Moon landing - photographic evidence?

[spineless]

I don't want to start on this topic again, which I know it's been touched before, I just want to know if anybody has ever seen any picture of the american flag stuck on the moon taken from anybody on Earth.

 

I seem to remember reading years ago that during the cold war, USA spy satellites could take pictures of the small letter on a Russian newspaper as it was being read by someone in the Red Square.

 

If at the time, it was possible that kind of image augmentation, how come in this day and age nobody has ever taken a single picture of the flag planted on the Moon? Or any of the lunar rovers being left there?

 

And if satellites like the Hubble can take pictures of the far end of the Universe (I don't care if they're based on colour wavelength, thermographies or digital data recompositions) how come nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever taken that picture?

 

The Moon has got a very week atmosphere and the only wind blowing there is the solar wind, so I presume the flag is still there somewhere.

 

Can anyone shed any light on this? Has anybody seen evidence? Or heard of anyone taking or seeing such picture?

 

Thanks a lot.

[Tony]

The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away. You need more than a lens to take photos there - something like a space rocket would do it.

[Tony Erikson]

I don't want to start on this topic again, which I know it's been touched before, I just want to know if anybody has ever seen any picture of the american flag stuck on the moon taken from anybody on Earth.

 

No, there are none.

 

I seem to remember reading years ago that during the cold war, USA spy satellites could take pictures of the small letter on a Russian newspaper as it was being read by someone in the Red Square.

 

No they couldn't. Even now the best satellites only have a resolution of about 1 metre per pixel.

 

If at the time, it was possible that kind of image augmentation, how come in this day and age nobody has ever taken a single picture of the flag planted on the Moon? Or any of the lunar rovers being left there?

 

Because it's not possible.

 

And if satellites like the Hubble can take pictures of the far end of the Universe (I don't care if they're based on colour wavelength, thermographies or digital data recompositions) how come nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever taken that picture?

 

Because there's no need to waste the valuable and expensive time of the Hubble telescope on things we know happened. Even then I doubt Hubble would see a flag as from where it is the flag would be viewed from above. How thick do you reckon the flag material is. Shall we say about 5mm? Not even Hubble can see something of 5 mm thick from a distance of 200,000 miles.

 

The Moon has got a very week atmosphere and the only wind blowing there is the solar wind, so I presume the flag is still there somewhere.

 

It should still be. Along with the foot prints of the astronauts.

 

Can anyone shed any light on this? Has anybody seen evidence? Or heard of anyone taking or seeing such picture?

 

Thanks a lot.

 

No because to take such a picture from Earth isn't possible.

 

However, they have gone one better. When the astronauts went up there they placed 3 mirrors together on the moon's surface. Every night a laser beam (A very powerful one) is fired at the mirrors. It is quite tough for them to hit the mirrors but they do usually do it. That's how we know exactly how far away the moon is and exactly how far per year we are moving apart. Linky.

 

Edited to add. The mirror project ended in 2009.

[REPO MAN]

The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away. You need more than a lens to take photos there - something like a space rocket would do it.

 

thats correct and the spy satellite would be about 250 miles high approx, bit of a difference !

[spineless]

OK, thanks for that very interesting reply.

 

So, if they couldn't read a paper in the Red Square and they still publicised that information...hmmm, interesting. Would it be the same way the publicised the moon landing by any chance?

 

Also, ballistics is a very tried and tested field of physics research, I'm sure that during all those tests on nuclear weaponry and intercontinental weapons, one of them could be deviated enough as to hit the lunar surface so people from earth can shine nice lasers and make us all believe the hoax.

 

And even more interesting, in your link, when they aim the beam to the moon, they see the "black dot" on screen, which they say is the reflection through a filter, which means they're actually looking at the moon surface.

 

Now, then, I had a camcorder which had a 10x optical zoom but a 30x digital zoom, that is, the limited software in a now 10 year old camcorder, could decompose the pixels on a digitised image and fragmented in a way that could be viewed with 20 times more augmentation. And you tell me it is still not possible? Hmmmm

 

Still, my question stands, anybody seen any proof?

 

Rational arguments as have been given, no proof, no believe, sorry. But nice try.

[Tony Erikson]

OK, thanks for that very interesting reply.

 

So, if they couldn't read a paper in the Red Square and they still publicised that information...hmmm, interesting. Would it be the same way the publicised the moon landing by any chance?

 

Who publicised it?

 

Also, ballistics is a very tried and tested field of physics research, I'm sure that during all those tests on nuclear weaponry and intercontinental weapons, one of them could be deviated enough as to hit the lunar surface so people from earth can shine nice lasers and make us all believe the hoax.

 

They could but they didn't. I imagine the mirrors would break in the resulting collision too. Have you seen what damage an object moving at 20,000 mph can do? Though technically the Apollo rockets, all rockets for that matter were just big ICBMs.

