Apollo moon landing remnants ?

[alt]

Hi. I was just reading a thread on the distance of the moon from the Earth on another thread, and it reminded me of a converstion with a guy a long time ago, that I haven't had resolved - even in my own mind.

This guy was a 'moon landing hoax' type. I was pointing out to him the absolute stupidity in thinking that all those Apollo missions were hoaxed, but he then asked me;

"Has there been any photographs taken of any of the equipment left behind ? Surely they could easily focus the Hubble telescope, or some telescope from the space station or something, to take photos of some of the equipment left behind - of which there would be a great deal ? And surely if they did that, they would debunk the many moon landing hoax theories quick smart ? So why haven't they done that ?"

I was quite stumped by that, because in truth, I don't recall ever having seen such photos, and it does seem a sure fire way to debunk said hoax theory. I've checked out the NASA info, etc, where they provide some excellent replies to the hoax theories, but you would think that they would publish some photos to cap it all off ?

Can anyone help me with this ? Perhaps a link to some photos ?

 

[phyzguy]

In fact, they did take photos in 2009 from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Check out this site - you can even see the paths where the astronauts walked.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The problem with these types is that they will just say that these photos are hoaxes as well.

 

[alt]

In fact, they did take photos in 2009 from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Check out this site - you can even see the paths where the astronauts walked.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The problem with these types is that they will just say that these photos are hoaxes as well.

Thank you for the quick response. Looks pretty tight to me. As it happens, I'm seeing the guy on the weekend, and am printing the page out for him right now.

 

[Borek]

Surely they could easily focus the Hubble telescope, or some telescope from the space station or something, to take photos of some of the equipment left behind - of which there would be a great deal ? And surely if they did that, they would debunk the many moon landing hoax theories quick smart ? So why haven't they done that ?

Because they are aware of the fact that those believing in hoax won't believe in pictures (classifying them automatically as a next hoax stage), and there are many much more interesting objects to take pictures of. After all NASA knows that these remnants and traces are there, so they don't have to check. In the case of LRO its task was to take as many as detailed pictures of the Moon surface as possible - so the landing sites were photographed in the process.

 

[alt]

Deleted (got my east / west mixed up)

 

[mgb_phys]

Does anyone else feel that the moon landing hoaxers lead you to believe that Columbus's landing in America was faked?

 

[Borek]

Does anyone else feel that the moon landing hoaxers lead you to believe that Columbus's landing in America was faked?

It wasn't?

 

[alt]

The problem with these types is that they will just say that these photos are hoaxes as well.

Actually, having spent the last few minutes on that site reading the guest posts, I see exactly waht you mean.

 

[Pattonias]

The guy may also believe that the Earth is flat simply because he hasn't been around it to see. People who believe these sorts of things generally hold on to them no matter what. If you were to take him to the moon to see the objects he could always say, "Well, you may have just put that here to fool everyone." At which point you tell him that he has figured it all out and if he tells anyone else his life would be put in great danger.

 

[Janus]

"Has there been any photographs taken of any of the equipment left behind ? Surely they could easily focus the Hubble telescope, or some telescope from the space station or something, to take photos of some of the equipment left behind - of which there would be a great deal ? And surely if they did that, they would debunk the many moon landing hoax theories quick smart ? So why haven't they done that ?"

The Hubble has a a resolution of 0.1 arcsec, which at the distance of the Moon works out to a maximum resolution of 186 meters. So even the Hubble couldn't see the equipment left behind on the Moon. That's why we have to send probes like the LRO to map the surface better.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The Hubble has a a resolution of 0.1 arcsec, which at the distance of the Moon works out to a maximum resolution of 186 meters. So even the Hubble couldn't see the equipment left behind on the Moon. That's why we have to send probes like the LRO to map the surface better.

This.

In a nutshell, there's no way using pictures to "prove" to a hoaxer that we actually landed on the moon, because any picture they haven't actually taken themselves is suspect, and even ones they take themselves might be suspect if they're not sure what they're taking a picture of.

For VERY thourough debunking of moon hoax theories, I would recommend visiting http://www.clavius.org/" .

 

[Janus]

This.

In a nutshell, there's no way using pictures to "prove" to a hoaxer that we actually landed on the moon, because any picture they haven't actually taken themselves is suspect, and even ones they take themselves might be suspect if they're not sure what they're taking a picture of.

In fact, I'm sure that that is a certain percentage that you could fly to the Moon to show them the artifacts in person, and they would believe that that had been faked.

 

[nismaratwork]

People who believe in these conspiracies tend to be:

1. Mentally Ill.
2. Controlling, with a need for things to "make sense"
3. Running on limited cognitive resources.

This is rarely simple naivete that can be cured with anything less than actually sending these people to the moon. In fact, these same people are probably willing to believe that such an experience can be faked. They do want, or are not able to accept reality.

