago
Do people not realize that the stated goal of this mission was NOT to take pictures of the landing sites for proof, but to map the topography of the lunar surface. As such the pictures taken were made with a WIDE ANGLE CAMERA or WAC. It was just a cool side note that they grabbed photos of the landing areas while performing this mission. There was not intended mission to grab "close up, and detailed" images of the lunar landing sites... THEY KNOW THEY WENT TO THE MOON...
Usaell420 6 months ago
Seriously this is 2011 not 1969, you'd think these photos wouldn't be blurry and lacking in detail.
Trancemaster2052 6 months ago
LOL
LottsaLasagna 7 months ago
Oh yeah!!! LOL Well, we'll just take it at face value, huh? A label with an arrow pointing to...WHAT, a spec that MUST be proof?
kevkraft 8 months ago
I thought it uses space technology to improve life on earth! google technology normally come from the spatial experience, to get images of the earth clean and clear, while the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter sends images of the 60's
Horse6power 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Horse6power .....Stop looking at fuzzy pictures and complaining that they're fuzzy. Search *Stereo View of the Apollo 15 Landing Site* in the YouTube search bar.
teddysalad65 8 months ago
I can zoom in a pile of dog shit in my yard w/ google earth. This thing can make it all the way to the lunar orbit but can't get decent shots of the rover? Piss Off!!!!
nuggz503 9 months ago
where are all the houses?
isabelleofshreveport 9 months ago
You call this proof??????? You are the biggest homo out there..before you spout your trash buddy. Get some actual proof. This is actualy gonna work in the other sides favor you retard.
rickythepitbull 10 months ago
@rickythepitbull People from the 1960's were smarter than you are NOW. the world wishes your daddy wore a condom. ROFLMAO
MoltenMozzarella 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoltenMozzarella ...Search *Stereo View of the Apollo 15 Landing Site* in the YouTube search bar and stop whining.
teddysalad65 7 months ago
@rickythepitbull watch?v=LIui93E8kkE here you go homo
Jordaxe12 5 months ago
@rickythepitbull
The proof has been in the public domain for decades. Most significant are the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back.
Only self absorbed fools think they are smarter than all those astronomers and physicists that acknowledged the Moon landings.
Rob260259 5 months ago
This is bullshit, shows nothing - there is tech that could read a open book on the moon, yet, no REAL photos. This Does Not show Anything. Again, bullshit! Fuckin Retarded!
kc8nqa 11 months ago
a spy sat can take a photo of your face in hd but the LRO orbiting closer to the moon can only show some white specks? Funny how part of the LRO's mission is to scan the surface and look for safe landing sites? why would it do that we had all the info 40 years ago, and actually landed on the surface??? oh yeah right WE DIDN"T. P's we did not have the technology back in the 60's to do it. IT WAS JUST A BOLD DREAM. EVEN THE RUSSIANS NEW IT.
australianmade74 11 months ago
c'mon dont show me specks thats not prove of anything
australianmade74 11 months ago
it is physically impossible to see a footprint trail from 500m away... i doubt ud be able to see tire tracks either. why would the rovers tire tracks be as large as the lander module? this isn't very convincing...
MrToiletface 1 year ago
Well you can check the complete lunar rover videos travel miles and miles on the surface of the moon to mountains, craters for many hours if you don't believe.
echozgus 1 year ago
FAKE!!! hahaha...
idiots.
...and gays. u have to be taken it from behind, in a manly style...by other men. to believe these photos! and im talking about getting it right in the arse, of course. to the smell of shit, that is.
cheers queers! :))
CT2507 1 year ago
Bullshit -there are NO real pictures of evidence we ever went to the moon. The Hubble has seen the farthest into deep space ever but cant take any pictures of our moon landing sites. Again Bullshit! This video proves nothing!
kc8nqa 1 year ago
@kc8nqa Good Post.. You show that you are a typical idiot who rants and raves and doesn't even begin to understand what you are looking at..
Hubble??, Jesus Christ.. Learn something before making a fool out of yourself.
bibbler227 1 year ago
cavlar. titanium..supercomputors.better rockets. better spacesuits. .. more experience. safer faster techknowlogy... more money more resouses.nasa hasnt killed seven astronouts in quit aawhile... they might have to change thier name to naur.. need another unmaned robot..
tinman842 1 year ago
nasa... need another seven astronauts... these guys fail at evey test prior to lift off.. fail drasticly at every pre opp demonstrations.. then miraculously get it all right not once but six time in a row.... then stop and never go back..for forty years.. lmfao... all on the computing power of a modern poket watch.... lmfao..if they did all that on poketwatch tech.... thats making todays.scientist. look pretty fkn stupid. eh...we should be coming and going at will.
