Undebatable PROOF that we are not being told everything about the moon

reply to post by mckyle

You can see the Moon exceptionally well with a half-decent telescope. But if you're talking about seeing artificial objects with one, then, no.

Not a hope in Hades - unless of course we're talking about observatory-grade scopes. How much money have you got on you? ;-)

Right, for sounding like a believer in the offical moon story (no offence) You are kind of asking My question.

Isn't this sort of proving the point? If one could zoom in on some leftover Apollo parts or some old Soviet stuff, or holy crap, even the U.S. flag "waving" in the "breeze". Why don't we have pics of them? I'm sure I don't have the money to rent some time at the Arecibo, but Someone Does!

It was pointed out that the earth maps are easy because we have the satalites, planes etc. But we also have the Arecibo and so many others. I mention the Arecibo because as it turns out, last November some studens right here at UW Madison had time on the Arecibo. apparently it comes with the class. They didn't point it at the moon however, They used it to actually Discover A Galaxy! cool
Anyway since we already have these telescopes and getting some great moon shots would seem reletively easy Why hasen't it been done? There may not be an enormous amount of money in some moon shots, but it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" (i know) to know that there must certainly be a market I mean postcards with the flag on the moon or whatever other artifacts. Why don't we have them?

:Fixed some spelling, probably left some mistakes, I try and if you can figure out what I mean, good, no need to let me know it's spelled wrong

[edit on 3/5/2009 by AlienChaser]

Originally posted by iWork4NWO

Originally posted by Angus123
Well, I never did believe we got the entire moon story from Nasa. But that aside, one explanation may simply be that the satellites mapping the Earth from Earth orbit are very near the surface of the planet as compared to how far they are away from the surface of the moon. It only takes a few minutes really to reach Earth orbit, but to get to the moon takes something like 3 days. So the distance is much greater.

Given the lesser gravity satellites orbiting the Moon should be able to fly a lot closer to the surface, no?

Yeah, that def makes sense. But I'm not a physicist, so I don't know the mechanics of it.

Isn't this sort of proving the point? If one could zoom in on some leftover Apollo parts or some old Soviet stuff, or holy crap, even the U.S. flag "waving" in the "breeze". Why don't we have pics of them? I'm sure I don't have the money to rent some time at the Arecibo, but Someone Does!

It's not an optical telescope. I don't think you can "see" the kind of stuff we're looking for with a radio telescope..

reply to post by AlienChaser


There is no telescope on Earth that is capable of showing any of the things left on the Moon by Earth missions, and Hubble is not capable of that either.

Arecibo is a radio telescope, so it's no use to see things on the Moon or anywhere else.

There is no telescope on Earth that is capable of showing any of the things left on the Moon by Earth missions, and Hubble is not capable of that either.

I wonder if it's even possible to build such a telescope, given the properties of light..

In 1961, Kennedy announces we are going to the Moon within the decade (within 9 years!!!).

We did achieve this and actually went to and landed on the Moon in 1969. It took only 8 years to go from no Moon mission to landing there.

In 2009, we are planning to go back to the Moon - in 2020!

Cooommmeee oooonnnnnn! 40- years of scientific advancement and several Moon landings in the pocket, and it still takes us 11 years to go back?

Cooommmmee ooonnnnn! Give me a break!

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

I thought that google already had the moon mapped out?

No, nevermind, that was NASA. I can't remember the name of the program, but we DO have the capability to look at the moon.

Anyone remember the name of that Program? It is downloadable at NASA's website. In fact, there was a thread about it not too long ago. (can't find it in a search)...

Yes

I'm sure there was something, but I can't remember either. It was a thread about strange anomalies on the moon and the poster gave a bunch of directions to differnt things. I'll try and find it.

It was a cool program but as I remember it would not have zoomed in enough for the purpose of this thread

reply to post by king9072


Why do people never accept any facts placed in front of them.
They always insist their facts are the true facts based on, well that
can't be right. And proof something is aloof is based on, it doesn't seem
right to me.

Yes we didn't go to the moon, All countries including russia was in on
the scam. And all the Scientists in all Coutries were all supporting the
Hoax. That's what you want hear.

And the claims of Alien Artifacts on the moon is even more baseless and
ridiculous.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
As it turns out I was wrong about NASA having a Google Earth type program available. Wrong celestial body. It was Mars.

Would it be World Wind that you're thinking of? It has the Moon, Mars, Venus and Jupiter.

Here's one to chew on... Why do they have Mars mapped sufficiently enough to allow the user to do a fly-by of the entire planet, and not the moon? The moon is relatively close to Earth in comparison.

Well I think you can do fly-by's on the Moon with World wind. But there haven't been many missions to the Moon for a long while, until recently, unlike Mars which has had a lot of orbiters going there for the past decade.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we have a base up there ourselves. I mean, it only makes sense to put one there.

There isn't one there now, but they plan on starting one when we start going back.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by king9072

 

Why do people never accept any facts placed in front of them.
They always insist their facts are the true facts based on, well that
can't be right. And proof something is aloof is based on, it doesn't seem
right to me.

Yes we didn't go to the moon, All countries including russia was in on
the scam. And all the Scientists in all Coutries were all supporting the
Hoax. That's what you want hear.

And the claims of Alien Artifacts on the moon is even more baseless and
ridiculous.

I think people ask "why" or "how" far too seldom these days and find that they accept pretty much everything they've been told by the media or some politician as a fact.

I mean just look how many people believe in a god (in one form or another). That's #ing ridiculous. No evidence what so ever has ever been put forth for the existence of god and pretty much all supernatural tales of for example the bible have been ridiculed by science. Do believers care? No, they don't. Religion is the greatest hoax ever! Mind rape a human being at an early enough age and it's yours to exploit for the rest of its life.

