So, if someone goes to the Moon and finds no flag there would it mean the landing was faked?
Yeah, if there's no flag next to the footprints, the rover and the remains of the lunar lander, it was all a hoax.
catching nasa red handed or giving the finger to tinfoils. I'm so excited this might be decided in our lifetime at last
>>7666424
They only put a lander on the moon to trick people into believing the moon landing hoax
>>7666435
Are you seriously implying it's not already decided?
>>7666445
of course, afaik there is no independent source verifying the claims, believing that would not be very scientific at all
>>7666465
Well then you're kind of a moron, aren't you.
>>7666465
>afaik there is no independent source verifying the claims
So you know you can point a telescope at the moon and watch the rover?
>>7666530
>m talking about the flag specifically
Why would they go to the moon and then lie about a flag?
>>7666567
THAT'S RIGHT! No one would ever suspect about a flag!
>>7666419
Not exactly; Apollo 11 accidentally blew the flag over upon takeoff, so we shouldn't expect to find the flag standing there. (Should still be there, though.) The other sites should still have the flags standing.
And it would only disprove the Apollo program's legitimacy if they didn't find the landers and footprints next to it either.
It would prove that the Apollo landings were at least partially covered up, but technically it wouldn't prove that they didn't really happen. Footprints would still prove that the Apollo landers were manned.
>>7666465
You k incorrectly. Lunar probes sent by the Japanese and Indian space programs have found evidence for Apollo, both in terms of verifying that the terrain at the claimed landing sites exactly matches the terrain seen in the footage, and by finding patches of disturbed soil at the lander sites. The Chinese lunar mapper also found traces of Apollo.
And many independent observers, both professional and amateur, in several countries including the Soviet Union, had independent radio and optical observations and tracking of the Apollo missions, so we can at least be certain that a series of crafts matching the description did successfully reach the Moon (except for 13), send back the Apollo audio and footage, and return.
Although it was launched by NASA, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is not operated by it; it is instead under the control of several academic groups. It has actually imaged the sites at fairly high resolution, publishing images in which the shadows of the flags, astronaut footpaths, rover tracks, and the landers are faintly but definitely visible.
Also, although it's indirect evidence, lunar samples that have been analyzed by independent scientists have been dated as extremely old, much older than any known terrestrial rocks; this would be extremely difficult to fake.
>>7666567
Many moon-hoaxers believe that, due to the Van Allen radiation belts, manned travel beyond Earth orbit was not possible at the time, or that NASA's technology simply wasn't good enough to man the Apollo spacecraft.
So, as this particular branch of theorizing goes, NASA pre-recorded the footage, launched the Apollo missions unmanned, and transmitted it back.The Apollo vehicles were either stripped-down empty shells, to save weight, or else used the weight and space supposedly reserved for astronauts and their support for the rocket and autopilot equipment necessary to perform the mission.
(These are, of course, different people from the ones that claim that the Apollo missions couldn't have happened because the Apollo flight computer wasn't good enough.)
>>7666419
Can't we see it with a telescope?
The flag has been bleached white and is probably on the verge of disintigrating because NASA just used a regular nylon flag.
We already have pictures of it. The tinfoils will still believe we never went to the moon even if moon tours become a regular occurance
>>7666596
>Lunar probes sent by the Japanese and Indian space programs have found evidence for Apollo, both in terms of verifying that the terrain at the claimed landing sites exactly matches the terrain seen in the footage, and by finding patches of disturbed soil at the lander sites. The Chinese lunar mapper also found traces of Apollo.
Where can we see this? I remember searching for this a few times but didnt find anything like it.
>>7666687
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Follow the citations.
"Houston, we've got a bogey at two o'clock high."
"Roger that, Apollo. Switching to alpha. Roll eight degrees and begin sequence... "
"Roger, Mission Control. Confirming alpha."
(secret communication channel)
>>7666708
post link of original pic url or its shooped
>>7666714
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagA
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22470HR.jpg
Wonder how colored dots made it into a b/w photo... I'd guess it's a photographic aberration of some sort.
>>7666695
If there is a time to call a wikipedia article bullshit this is it. Yes, I did follow the citations.
>China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified
>has not been publicly identified
>has not been publicly identified
>has not been publicly identified
these are the sources you cite. Pls, I'm not a denier, but seeing this only pushes me in that direction.
