Can Telescopes Capture Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Equipment?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether telescopes, particularly the Hubble Space Telescope or other space-based instruments, can capture photographs of the Apollo moon landing equipment left on the lunar surface. Participants explore the implications of such photographs for debunking moon landing hoax theories, while also addressing the limitations of current technology and the mindset of conspiracy theorists.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that photographs of the Apollo landing sites were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2009, showing paths where astronauts walked.
  • Others argue that conspiracy theorists would dismiss any photographs as hoaxes, regardless of their authenticity.
  • A participant explains that the Hubble's resolution is insufficient to capture the equipment left on the Moon, as it can only resolve features down to 186 meters at that distance.
  • Some express skepticism about the ability of photographs to convince hoax believers, suggesting that even personal experience on the Moon could be dismissed as faked.
  • There are claims about the psychological traits of conspiracy theorists, suggesting they may be resistant to accepting evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
  • Participants discuss the limitations of current imaging technology and express a desire for higher resolution images, while others assert that such images would not change the beliefs of hoax proponents.
  • Some humorously suggest creating fake high-resolution images using software like Blender, highlighting the ongoing skepticism surrounding the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the effectiveness of photographic evidence in convincing moon landing hoax theorists. While some assert that images exist and could be informative, others maintain that such evidence would not alter the beliefs of those who are convinced of a hoax.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals a variety of assumptions about the capabilities of telescopes and the nature of belief in conspiracy theories, with no consensus on the potential impact of photographic evidence.

  • #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 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K