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842:
The Americans would have gone to the Moon with or without the aid of computers. Electronic computing was an aid--not a requirement.
bethpage89 1 year ago
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.... Good book, and it mathematically demonstrates the physics of orbits which have everything to do with going to the moon. The USA landed a robot on mars yet some still doubt we took men to the moon. I find it to be very sad many people doubt the abilities of humans and technology to accomplish such an enormous goal. By doubting our past, we limit our future. I'm afraid to see how mankind might limit itself...
KD0IDB 1 year ago
You ought to take a look at YT user GoneToPlaid, he's done some wonderful work of analysing all the images that have come back.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
The issue with proof either way is unless you take the person to the moon and they SEE or DON'T SEE the modules with their own eyes, then no one is going to be swayed either way. People are too caught up in their "investigating" to actually see what is or isn't real and come up with a conclusion on their own. It is far to easy to doctor photos for the government who wants to cover it up and a back room computer nerd who wants to start drama by saying its all a hoax.
Daggermacloki 1 year ago
we choose to go to the m oon not because its easy but because it hard.. lol.. how bout we choose to photoghraph the fuking moon with some clear up close and personal photos.. that seems to be the holy grail of technology ... not goin ther..
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842
The LRO had many other instruments aboard. The sort of camera that is needed for higher resolution would have meant those instruments could not be put aboard the LRO. The LRO is mapping the moon for water, radiation and terratin. In any case, many of the google Earth pictures are taken from an aeroplane. People were expecting to see google Earth quality. Those who knew about the LRO knew what it would deliver.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
also love how u can see a row of so called footprints but u cant see a fkn flag lol...u people are fkn stupid if u think these are real piks of a real landing site..we got satalites that can read a licence plate from space through and atmosphere. but we cant get a close up of anything on the mooon without and atmousphere or dust thats lit up like a christmas tree... eh lol.. those landing sites and 757 s hitting the pentagon are just to hard to see.. on camera..
tinman842 1 year ago
@tinman842 the license plate's diameter/distance ratio is by far bigger than those on the lunar landing sites. do you seriously believe that the lack of resolution by atmosphere/dust is equivalent to 200.000 miles of distance? you might have to think a few seconds longer before posting such BS.
kanyetin 1 year ago
lmfao i love how the astronauts footprints are in a nice row strt to the equipment and back to the space ships... but in the videios their all over the place... runninig hopping around like idiots. yet here their just one single file row of tracks.. lol.... should be prints and trails all over the place... just proves its faked..
tinman842 1 year ago
Nasa should have covered the LEM's in reflective orange tape. Then all theconspiracy crap would be disproved
CubesForAKid 1 year ago
This is BS... these photos are proof of nothing but the ignorance of the truth.
jesterua67 1 year ago
Let's face it folks. We are not going to see the Remnants of the Moon Landings.
Because, there aren't any. So, don't hold your breath for any moon landing pics.
740446 1 year ago
@740446 watch?v=LIui93E8kkE Hope you didnt die from holding your breath
Jordaxe12 5 months ago
@Jordaxe12
LOL
Mr. 740446 probably would say "fake" even when standing on the Moon, next to a LM descent stage.
Rob260259 5 months ago
well now is over a year from those photos a no landing sites has been seen..!!!
Man NEVER walk on the moon!!!
WHY they can't afford JUST ONE photo to show us the flag, moon bugy etc on the moon..??
AhileyGusani 1 year ago
@AhileyGusani You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
Francozilla 1 year ago
hmm All I see are craters.... this isnt really proof
morochis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@morochis You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
Francozilla 1 year ago
not very convincing.
schazizzle 1 year ago
Inspiring. Good choice of music. We're goin' back!
MrChucksalot 1 year ago
Aren't all the shadows for the landing modules facing the wrong direction, all the photos have light shining from the right casting a shadow on the left of the rocks and peaks, but the landing module has the light from the left casting a shadow in a right direction, the the shadow also looks pretty fake. But I believe that NASA did land on the moon, but these pics look pretty crap.
shomitb 1 year ago
@shomitb what you think are shadows from rocks and boulders are actually shadows in craters. of course the illuminated inside of the crater must be on the same side as the shadow of the orbiter which is convex, not concave. simple logic.
