History channel is discussing the conspiracy theories about the moon landing

History channel is discussing the conspiracy theories about the moon landing.

Can't we just look through a telescope at the flag they planted and see proof they were there?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

no, cuz we are in the uk and there's no record of us ever having a clear sky

The flag is pure white now, but you can use lasers and bounce them off the retro reflectors they stuck up there

>Can't we just look through a telescope at the flag they planted and see proof they were there?

no, no telescope has the optical resolution to do so.

However, we can:

zap a laser towards the landing sites of Apollo 11, 15 and 17, where they placed retro-reflectors that bounce light back along the exact same path it came. that can be used to measure distance, and obviously, used to prove we landed.

we can look at the satellite images of the sites, from The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite that's been in orbit around the moon since June 2009. It has produced photos of the surface of the moon, which show the tracks from the lunar rovers and some footprints, as well as the remaining part of each lander (the part that didnt go back up with the crew).

Kek

No telescope on earth is big enough to resolve images that small.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, however, has taken photos from lunar orbit of the landing sites where the bases of the landers, footprint trails, and rover tracks can be observed.

Also a Japanese radar mapping satellite found that the terrain at the Apollo 15 landing site matched what was in the video from Apollo 15. There is no way anyone could have faked the terrain to that level of detail in the very early 70's.

no the moon is flat and facing the opposite direction

>no, no telescope has the optical resolution to do so.
>No telescope on earth is big enough to resolve images that small.
but i can take pix of my tiny dicks even from far away. how is it possible?

not convinced yet. how could >i< use a laser?

always thought it was weird it faced us the same way every fuckin day. no one does THAT, ever

no it does not

?? yeah sure, it's upside down when setting. still weird tho

They took it down a long time ago

>but i can take pix of my tiny dicks even from far away. how is it possible?

the moon is even more remote than the chances of you ever getting laid. Remarkable, but true. Even the largest observatory on earth cannot observe such a tiny thing. Or the flags on the moon, for that matter.

>how could >i< use a laser?

by getting a degree in astronomy, physics, or similar science-based qualification, and managing to then enrol in a PhD in astrophysics with an assignment at the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation. At which point you will have both the equipment, and the scientific literacy to understand both principles and operation of such technology to perform your desired goal.

as it is, you probably lack the intellect, training in the scientific method, penis size, practical experience with rangefinding equipment, or understanding of the principles involved to perform any such test yourself. it would be akin to handing a neolithic age caveman a laptop containing the entire contents of wikipedia, he is simply too illiterate to benefit from it at all. So, likewise, you are too scientifically illiterate to comprehend and utilise the Lunar retroreflector modules installed on the moon's surface.

Me too. The moon is the only celestial body in our solar system that is synced with it's host in this way.
Weird shit, user.
Weird shit.

If the US faked the moon landings, Russia would have called them out on it.

>by getting a degree in astronomy, physics, or similar science-based qualification, and managing to then enrol in a PhD in astrophysics with an assignment at the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation. At which point you will have both the equipment, and the scientific literacy to understand both principles and operation of such technology to perform your desired goal.
conspiracy theories are just so much more .... convenient

Russia and US run by the same cabal. You need to red pill.

>THE EQUIPMENT SHOWS YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE THOUGH

Fun fact: Astronauts left poop in bags on the moon.

Cleansed white by the pure sun

What people saw that day on TV was staged, but we did go to the Moon later and I still believe we go there.

The reason why I believe the Moon landing was staged on TV was back then everything was censored if people back then would've seen one of the astronauts get killed or something was to happen to one of them or if something NASA didn't want people to see up their like maybe proof of ET's it would've ruined NASA.

>the moon is the only celestial body

No, its not. aside from the Moon, Phobos and Deimos are tidally locked to Mars

Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, Thebe, Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are tidally locked to Jupiter

Pan, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, Janus, Mimas, Enceladus, Telesto, Tethys, Calypso, Dione, Rhea, Titan and Iapetus are tidally locked to Saturn

Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon are tidally locked to Uranus

Proteus and Triton are tidally locked to Neptune

And both Pluto and Charon are tidally locked to each other.

You mean SOIL BAGS

Lets colonize that bitch

...

Also the flags were made out of nylon they lucky have been destroyed by solar storms and all the other shit that happens on the Moon.

so why didn't they take bigger flags?

>You mean SOIL BAGS
NASA called them "emesis bags" and they were placed with other items into larger "jettison bags" that were left on the lunar surface.

The gooks or Russians knocked our flag down a long time ago.