Now about the Moon hoax. I don't think it's that far out of a claim that man never went there. A healthy skeptic wants concrete evidence. It's kind of like 9/11. It's very hard to believe that the US government could # up that badly. Buildings built out of steel and concrete collapsing because of fires.. well that just pushes the whole thing over the edge. And then all the things that followed. Give me a break. False flag operation! American Reichstag!

[edit on 5-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

reply to post by jra


"Would it be World Wind that you're thinking of? It has the Moon, Mars, Venus and Jupiter. "

Yes, that's it. Thanks. Man, I've been racking my brain trying to remember that.

reply to post by iWork4NWO


O.K I get it but I did find this about hubbles capability.

The best telescope built by humanity to date is the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) currently in orbit around Earth. This telescope has a maximum resolution of 0.014 arc seconds. If the HST were aimed at the Moon, it would be able to resolve objects no smaller than 27 meters (88.5 feet) across. Each of the Apollo landers is only about 5 meters (16.5 feet) across and much too small to be seen by Hubble. An example of the resolution that the HST can provide is shown in the following image taken of the crater Copernicus.

In the source there is a picture of a closup of the moon, but as it says above is too limited for what we are after.
It goes on to say this

A European spacecraft is currently doing just that. The probe SMART-1 is now conducting a detailed photographic survey of the Moon with high-resolution cameras capable of clearly seeing the Apollo landing sites. European scientists intend to use these and other sites of lunar landings by unmanned probes to help calibrate the instruments aboard SMART-1.

Smart1 launched in 2003 and photos were released starting the end of 2005, Aerospace web claims that these photos will prove the landing, or the hoax.

Source aerospaceweb

Here it is 2009 and we have some excellent pics from smart1 but yet there are no shots to prove or disprove the landing. I wonder why not.

ESA Just like NASA. Promises Promises.

I Promis that when we go "back" to the moon we will all have plenty of great postcards

All I want to see is a image of the moon with the american flag on it..... Until I see that proof through like a google earth image I will not believe we have landed on the moon at all.....

reply to post by AlienChaser


ESA publishes very little information, when compared with NASA.

Originally posted by jheated7
All I want to see is a image of the moon with the american flag on it..... Until I see that proof through like a google earth image I will not believe we have landed on the moon at all.....

After all these years, those nylon flags have probably disintegrated by now. And why would it take a "google earth" like image to prove to you that we landed on the Moon? It's more than likely that image will come from NASA or another space agency anyway, so I doubt that you'd find it convincing.

What do you think about the 800lbs of samples that were brought back? Soil, rock and core samples that are clearly not from Earth. I think that's pretty good evidence that we went.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yes, I noticed when I looked around the site that there's not a whole lot there. then again NASA has lots more material.
It was really to emphasise the question as to why there are no photos of the landing wreckage even after so many opportunities.
LRO is set to go up in May 09 but it looks like a lower polar orbit and I suspect that we will not get the juice. It is NASA after all, thats why I was hoping something from the ESA might show a pic or from Japans lunar mission, or Chinas.

You would think that China would love to discredit the moon landing especially since they are in a position to try and be the real first moon landing. I wonder if that doesn't lend a teeny tiny bit of credibility to Americas version.

I'll have to watch some footage and try and imagine those rickety craft and play the rover tapes at half speed to remind myself of my position. perhaps I'll re-think my position, I've been known to flip flop on this particular issue.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by Exopolitico
It makes you wonder where the 1.8 million images taken by Clementine in the 90s are? We were only allowed to see less than 10% of those images.

Based on the Clementine Lunar Image Browser I'd say well over 95% of all the photographs are available online. As for the missing images, it's likely they weren't transmitted properly to Earth and / or the files were lost between ground receiving stations and mission operations centers. For those that think this is a conspiracy in and of itself, realize that a number of these missing images are on the side tidally locked facing the Earth (AKA the "light side" of the moon). Therefore every academic observatory the world over would also have to be complicit in this cover-up. That's pretty unlikely if you ask me. Heck, head to the nearest public observatory and look for yourself. Sure you won't get the same resolution that Clementine had, but it should be enough to detect artificial light sources in dark areas on the surface of the moon.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by Xtraeme]

In 1994, the US Navy sent a satellite called Clementine to the moon to image it for two months. During that time, the satellite took 1.8 million images. Out of those images, 170,000 images were made available to the public. Did you say we can see 95%? You know, its comments like this that make me wonder if they hire people to post on here and try there best to keep things covered up.

Try this.

First, go to the following site:

www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

Now here are the settings:
Desired Resolution: 1 pixel = 1 kilometer
- Image Size = 768x768
- Latitude = -70 (as in minus 70)
- Longitude = 137
Leave everything else alone and click the “Use lat/long” button.

Tell me what you see?

Now, if anyone makes any BS excuses , then that will ensure me that they are hired in some way, or are working for the people covering this.

reply to post by Anubis3.14

Whoa!
Are you saying this is landing wreckage?
Cause I'm not seeing landing wreckage. More like umm WTF
Do you have an explanation or opinion?
What are those coordinates from, I mean how did you find that and if its censored why release it at all



[edit on 3/5/2009 by AlienChaser]

reply to post by Anubis3.14


Use the newer version of the browser (the one posted by Xtraeme) or go to the site I posted some posts ago and see for yourself.

Some of the areas that look "censored" on that older version of the browser are available on the newer and on the site I posted, some are not, probably because they were never photographed.

reply to post by ArMaP

Use the newer version of the browser (the one posted by Xtraeme) or go to the site I posted some posts ago and see for yourself.

How do I get to those same coordinates?
I went back to you link but I think Im lost can you show me how?