RufftaMan 1 year ago
though i DO believe we went to the moon. i also think there is more to the story than we've been let in on. i would like to point out that it is interesting that we could get a very good picture of the mars rover landing site looking through an atmosphere and from a much higher alt and from a poorer quality cam than the 2 that have photographed the apollo landing sites. considering the rover is less than a 1/25 the size of apollo and you can even see its com. antenna. hum... interesting indeed.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
Not good enough NASA. These images will not put peoples doubts at ease, once they take images in which most of the LEM is dicernable not the topography of the moon, then it will be a different situation.
Bilderbergz 1 year ago
This is proof that we did it. Only jproblem is, those brain-dead hoaxers aren't going to accept this as proof. Amazing the resilience of stupidity LOL
nosajj12345 1 year ago
Very easy to Photoshop. Not definitive enough you NASA butt-sniffers.
Next...
rinconfaber 1 year ago
One more thing next time you might want to reference your own photos and make sure you don't forget to put in the hills and maybe more foot prints and buggy tracks.
dallasgoldbug 1 year ago
Hey NASA, you need to send your people back to PhotoShop class. I can clone without duplicating pixel patterns better than that blind folded. Run your images through known algorithms to catch your sloppy artists work. What, did you start with a macro shot of a Brownie? Call me if you want a pro to work on your images, I'm REALLY expensive especially for high security clearance work. You know where to find me.
dallasgoldbug 1 year ago
I said that there will be even better pictures in time and that was July 18 2009. Do you have any of the new pictures? These ones kinda suck.
MrJedDoggett 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol, NASA CAN SUCK MY DICK
Deaththrea10 2 years ago
And after 40 years of progress in all fields finally ..... the same crap blurred photos like back in the 60's, how disappointing!
NerdSferatu 2 years ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@NerdSferatu You think were really that advanced now? It will take another 50-100 years before we have the technology to see objects on ET surfaces as accurate as 20 feet. But Man did WALK on the moon.
Francozilla 1 year ago
@NerdSferatu HAUAHUA AUHUA YOU ARE ALL RIGHT BUT AT THE END ALL THIS PROVES THAT MY PHYSICAL OBSERVATION ABOUT THE VIDEOS FROM THOSE FAKE THEORISTS WERE ALL RIGHT! THEY DID LAND ON THE MOON lol
elevenby2 1 year ago
@NerdSferatu Where there is no light there is sucky pictures, unless you have an idea for a flash big enough to light the mooon right before taking the shot.
NaturalGroundation 7 months ago
@NerdSferatu watch?v=LIui93E8kkE Heres your HD photos youve been whinning about
Jordaxe12 5 months ago
Awe man, what a disappointment. Everytime I confront them w/ physics and/or logic they disappear. I wanted to find out more on this sublimator yt spoke of, I understand the concept and it is rational.
I am not so naive to buy n2 astronut or sir, but I am willing to follow yt's POV should he choose to teach it.
cheerdiver 2 years ago
"what a disappointment"
Cheer, the only disappointment I see on YouTube is the appearance of a few delusionals and hoaxtards, who all think they are smarter than 40 years worth of scientists and engineers.
Rob260259 2 years ago 3
Who came up w/ this BS??
They make a claim of seeing foot paths yet none of the moon buggies have been IDed.
When the "good shit" hits the fan, so many modern theories will gain validity, sparking the movement for truth.
cheerdiver 2 years ago
Show me foot paths in Apollo 15, 16, or 17. Oh, you didn't know that they were the only missions which had a rover? Figures.
OTOH, I can see some objects in the LRO photos of those 3 sites which could be the rover. Apollo 12 and 14 are the only ones I know where foot paths can be seen, and they did NOT have a rover.
I know where the rover is in A-16 and I think the arrow is covering it.
If you CTs had any specific knowledge and some common sense, you'd figure these things out for yourself.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
I am well aware of which missions claim to have carried a lunar rover, myth believer. If these are clear enough to see foot paths, it stands to reason buggy tracks would be much easier 2c, and yet where r they. Ru saying the buggies were parked a mile away and not w/i walking distance of the LM??
How was cooling accomplished w/o convection SA?
The astronuts won't even explain that one.
Bring it on, I have physics, not photos to back my claims. Where is a second source of conformation?
cheerdiver 2 years ago
"Bring it on, I have physics, not photos to back my claims."
Ah physics.. then you must know what an eccentric orbit is, right? You are aware that not all the Apollo landing sites were photographed at the same altitude, right? And as such some of the Apollo landing sites were photographed in more detail than others... Of course now that we are settling in to the low orbit, the real party is just about to start ;)
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 6
U r aware convection cooling won't take place in a vacuum, correct?
