Here's the Proof!

Question: What is the most powerfull telescope on our Planet?
Question:Where exactly did the Lunar landing take place?
Question: Why can or can't we see the evidence of the landing?

Our optical technology can currently see from the earths surface millions of miles into space. Interesting, how we cannot see the details of our closest planet the MOON. Or can we?

Case solved!

Actually, I think this is answered on the site. But....

The Hubble Telescope's resolution, even at 300,000 miles from the moon, would depict say the lunar rover or LEM pad as a single pixel- so you see nothing.

Recently, the Hubble was pointed at one of the lunar landing sites, but the images have not been put in the NASA archive yet.

Though, don't get your consiracy theory panties in a bunch yet: in 2008 the LRO goes into low moon orbit to specifically map the whole moon at high resolution for a moon mission slated for no later than 2020.

I *think* that's the non technical answer to the question. But I design computer networks- what do I know?

Before jumping to any conclusions ask yourself:

1) What is the best spatial resolution attainable for an image of the surface of the Moon?
2) How large is the lander?
3) Is the resolution sufficient to positively identify the lander? (You may want to look up topics on the visual detection/interpretation of objects in image, such as the Johnson criteria, etc.)

When you have, you may be able to make a better judgement.

When we have a hires camera in orbit around the moon we will then have images of landers at each of the 6 landing sites. Will you accept such pictures or will you then belive that those landers represented unmanned landings?

Welcome to the BAUT, IOPP. There was no cover-up, but your avatar could use some. Here, try this blanket.

Moved from Q&A to CT.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

According to this site the largest existing telescope is the Keck at the Mauna Kea observetory in Hawaii with a mirror 10 meters across with the largest that is being planned to be built is the OverWhelmingly Large telescope which is planned to be 100m.
Google Moon, Wikipedia and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal have their coordinates.
Because to see the evidence at all (ie just a dot, nothing recognisable) would need a telescope something like 200m in diameter with getting actual recognisable detail requiring one several times larger.
Notice how all those things we ccan see millions of miles away in space are much bigger than the Apollo artifacts and generally have much better contrast (ie being light objects against a dark background or occasionally vice versa, unlike Apollo which is a light object against a light background). The physics of optics was known scenturies before Apollo was even thought of and proves that no existing telescope (including the Hubbble (only 2.4m)) can possibly see anything left behind by Apollo.

Actually, we can, and have (yes, it's just a pixel, but it's there and with a luminscense not found in naturally occuring moon dust), so your arguement is without merit.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I have the feeling that this is a "drive-by".

Grashtel pretty much answers your three questions.

Keep in mind that many of the objects in space we see are many times larger than even the Sun, which is about a million times more luminous than the sun.

Details the size of the lunar lander would require an absolutely gigantic telescope.
An easier way to see these objects is by an orbiting probe, like the one that is planned for launch in 2008, called the Lunar Reconnisance Orbiter (of course, it's mission is not to give an orbital view of Apollo artifacts, but rather to scout out new landing sites for the return missions, to start (hopefully) in 2020).
It won't be the first time an orbiter will be able to spot stuff that landed on the moon; one of the Lunar Orbiter probes that scouted out landing sites for Apollo spotted one of the Surveyor probes on the surface.

Oh yes, the moon is not a planet. The closest planet to Earth would be Venus.

Now, a question for you:
Is this just a one-shot deal for your posting, or do you intend to return?

And might I recommend a more family friendly avatar?

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Uhm, you might want to expand on that. As for the questions:

Optical or otherwise? What is meant by "powerful"? Resolution, or something else? If resolution, the atmosphere causes serious problems even for a scope with a large objective diameter.

That is a matter of historical record and the LMs were tracked by radio transmissions. Also, you can still bounce a laser off the retroreflectors left at the landing sites.

We can see plenty of evidence for the landings: the rocks, the video, the pictures, etc.

We certainly can! I can see a great many details of the moon in my own telescope. However, the amount of detail (resolution) depends on optics and atmosphere. Certainly, we couldn't possibly resolve anything as small as a descent module with any existing telescope on Earth or Hubble for that matter.

By the way, the moon is a satellite, not a planet.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm sorry - I know I'm new, and ought not to be judgemental, but I find the avatar of the OP to be tasteless and crass for a forum in which children and young teens are encouraged to visit (the BA does have sections targeted at kids, after all). I must insist that, at the risk of sounding like a prude, that a better choice of avatar is in order. As a father of small children, I would not want them to see such things. I have nothing against the poster, but I think the avatar is entirely inappropriate. Sorry.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Oh, I don't know, it's not as offensive as a lot of the boobs we get in this forum.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

I can see millions of miles into space with my naked eye, yet cannot see the details of the morning newspaper.

By your logic, there is no printing on the page.

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

As an informal guess, when is the last time an original Apollo Hoax "proof" has come up?

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

probably about 15 years ago...

this "proof" then took probably 5 minutes to get debunked

__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon

i think we may have a hit and runner here anyway, though feel free to prove me wrong IOPP

__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon

As an informal guess, when is the last time an original Apollo Hoax "proof" has come up?

1968?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

As an informal guess, when is the last time an original Apollo Hoax "proof" has come up?

Also, name one HB "proof" that wasn't debunked in less than 5 minutes

__________________
There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact it's all dark - Pink Floyd, The Dark Side Of The Moon

This issue has been dealt with time after time. Its a wind up that the likes of IOPP don't do ANY research on this subject before posting about it.

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

Proofed? I wasn't aware conspiracy theories needed to be made water- or fire-resistant.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

The opening poster says "Here's the Proof!" and provides absolutely none, just some easily answered questions, and clearly thinks there was only one lunar landing.

I get the feeling it is just a child playing.

You have absolutely nothing to be sorry about as you are not alone in your opinion. I "imagine" that the mods have sent a PM to IOPP instructing him to change his avatar, although if this is a "hit and run" poster, there might not be an answer...

Is it possible for a mod to delete the avatar??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

It is possible for us to change an avatar (or at least, remove it).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Seagul poster - well at least the Avtar has gone, leastways, I never saw it!

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

A belated "thankyou" for removing the avatar.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think were missing an interesting aspect here, and one of the reasons I joined this forum: debunking is fun! Who cares if he's a hit-and-runner?

Anyone out there who's upset by the content of any forum simply need find a different forum, one that's not upsetting.

Thanks for doing that.

There's a time and a place for that kind of stuff. BAUT is definately not one of them!

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

It is interesting, however, that these things seem to go in cycles. You don't hear anyone talking about missing fiducials or missing stars anymore. I guess that what happens is that some hoax peddler pushes a given claim and the gullible eat it up, but then slowly everyone else learns to give a quick, nearly canned (and correct) debunking of the claim. So then the hoax peddlers have to move on to something else.

This IOPP guys is saying basically the same thing that softearth said. "why don't we just take pictures of the landing sites." This tells me that somewhere there is a hoax peddler pushing this idea.