 

[Pattonias]

I wonder if any kind of tendency toward conspiracy theory can be found among animals in nature. Ants?

 

[nismaratwork]

I wonder if any kind of tendency toward conspiracy theory can be found among animals in nature. Ants?

Yes, but the big furry things with the long mouths really DO want to eat you. :)

 

[pallidin]

Interesting. I normally don't pay attention to "moon landing hoax threads", but this incited good info on the resolution capabilities(or should I say limitations) of the Hubble telescope.

 

[alt]

Interesting. I normally don't pay attention to "moon landing hoax threads", but this incited good info on the resolution capabilities(or should I say limitations) of the Hubble telescope.

I thought so too. And it would be interesting to eventually see higher resolution photos from NASA as stated.

 

[Borek]

I think you have not paid attention - there will be no higher resolution images, as Moon landing was a hoax.

 

[alt]

I think you have not paid attention - there will be no higher resolution images, as Moon landing was a hoax.

That fallacy however, (that it was a hoax), would not preclude higher resolution images.

 

[Pattonias]

Don't worry, I'll get on Blender and make you some higher resolution photos.

 

[alt]

Don't worry, I'll get on Blender and make you some higher resolution photos.

How are they coming along ?

 

[Pattonias]

How are they coming along ?

lol, I haven't actually done it, but someone with enough time and patience could probably pull off a fairly convincing picture.

 

[alt]

lol, I haven't actually done it, but someone with enough time and patience could probably pull off a fairly convincing picture.

Lol .. I was ribbing you ribbing me :-)

So it seems hi res photos or lack thereof is not as important as your belief in the moon landing hoax. As was said earlier, those who believe it's a hoax would consider such photos a hoax - I mean, they would say ..

"If they could dummy up a whole moon landing, they sure as hell could dummy up a few photos".

 

[nismaratwork]

Lol .. I was ribbing you ribbing me :-)

So it seems hi res photos or lack thereof is not as important as your belief in the moon landing hoax. As was said earlier, those who believe it's a hoax would consider such photos a hoax - I mean, they would say ..

"If they could dummy up a whole moon landing, they sure as hell could dummy up a few photos".

Faith, be it in a hoax, or a particular mythology called religion, is very hard to reason with, or contradict with evidence.

Correction, it can be contradicted, but the person or people in question will rarely accept that contradiction.

 

[baywax]

I believe the hoax has evolved somewhat to include the fact that aliens assisted our eventual visit(s) to the moon. Something about JFK bribing them to help out.

 

[alxm]

They found the Soviet Lunokhod 2 lander just recently as well.

(Of course, the Soviets being such humble folks only faked an unmanned probe.)

 

[alt]

There's an old saying;

"Watch what they do, not what they say"

I find this aphorism to be quite handy - invaluable sometimes, when trying to come to the truth of some matter.

Putting aside all the evidence pro moon landing, it is interesting to ask the question;

"If it was a hoax, OK, fair enough - they did it once. Why though, would they do it again and again and again" ..

Surely they wouldn't push their luck that far ? If they hoaxexd it to beat the Ruskies, or for international prestige, etc, what need was there for them to hoax it repeatedly ?

There's another saying;

"Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"

It is beyond reason, even at the lunatic fringe, that people would believe in multiple, repeated hoaxes. And this, in itself, is a fascinating mystery to me.

Surely the hoax adherents would have had to confront this question. How do they answer it to themselves ? I''ve hunted around web sites recently, trying to find how they answer this question, but can't find much.

Anyone have any idea ?

 

[baywax]

There's an old saying;

"Watch what they do, not what they say"

I find this aphorism to be quite handy - invaluable sometimes, when trying to come to the truth of some matter.

Putting aside all the evidence pro moon landing, it is interesting to ask the question;

"If it was a hoax, OK, fair enough - they did it once. Why though, would they do it again and again and again" ..

Surely they wouldn't push their luck that far ? If they hoaxexd it to beat the Ruskies, or for international prestige, etc, what need was there for them to hoax it repeatedly ?

There's another saying;

"Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"

It is beyond reason, even at the lunatic fringe, that people would believe in multiple, repeated hoaxes. And this, in itself, is a fascinating mystery to me.

Surely the hoax adherents would have had to confront this question. How do they answer it to themselves ? I''ve hunted around web sites recently, trying to find how they answer this question, but can't find much.

Anyone have any idea ?

Re: Hoax adherents. These are a form of skeptic. In some cultures, skepticism is healthy.

In fact, during the second world war there was an elaborate hoax used to fool the Nazis where fake tanks and jeeps were built out of cardboard and plywood to take attention away from the actual launch site of D day. My dad made it through all of that quite probably because of this hoax.

 

[Borek]

Re: Hoax adherents. These are a form of skeptic. In some cultures, skepticism is healthy.