Also no telescope to see that far existed at the time. Im not even sure it does now

Harder to stage the lunar landings in 1969 than it was to actually go to the moon:
youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU

>
no, no telescope has the optical resolution to do so.
>No telescope on earth is big enough to resolve images that small.
Then how the hell was that Apollo-14 pic made?From a satellite in Earth orbit?
They can spot planets moving in front of stars light years away, but they can't see small objects that are relatively way, way closer?

because to be observable from earth in even the best land-based telescope, you would need a flag perhaps 3-4 times the size of a football field. Which would certainly not fit into a lander module...

plus, NASA was populated by intelligent people. It never ocurred to them that, in just half a century, the population would have de-evolved to such an extent that people would believe that a 25-billion dollar project involving more than 40,000 people which was tracked by radio telescopes in the US, UK, Russia and Australia could be fake. They never imagined there would be any purpose to such an insanely vast flag which would serve no scientific purpose.

>3rd post
>no, no telescope has the optical resolution to do so.

Read much, faggot. You fucking worthless piece of human fecal matter.

>Then how the hell was that Apollo-14 pic made?>From a satellite in Earth orbit?

From as you'd have learnt if you read what was said:
>The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite that's been in orbit around the moon since June 2009.

Its a satellite which orbits the moon at an altitude of about 25 kilometres.
or, to put it another way, about 384,075 km closer than any LEO satellite.

You're trying too hard. Too much stupid in your post. Obviates the troll.

Well that's what I figured. I'm just wondering though, when they can find something so far away, how come it is so hard to see things so much closer? Are most of the discoveries of distant objects like planets light years away also taken from these satellites in orbit? Or is something different about the logistics of spotting an object on the moon that makes it a different issue for asronomers to see it?

>They can spot planets moving in front of stars light years away, but they can't see small objects that are relatively way, way closer?

Exoplanets are detected by an entirely different process - A star's light is relatively constant. however, if a planet crosses the face of the star, it blocks a little of the light. Like the eclipse last week, if you remember.

Space observatories like Kepler operate not by looking for a planet, but by looking for the amount of light coming from those stars dimming for a few hours then brightening. if it repeats itself every... 10 days say, for the same period of time, then we know there's something orbiting the star every 10 days. How much it goes dimmer lets you calculate how big it is.

so far we have only managed to observe one exoplanet by observation from the ground, from the Magellan Adaptive Optics telescope in Arizona. And that planet is a vast gas giant around a star called "beta Pictoris b", taken in 2014.

Here it is. Yes. that 5-pixel blob of brighter blue. That's it. That's the grand total of earthbound observation. a dot this big - . - on a 30 megapixel image. that's the cutting edge of space science. Hardly what you imagined, was it?

Seriously? I'm an uneducated idiot, but even I get the difference in size between a 3 foot flag and a 3000 mile diameter sun. Damn, was I just trolled?

guess that makes me an educated idiot, for enjoying explaining things about astronomy, regardless of if its a troll, or just a really dim question.

>no telescope has the optical resolution
>No telescope on earth is big enough to resolve images that small.
Why can I see my neighbor's flag on google earth?

Cool science man.
I pretty much knew that was how they find these things. I was curious that we can see that little speck of shadow cross a star from Earth but we can't see the little bit of trash we left on the moons surface. But I suppose even though it's so much closer, the shit we left on the moon is still much smaller and harder to see? Also no benefit of it being directly "backlit" by the light of a star.

>Why can I see my neighbor's flag on google earth?

because google earth's images are not taken from a telescope on the moon, you fucking retard.

google earth images are combination of low earth satellite images, which are taken from about 450km/300 miles up, with a satellite which has the optical resolution of a 30-foot long telephoto lens. That imagery is then augmented by Google through the use of high altitude photography taken from an aircraft at about 3000m/10,000 feet.

If you think that an image from 3km above the surface is the same as getting an image 384,000 km away, then you probably need to go back to school and listen this time.

I was referring to the troll, not the astronomer. You're doing God's work, spreading knowledge. like you.

> But I suppose even though it's so much closer, the shit we left on the moon is still much smaller and harder to see? Also no benefit of it being directly "backlit" by the light of a star.

answered it yourself.

a flag, less than 3 feet high - hell, a lander module that's 13 feet square, from a distance of 384,000km. Three hundred and eighty four thousand kilometres. about quarter of a million miles.
its literally like trying to take a photograph of a penny balanced on top of the Empire State Building from downtown Los Angeles, in terms of relative size to distance.