May be Gama radiation doesn't penetrate 6in of lead in space like it duz on earth, humm.
May be the solar winds are just a myth.
If Ur convinced it happened, it must have huh.
I suppose I am just a nut and my 15yr of formal education was a waste of time??
THE TRUTH WILL OUT (PERIOD)
cheerdiver 2 years ago
"U r aware convection cooling won't take place in a vacuum, correct?"
Uh...... what does that have to do with the topic at hand? So does that mean you don't know what an eccentric orbit is?
"THE TRUTH WILL OUT (PERIOD)"
The truth is being outed with every photo LRO returns to us, and surprise surprise it turns out the truth is pretty much in line with the story they have been telling for 40 years.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 3
Cooling was done by radiation in the case of the rover, the heat was stored in parafin wax while in use and radiated away later.
In the case of the astronauts and the LM cooling was done by a device called a sublimator, which used water vapour to carry heat away.
I think you need to work on your physics.
ytmoog 2 years ago
So we r talking 587cal/gr @ .02bar. Latent heat of vaporization.
Yet sublimation is a solid directly to a gas, humm.
So plz elaborate on this sublimator U speak of, sounds interesting.
Do U mind informing us of how much ice was aboard the LM?
Any1 care to address radiation?
I am well aware of what an eccentric orbit is.
1 pixel per 1/2 meter, sounds like were going to see some clear pictures, NOT!!!
Shouldn't Japan have pics from 03'?
cheerdiver 2 years ago
Ice to water, solid to gas. Ice water sublimates in a vacuum.
Not sure about the LM but the later A7L Apollo suits carried 5 litres of water for cooling. Which could be replenished at the end of each EVA.
"1 pixel per 1/2 meter,"
That is high enough for the purpose of the mission.
As for the radiation, the few hours they were out on EVA were insignificant. And even the limited protection offered by the LM or CM easily stopped the vast majority of the protons in the solar wind.
ytmoog 2 years ago
"If you CTs had any specific knowledge and some common sense, you'd figure these things out for yourself."
If they had any common sense they would wait until the low orbit pictures come out before making any specific claims (Yes, I'm looking at you, Jarrah)
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yes it is bs..watch apollo 16 lro..landing site, there is not even a crater besides the place they faked the landing
joe744 2 years ago
The fact that you don't see a crater is a great example of CT stupidity and blindness. I'll use this in one of my videos.
This is one of the MANY things that make CTs so annoying: you simply ignore evidence that is as plain as day. Yes, by all means look at the Apollo 16 photo at 2:05. What do you think that large round dark area to the right of the LM is? The one with the bright crescent on the far side, like ALL THE OTHER CRATERS HAVE. And it shows the LM's shadow going across it.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
This was just a bunch of BS to quiet some of us up. Epic Fail for Nasa
harooni22 2 years ago
The Chinese moon program plans to salvage all the junk left behind as abandoned property on the surface and sell it to the highest bidder at auction back on Earth Maritime laws apply in Space. I wonder if they'll keep the American Flag?
docfret 2 years ago
That will never happen, the Chinese will never build or have the technology to land on the moon, much less remove heavy objects off the lunar surface. What a joke
bassmanthreeoffour 2 years ago
I see nothing in these photo's?when is it the closer ones are due? Whats the betting we never get them the lro will break down and before anyone starts mouthing off wait and see first.truth is the hardest pill to take.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
Just wait until the good shit comes in. The stuff we've gotten is just brilliant in its clarity. But it's going to plae in to comparison once LRO gets in it's proper orbit (hopefully :p ) But for real, check out Geology Station 6. It's without a doubt one of the most recognisble features on the moon. The hoaxers have no way of explaining how we can see it in both the LRO pics AND the original Apollo pics. Theyll just dismiss it as shops and present no eveidence at all to back up that claim
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
Sir, just Google "geology station 6" and choose the most detailed mapping picture. This map originated some weeks right after the missions' Preliminary Science Report from 1973. Save the picture, because it will be fully acknowledged by the coming LRO photos.