 

And even more interesting, in your link, when they aim the beam to the moon, they see the "black dot" on screen, which they say is the reflection through a filter, which means they're actually looking at the moon surface.

 

No the black dot is likely the bit of the laser that is being reflected back. The rest of the beam is likely being absorbed. They are sort of looking at the surface of the moon but not with visible light. Hence the filter.

 

Now, then, I had a camcorder which had a 10x optical zoom but a 30x digital zoom, that is, the limited software in a now 10 year old camcorder, could decompose the pixels on a digitised image and fragmented in a way that could be viewed with 20 times more augmentation. And you tell me it is still not possible? Hmmmm

 

Still, my question stands, anybody seen any proof?

 

Rational arguments as have been given, no proof, no believe, sorry. But nice try.

 

Your bit about the camcorder is bovine excrement. Read up on the wavelengths of light and why optical light doesn't travel so well through our atmosphere. It's the reason why Hubble is in space. If they really could (according to your thoughts) "decompose the pixels on a digitised image and fragmented in a way that could be viewed with 20 times more augmentation", why the hell do they spend millions on satellites and telescopes if a JVC camcorder will do the job?

 

I see where we're going here. It's pointless continuing the thread. You aren't satisfied with the truth. Good luck finding your picture of the flag on the moon from Earth.

 

Watch a film called Space Race by the BBC.

[marshman]

I know they landed on the moon because I watched them do it, along with millions of other people all over the world. I wasn't allowed to stay up to watch them actually land live . . but I watched as much of the live coverage as I could. I remember my dad telling me we were watching history being made. It was the first time there was TV at breakfast time! And then I watched all the subsequent landings, including the one with the lunar rover, and I collected all the Apollo mission souvenir stickers, which I stuck on my bed. I also remember being very frightened for the astronauts when Apollo 13 went wrong.

James Burke commentating in his giant glasses and wild check trousers, Patrick Moore's revolving monocle, and all those chain-smoking techies at Mission control. Absolutely brilliant.

[Digsy]

OK, thanks for that very interesting reply.

 

So, if they couldn't read a paper in the Red Square and they still publicised that information...hmmm, interesting. Would it be the same way the publicised the moon landing by any chance?

 

Also, ballistics is a very tried and tested field of physics research, I'm sure that during all those tests on nuclear weaponry and intercontinental weapons, one of them could be deviated enough as to hit the lunar surface so people from earth can shine nice lasers and make us all believe the hoax.

 

And even more interesting, in your link, when they aim the beam to the moon, they see the "black dot" on screen, which they say is the reflection through a filter, which means they're actually looking at the moon surface.

 

Now, then, I had a camcorder which had a 10x optical zoom but a 30x digital zoom, that is, the limited software in a now 10 year old camcorder, could decompose the pixels on a digitised image and fragmented in a way that could be viewed with 20 times more augmentation. And you tell me it is still not possible? Hmmmm

 

Still, my question stands, anybody seen any proof?

 

Rational arguments as have been given, no proof, no believe, sorry. But nice try.

 

Even with the best telephoto lens on the planet, from earth you won't get much better than shown in this

vid.

 

I think the moon might be too close for hubble to focus on, don't quote me on that though.

The satellites that have mapped earth are not that far away from our planet, I think we would have to launch a satellite into orbit around the moon to achieve the same level of mapping.

For now though I'll assume that Google moon offers the best resolution we have of the moon at present.

 

Who knows how long it will be before we can map the moon to the extent that we have our own planet, and maybe to the point where we can see footprints on the moon, I don't think it will be in my lifetime though.

As fast as things have progressed over the last century or two, the people of planet earth have not funded, invested time or effort into mapping the whole planet thoroughly, it will be awhile before they do.

When they've finished mapping the earth right down to every pebble then I reckon they'll (meaning whoever funds it, I.E governments/companies/rich tycoons and the like) start thinking of the moon, until then I can't see it happening.

[melthebell]

looks like a very crap attempt at conspiracy theorising

[dosxuk]

Now, then, I had a camcorder which had a 10x optical zoom but a 30x digital zoom, that is, the limited software in a now 10 year old camcorder, could decompose the pixels on a digitised image and fragmented in a way that could be viewed with 20 times more augmentation.

 

Nonsense.

 

Digital Zoom takes the middle portion of your sensor and blows the image up. It doesn't create any more detail than is captured by the optical zoom - you can make exactly the same image from blowing up the image on your computer, and actually degrades the image. Digital zoom as a feature only exists on consumer equipment. Professional equipment doesn't use it, as it's better to just use a bigger lens.

 

Furthermore, many of the high res aerial photographs from the cold war, while described as satellite images, were actually taken from aircraft, such as the SR-71 Blackbird. Being much closer to the ground they could get far higher resolution imagary.