Can Telescopes Capture Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Equipment?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the moon landing hoax theories and the lack of photographic evidence from telescopes like Hubble to debunk these claims. Participants highlight that while NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter captured images of the Apollo landing sites, skeptics would dismiss these as fabricated. The limitations of Hubble's resolution are noted, as it cannot capture the equipment left on the moon, necessitating the use of specialized probes for detailed imaging. The conversation also touches on the irrationality of hoax beliefs, suggesting that no amount of evidence will convince true believers. The repeated moon landings are questioned, with participants pondering why a hoax would need to be perpetuated multiple times, especially when other nations could expose it. The discussion concludes that the motivations behind such hoaxes are complex, often rooted in a need for control or understanding, and that true skeptics may never accept evidence contrary to their beliefs.
  • #31
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
stevenb said:
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?
 
  • #33
alt said:
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.
 
  • #34
jreelawg said:
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 ?)
 
  • #35
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.
 
  • #36
jreelawg said:
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.

I see what you're saying. For a moment there, you had me thinking you were on the MLH camp.

$170B in 2005 dollars ? Cheap, compared to the multi billions / trillions farmed out of late.

Well, how do you suppose they get around the proposition that other countries, China and Russia in the main, would have had no motive to keep quite, and every motive to expose the 'fake' moon landings. After all, imagine what prestige THAT would have resulted in, for the country doing the exposing.

How do the MLH's get around that one ? Anyone know ?

PS - I have tried to find some answer to that myself, but haven't been able to, and see it as possibly the most glaring ommission in the MLH's story.
 
  • #37
Moon landing hoax theories are not discussed here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
11K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
27K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K