And it will result in some more 'hoaxial suicides' I'm afraid.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Great pics, even at the high orbit, they have exceeded my expectations. Check out the big famous rock at Geology Station 6 during Apollo 17. It has a very distinct "double" shadow, and it's a feature which can be easily seen in the LRO photography. The more we look at the pictures, the more stuff we can see which was visited and photographed by those brave men during the Apollo missions.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
i thought going to the moon was old news
wra7h 2 years ago
ok I agree it is difficult to focus on the moon landing spot bcoz moon keeps moving on the orbit.
blueice8982 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
well .... y dont they focus mother of all telescope(hubble) at the moon and show us the appolo 11 landing site
blueice8982 2 years ago
lol because the Hubble isn't capable of seeing those 6 meter wide landers on the suface of the moon over a quarter a million miles away in Low Earth Orbit. If u read the description the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter isnt in its mapping orbit yet. when it lowers its orbit more to its final mapping orbit future photos of these sites will be 2-3 time better in resolution.
Jordaxe12 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol .... if it can find the billions of stars which are light years apart again its LIGHT YEAR apart, which we cant even see from the earth.
and you are saying it cant focus on a moon landing spot which is 23kmiles away from hubble lol on that
blueice8982 2 years ago
"are saying it cant focus on a moon landing spot which is 23kmiles away from hubble"
thats exactly right. there are actually bigger telescopes on earth than hubble. the advantage of hubble is that it isnt distorted by the atmopshere. the problem is size. the galaxies seen by hubble are immensley massive but are also very faint. the hubble telescope can point in the same directon for days to capture light from these galaxies. the landers are too small, below the limit of hubbles resolution
kooldog98 2 years ago 11
kooldog is right.
Basicly its not how far away the object is but how much light it can take it from that object.
Jordaxe12 2 years ago 2
I agree. Hubble is built to see large objects like galaxies and nebulae at great distances. It was not built to look at the close moon and at a small LM descent stage.
CusterApollo 2 years ago 3
23 thousand miles away?
Try 240 thousand miles away.
and at that distance, Hubble can resolve 1 pixel per 88metres.
So it can't "see" the LMs
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago 3
@blueice8982 Well galaxies are thousands of light years across, and made up of billions of stars. It's not exactly hard to spot one against the blackness of space. The LM decent stages on the other hand are only 4 meters wide, and is on a surface that reflects just as much light as it does.
SilentHunter7 1 year ago
@blueice8982 The parallax in LEO of something billions of light years away is much less than something very near.
CubesForAKid 7 months ago
@Jordaxe12 who needs a satellite to look at the lunar landing sites when we have high powered telescopes here on earth that can do the exact same thing......
andyman564 1 year ago
@andyman564
No we don't. Even the Hubble can't discern objects on the moon less than 280 feet wide. Buy a clue before sticking your foot in your mouth next time.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@Jordaxe12 and when is this supost to happen? its been like a year since u posted this and still nothing
drainmudvayne27 1 year ago
@Jordaxe12 Bullshit.
junglemike72 1 year ago
@Jordaxe12 It's been a year and a half, where are these "Hi-rez" pic keep bragging about. O, thats right THERE ARE NONE!!
We have been baited for 40yr, it's time to wake up people.
cheerdiver 1 year ago
@cheerdiver watch?v=LIui93E8kkE Here they are
Jordaxe12 5 months ago
@Jordaxe12 ohh.. a quarter of a million mile is too much for the mighty Hubble eh! but it can take detailed pictures of nebula's, star clusters, and galaxies many light years away!?
hows that for being frigging fuckety convenient??!
CT2507 1 year ago
@Jordaxe12 isin't it obvious man never walked on the moon. i mean think about it. if they can manage to get photos of the mars landers, which are prob less than 2 meters in diameter, then they really shouldn't have a problem getting some photos of the appolo stages, which are around 6 meters in diameter. yet 40 odd years later we're still waiting. what does that tell you.?
rollyunicorn 9 months ago
@rollyunicorn ...here's pictures of Apollo 15 and the Rover on the right. In hi-def optical stereo. Plus all the rover tracks. Search ......Stereo View of the Apollo 15 Landing Site ....after seeing this you won't have any questions as to the validity of the Moon landings. Only brainwashed sheep still doubt the Moon landings after see this video.
teddysalad65 9 months ago
It's statements like these that show the total ignorance of those with no education, other that a high school degree [maybe] & video game experience, that have no understanding how things work in the analog world, or how certain instruments perform specific task. Like saying, "why doesn't the shuttle fly to the moon, it's much higher tech than Apollo".
Um...not designed for it!!!
Game over! Next question please.
bassmanthreeoffour 2 years ago 2
bassmanthreeoffour
lets test your education level.....
what is amount of energy required for an object to move away from the moon for 6 miles and stay there for 4hrs. consider the gravity of the moon as 4m/s2 and weight of the object on earth as 6000tons.
blueice8982 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't have an education
bassmanthreeoffour 2 years ago