Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Actually it is your claim and that blog's quote is well, a blog. I asked for a specific photo example for a reason. The details are very important. Now provide it or retract the claim.

Last Edited by Astromut on 07/27/2013 02:33 AM

no I wont retract, I stand by the statement..i'll retract it when u can show me a photo of the flag

ok Astro appreciate u trying and don't mean any argument just questioning what doesn't seem right..here is the quality type of photo I wanna see of the flag

[link to lightsinthedark.wordpress.com]

look at that quality

wont be lng anyway, the truth will come out whatever it is :)

[link to www.space.com]

the question is what will the world think of the U.S. if it is a hoax..i would expect it to be a massive gamechanger, I kinda hope it isn't a hoax

Jay-Z spotted at 18:11. OMG he is everywhere in old movies and clips!!!!!

here's some more Hollywood action :)

here's some more Hollywood action :)

[link to www.youtube.com]

you gotta feel sorry for astro, goin to university n studying astrophysics all them years (supposedly) and yet not smart enough to comprehend basic physics a 6th grader understands.

Living your whole believing in such a hoax, defending it even lol its tragic really

Except when you use only the surface as a reflector your initial signal has to be more powerful and your return is smaller and more diffuse. When you use a reflector, even though only a small part of the beam hits it, you can use a weaker signal and you get a distinct, more precise return.

The pics on that blog that approach the claimed resolution are NOT from space but from airplanes.

So is doing nothing but being a troll.

I showed you a photo of the flag, now you're trying to move the goalposts back.

I doubt that very much.

I doubt that even more.

To who? You? You weren't even aware of Dawes' limit.

Rhea has a diameter of about 1,528 km. It's about 886 pixels across at the full resolution of that photo. That's a spatial resolution of 1.72 km per pixel. So what you're actually saying (without realizing it) is that you want to see a photo of the flag on the moon with a resolution of 1.72 km per pixel. Ok. Here you go:
[link to farm4.staticflickr.com]
In this image the moon is about 4270 pixels wide. The moon's diameter is about 3474 km so the image has a spatial resolution of about 0.814 km/pixel, twice as good as the Cassini photo of Rhea. Yeah, good luck seeing the flag...

Rhea crater? I don't know where you got that name..i mean the photo 2nd from the bottom on that link

The 13-mile (21-km) wide Giordano Bruno crater on the Moon’s far side was recently imaged by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

[link to lightsinthedark.wordpress.com]


and no Astro you haven't shown any photo of the flag, you showed a photo of what could be anything. definitely did not show a flag..try again?

nope, I only asked you for 1 thing, a photo that shows the American flag is on the moon..you cant show it because there's no flag there

unless you have something to contribute to the debate then why comment, unless you are the troll? cos that's what a troll does, comments crap with no relevance to the topic

The Giordano Bruno crater image is from LRO, it's the same satellite that took the images of the Apollo sites! 21 km wide eh? It's about 880 pixels across in that image. That's about 23.8 meters per pixel. That's not even enough resolution to see the LM descent stage, let alone the flag. The images of the Apollo landing sites from LRO show that they're real, they agree perfectly with the images taken by the astronauts during the Apollo program.
[link to blogs.discovermagazine.com]
You are a troll, plain and simple.

You certainly are the expert on that subject, aren't you stalker?

What can I say? I learned from the best, IDW/A.A -- you, yourself.

nope your'e the troll, regurgitating the same crappy photos that show nothing besides the fact that you are delusional

a dot on a screen isn't evidence, wouldn't the colour at least stand out n so be a red pixel, u have a photo of a rock or something..who knows

Whine, whine, whine, but nothing to back up your whiney complaints with. You set the goalpost at "seeing" the flag on the moon. Well they've done that. That was the goalpost you set and it has been met.

A dot on a screen that is exactly where the flag should have been, next to another slightly fainter dot from the flag's shadow, is indeed evidence, particularly in context of all the other Apollo equipment surrounding it in the image. You set the goalpost (an unnecessary arbitrary one at that) at an image of the flag, that is what that is whether you want to deny it or not. It's a monochrome imager (as all the best astronomical CCDs in the world are), there is no color.

you say a lot but make no sense, argue with the video it smashes any idea that they walked on the moon..it was a hoax and you was fooled haha shattering 4u, or you're a paid troll defending the myth..it was pretty shonky work lookin back at it all, laughable

[link to www.youtube.com]

That's not even a rebuttal. Thanks.

oh, i'm sure ole Ed is always on the moon...

or half way there...

making sure no one else is...

half the world is already questioning... but people have retirements invested in this rickety corrupt perversity we call a system....

nothing will be done now that the entire economy is leveraged and can be bottomed out at will...

seems to me they might have gone a different way... NASA is just a smokescreen for some deep occult shenanigans...

what does douglas dietrich say?

Ben Rich already said they can do anything you can imagine, at skunkworks...

what could be holding them back?

same idiot shills I see...

we well know that astro is a stupid liar bot...