A serious answer to the question: Anything on the moon visible from Earth with the most powerful telescopes we have would need to be bigger than a football stadium. Waving lights, etc., or deploying some kind of banner won't be big enough. A nuclear explosion might be big enough to see, but carries the obvious ill connotations. The problem with any of these stunts is that they can be arguably achieved automatically, and so there's no proof of a manned landing in any of them.
You must understand that the conspiracy theorists believe in a hoax not because there is not enough evidence to prove that the original landings were real. There's plenty. They believe in a hoax because they have previously decided on that belief. It has nothing to do with the evidence they present (or rather, their attempts to explain away the evidence in favor of actual landings). Read through some of these threads and see how quickly the conspiracy theorists abandon the evidence once it's challenged and fall back to vague political or social arguments.
Conspiracism is a religion. By this I mean that the central tenets of an adherent's belief are propositions treated within the community as axioms. That is, they are taken on faith and little attempt is made to make them objectively evident. The rest of the belief system follows from these axioms. In conspiracism, the axiom is a distrust in all forms of authority, whether formalized in government or informal authority based on perceptions of superiority and inferiority.
So in a larger sense, it's more of a psychological issue than a scientific or technical issue. The scientific and historical merits of Apollo's authenticity are underminded because they must be undermined in order to preserve the axiom.
|