If we have landed on the moon??

Question

Then where are the pics of the flag we left on it???

Wouldnt you think that there would be pics taken from above of the flag??

If you have a link to some pics please send them cause its so hard for me to believe that we actually went to the Moon back then- what do you think????

Answer 1

I find quantum mechanics very difficult to believe in.  It is very strange.  Yet I accept the word of experts who are much smarter and far more educated than I am.  Challenging these people would be madness since I have nothing better to offer and my highest math consists of college algebra and trig.  And my physics credentials are equally weak.  

You, on the other had have found the moon landings difficult to believe in despite millions of people who lived through that great adventure and can attest to its reality, libraries of information, and the impossibility of hiding a 40 story moon rocket.  You have chosen to believe people with no academic credentials, whose only skills are lying and distrust of facts.

I suggest that the path you have chosen is more FUN than my own blind acceptance of authority: You get to stick it to the MAN, but you listen only to the voices of madness.  And outside your tiny circle of friends, no one takes you seriously.

Answer 2

we went to the moon. sorry im a sucker for conspiracy's and all that but come on.

Answer 3

Nasa faked the apollo missions simply because it was too hard to go to and return safely. radiation and multiple problems in the rocket and lem designs.

nasa could have sent a probe by the moon and take pics of the 6 landing sites which they had left rovers lem bases and flags. but they never do. Why? because we never landed on the moon.

Answer 4

Why would there be pictures of the flag taken from above? The flag measured about three feet across. Where do you think they could have taken such images from? The orbiting spacecraft was about 69 miles up. Can you see something three feet across from sixty miles away? We are 240,000 miles away. Nothing on Earth can resolve something that small from that distance.

So why would pics of the flag from above be better and more useful than the pics taken from the surface?

Answer 5

The Russians could send a probe to land and come back with samples, and send a rover they drove 7 miles, the US could land probes on the Moon, and have astronauts orbit the Moon--but you think landing and coming back were impossible?

Answer 6

Right...and even when we do get photographs of Apollo hardware on the surface of the moon, the idiots will just say those pictures were faked too.

You can't win with wackos.  All you can do is mock them.

Finally, you might consider your own intellectual capacity for not realizing that the descent stage of the lunar module, and the three rovers we left there, are MUCH LARGER than the flags we left behind.  In other words, you don't even know enough about the missions to know what was left behind that could be seen.  There's a really big clue there for you...if you care to get it.

Of course, you could take a trip to the McDonald Observatory in Texas and watch the folks there, in real time, bounce a laser beam off the reflectors that we also left on the surface of the moon but, gosh, you might really start learning a lot about the Apollo missions.

Answer 7

taken from where? with what?

do you actually have a clue what you're talking about?

Answer 8

They have pics...and we did land on the moon come on I can't believe you dont believe that.

Answer 9

Some people will not be convinced, until lunar rovers take photographs of the evidence of that which Apollo left behind - which is a valid query.

I have watched all of the documentaries (5 or 6?) which present the case that the Apollo Moon missions were faked - and what they present is credible - and they present a lot of reasons why.  One documentary tries to rebuke them, and does it rather successfully - but it can't for all the reasons why.

Adding to this confusion - is the claim that Apollo 11 was faked - for obvious reasons.  No one ever done it before, and there were so many untried and untested equipment which could possibly not work perfectly on the day.

And that later missions were genuine.

The documentary "The Missing NASA Transmissions" show clearly that NASA would lie to the world, and not release information that raises more questions than answers.  This is material relating to the early Space Shuttle missions in which a person could downlink the video material they took in those early missions.

History shows that the public is often not allowed access to information as such - and would have us believe in something else instead - a myth.  This is clearly illustrated with religion - who has done this for centuries (would have the public and believers alike, believe in unbelievable things).  Even in our modern times - we can see the clear manipulation of information - for desired goals.  Take for instance the US invasion of Iraq --- It was just after 9-11, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, nor were the claimed Weapons of Mass Destruction ever found in Iraq.

www.figu.org (English Discussion Board) has the information which says that Apollo 11 was faked ... and if you are interested in learning more about the Billy Meier information, then there is the DVD "The Silent Revolution of Truth" which presents an excellent summary, with the evidence/proof available for it.

Answer 10

NASA has published lots of images that were taken from the Moon.  But they would have published them even if they hadn't gone, because that's what people would expect, and billions of dollars were spent.

But if they really went, then taking pictures from above the flag would have been very difficult.  It can only be done during takeoff from the Moon. In a real takeoff, the astronauts would be really, really busy.

In this age of Photoshop (or the free program The Gimp), it's easy to think that in 1969 it was hard to doctor photos.  News flash.  Some of the oldest surviving photos from the late 1800's are doctored.  In fact, film was so slow that a portrait could take an hour or more of exposure. They were often taken outside so that sunlight would help speed it up. But, in processing, they'd want the subject in front of some other scene, so they'd do some darkroom work to get it there.  So, most of the pictures were altered in some way.

So, if photos aren't good evidence that NASA landed on the moon, what is?  Ham radio operators of the day could tell if a signal was coming from the moon or from the ground.  These people have no incentive to lie, and tons of incentive to expose others.  Also, professionals doing radio astronomy from other countries had this ability.  No conspiracy would have worked.  And it would have been cheaper to land on the moon.

Answer 11

Huh?  There are lots of pictures of the flag from each and every mission, still and video.

Do you think there should be pictures taken today?  You apparently have a very weak grasp of the scale involved.  There is no telescope in existence which could show something as small as the lunar lander, never mind the flags.

It happened, get over it.

Answer 12

Has anyone noticed how skeptics use an argument to "prove" a previous statement, so their whole post becomes self confirming?  And it is all based on that first erroneous statement!

Answer 13

At the time of the announcement by JFK, many experts felt that this would be beyond our technical capability. The biggest problem was radiation. The solar flairs were particularly bad during the alleged trips to the moon, and the shielding was woefully inadequate in the space suits and the space craft. Even today, our manned missions are in low earth orbit. The radiation in space is a killer. The weight of shielding makes the mission to the moon impossible even with today's technology.

What I was waiting to see were crystal clear pictures of the stars. The moon has no atmosphere to interfere with pictures, so the pictures of the stars would have been the most spectacular and clear view into the universe at that time. The explanation for no star shots is: "just neglected to do it." The lighting of moon landing pictures also show multiple light sources, however, there was no auxiliary lighting taken. Radiation would have likely ruined the film anyway, because the camera had no extra shielding.

It's amazing what the public will buy. The laws of physics don't seem to be relevant to many people. We do have a compliant media, don't we.

Answer 14

If you think we didn't land on the moon go die and give me back my oxygen

Answer 15

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/07....

http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.c...

http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/...

http://www.evworld.com/images/apollo11_s...

http://www.spacewallpapers.net/wallpaper...

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lun...

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Compo...

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippspho...

Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1B2UPkel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MunPi3ifq...

It is obviously not fake. Hopefully this convinced you to think other wise. If we can make a space station in outer space, and have guys fly around in space, don't you think we can land a man on the moon? It is just the same as landing a man on Earth, just diferent variables, also if we can land a robot with sensitive equipment, safley on another planet, don't you think we can send a man to the moon? The conspiracy theories just don't make sense.

Answer 16

I am a 77 year retired NASA Eng and I can not believe that anyone could think this...Do U think that 10,000 top Eng could be made to lie about this.