>>7666760
I doubt its chromatic abberation. Otherwise there would have to be color bleeding artifacts on certain edges. Also if the the film was black and white, it couldn't possibly have cought lens artifacts or CA, let alone a color so saturated like that.
I think this is intentionally put and a crappy fake. I just don't know whats the point of it.
>>7666695
Japanese space program has produced pic related, which is a 3d reconstruction of the terrain or something. I don't see a moon lander there, and that wiki page doesn't cite anything either.
Indian space program has 2 citations, one of which is dead, 2nd one is this pdf with some blurry-ass pics with some white smears. Could be apollo, but last I checked the moon is not uniform grey so there are probably a lot of alternative explanations.
Like anon said, Chinese space program didn't result in anything either.
Not calling bullshit on the moon landings or anything but if you say there's 3rd party evidence you gotta go link it yourself, because it's not on wikipedia.
>>7666824
pdf in question
>http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_097_05_0630_0631_0.pdf
Or that aliums stole it
>>7666760
>Wonder how colored dots made it into a b/w photo... I'd guess it's a photographic aberration of some sort.
It's not a b/w photo, the moon surface is just not very colorful. Section of the nasa website that links pic in question is called "Magazine 147/A (Color) Rev 12, EVA-1, Frames 22451-22606"
In other parts of that page it says (B&W) instead of (Color) so this pretty clearly refers to the film.
>>7666440
They only landed people on the moon to trick people into believing the hoax
>>7666419
No it just means they landed on the wrong spot
>>7666668
Aha! It was France that went to the Moon and not NASA.
>>7666852
They only put the moon there to land people on it to trick people into believing the hoax.
>>7666766
I was talking about the Indian and Japanese results, actually, since those do in fact have instantly available evidence. Threw in the Chinese claims because I was leaving for work in 5 minutes and couldn't be bothered to look deeper into it.
>>7667941
the thing is when someone has to use claims like this to prove a point on a page named with an agenda it smells really bad from afar.
see
>>7666824
It would be more genuine saying we can't provide clear evidence it happened yet, sorry.
Personally I find it easier to believe the claims of honest and upfront people rather than accepting ready made truths to swallow, but again I might be too much of a skeptic.
Would it be possible to peg a flag to the moon's surface large enough to be seen from Earth?
>>7668556
>It would be more genuine saying we can't provide clear evidence it happened yet
Faking it would have been far more difficult than doing it for real. Don't fall into the "middle option" fallacy. Sometimes one side is just stupid.
>>7668612
You mean with the naked eye? No way. It would have to be hundreds of km across.
>>7667784
lmao
>>7668640
funny how the 1969 landing is widely claimed to be faked when everyone seems to forget that we went there continuously till 1972. So we must have been faking moon landings for three years.
>>7669124
>moon landings from 1969 to 1972
>fast forward
>have to use russian space agency to get anything done
Sure.
>>7670573
>what are budget cuts?
>>7669124
>So we must have been faking moon landings for three years.
that is not a problem though, really
on the other hand, I don't think anyone denies there are rovers on the moon, so we did get spacecrafts there. Which makes me wonder which is the first mission to believe reached the moon?
>>7670686
what if you read them and then fuck off?
Private russian group is sending a probe specillically to photo the landing sites.
It's a lunar version of capture the flag.
>>7666824
The point is, the topography of the Moon was not actually known to that level of accuracy at the time the Apollo photo was taken. So the fact that the photo exactly matches the Lunar terrain at the spot it was taken is indeed evidence.
The Japanese satellite did not actually have sufficient resolution to image the lander. It imaged the slightly different-colored patch of disturbed dust where the lander landed and took off.
And as for the Indian imagery, of course they're blurry-ass smears. The landers are tiny - less than 5 meters wide. The resolution needed to clearly image them is extremely high, comparable to modern spy satellites, and is reached only by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (which gets 0.5 m / pixel)
However, the fact that those spots are in the exact same location as the claimed lunar landings is certainly suggestive.
>>7671453
>So the fact that the photo exactly matches the Lunar terrain at the spot it was taken is indeed evidence.
except that is as much as a photo as pic related. It is a picture made from multiple images no one knows how.
>>7666424
There would be no footprints to put the flag next to!
>>7666419
Even if someone got there and found shit, people would say that's a fucking hoax as well. There's no way to prove these regards wrong, they're retards for a reason.
>>7667786
They only mooned the people to trick them into landing in a hoax