In fact, during the second world war there was an elaborate hoax used to fool the Nazis where fake tanks and jeeps were built out of cardboard and plywood to take attention away from the actual launch site of D day. My dad made it through all of that quite probably because of this hoax.

Do you think we plan to invade Mars from Venus, and whatever we put on the Moon was just to confuse Martians?

 

[baywax]

Do you think we plan to invade Mars from Venus, and whatever we put on the Moon was just to confuse Martians?

I'm not telling. You look a bit like one of the Neptunian Empire's SS handy men.

All joking aside, I'm very glad to see these images of the leftovers on the moon. Very cool, very tiny and far away, but very cool. What's interesting is these photos are clearer than anything "Richard Hoagland" or any of his crew have come out with regarding alien bases on the moon and mars... etc... those pics are really quite far fetched and mostly come together only when the text is read along side the photoshop... er... photos.

 

[stevenb]

There is another type of remnant that we left on the moon. That is, scientific instruments. In particular, there are optical reflectors that are used to reflect lasers aimed from the Earth observatories. This allows accurate distance measurements with precision of a few inches.

In a sense, these are the most visible artifacts on the moon. Of course, it takes very specialized equipment and techniques to make these measurements.

In principle, a skeptical scientist could do the calculations and supervise a measurement. An intelligent person would be able to see that only special high reflectance mirrors designed to direct light back to the source (i.e. corner mirrors) would allow sensitive enough reception of a reflected laser.

Well, the average person doesn't have the clout to be allowed to supervise, but this goes back to what the previos poster (alt) said about observing actions. Why would hoaxters claim to install an observable mirror? Would this not then require that all astronomers at observatories be in on the hoax?

 

[baywax]

There is another type of remnant that we left on the moon. That is, scientific instruments. In particular, there are optical reflectors that are used to reflect lasers aimed from the Earth observatories. This allows accurate distance measurements with precision of a few inches.

In a sense, these are the most visible artifacts on the moon. Of course, it takes very specialized equipment and techniques to make these measurements.

In principle, a skeptical scientist could do the calculations and supervise a measurement. An intelligent person would be able to see that only special high reflectance mirrors designed to direct light back to the source (i.e. corner mirrors) would allow sensitive enough reception of a reflected laser.

Well, the average person doesn't have the clout to be allowed to supervise, but this goes back to what the previos poster (alt) said about observing actions. Why would hoaxters claim to install an observable mirror? Would this not then require that all astronomers at observatories be in on the hoax?

Good point Steven.

I remember that when the lunar lander touched down there was a report that there was a continuous "echo" happening afterwards that was monitored by some of the instruments that were placed. They speculated that he moon was hollow. Since then there's been better information but I've missed most of it. Is the moon hollow? Or is this misinformation as well?

 

[jreelawg]

There's an old saying;

"Watch what they do, not what they say"

I find this aphorism to be quite handy - invaluable sometimes, when trying to come to the truth of some matter.

Putting aside all the evidence pro moon landing, it is interesting to ask the question;

"If it was a hoax, OK, fair enough - they did it once. Why though, would they do it again and again and again" ..

Surely they wouldn't push their luck that far ? If they hoaxexd it to beat the Ruskies, or for international prestige, etc, what need was there for them to hoax it repeatedly ?

There's another saying;

"Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"

It is beyond reason, even at the lunatic fringe, that people would believe in multiple, repeated hoaxes. And this, in itself, is a fascinating mystery to me.

Surely the hoax adherents would have had to confront this question. How do they answer it to themselves ? I''ve hunted around web sites recently, trying to find how they answer this question, but can't find much.

Anyone have any idea ?

I'm a non moon landing hoaxer, but anyways, I can find no more reason to actually go to the moon more than once, than I can to hoax it more than once. Also, a good motive would be to get the funding. If it was a hoax, it would actually explain the irrationality of repeated moon trips given the cost associated, and what accomplished, basically bragging rights.

 

[alt]

I'm a non moon landing hoaxer, but anyways, I can find no more reason to actually go to the moon more than once, than I can to hoax it more than once. Also, a good motive would be to get the funding. If it was a hoax, it would actually explain the irrationality of repeated moon trips given the cost associated, and what accomplished, basically bragging rights.

Bragging rights ? Don't you think others, China, Russia, etc, would have had the evidence and ability to rain on their parade ? Particularly after multiple such 'hoaxes' ?

(don't tell me - they were in on ot too ?)

 

[jreelawg]

I'm just saying that you aren't going to stump any MLH's with "why would they hoax it more than once?"

The apollo programs ended up costing an estimated 170 billion (2005) dollars. That's quite a motive. If your a MLH'er, and your looking for a motive, money would be a good one. If you consider this as a motive in your plot, then repeated hoaxes would fit. Maybe if you were creative about it, you could throw in some kind of ulterior military motive using the payload, and funding, for a black project. All in all, it would make for a good movie.