Convince Me The Moon Landing Was REAL?

Question

Ive been convinced about all of itg, but explain these:

no satellite image has ever shown the flag on the moon or the other half of the shuttle that was left ?

Answer 1

have you seen Capricorn One ?

Answer 2

I doubt if any satellite has resolved the flags outside a DIY store near where I live, but that doesn't mean they're not there. And there's a lot more satellite looking at the earth than the moon.



Perhaps the owners of any such satellites have better things to do with their time and money.



BTW it wasn't 'shuttles' that landed on the moon, but Lunar Excursion Modules, or LEMs. Here's an footage of the ascent stage blasting off from the descent stage, taken from a camera on the moon.

Answer 3

The flag is a meter wide, half a meter tall, on a thin flagpole.

Do you really think that anything in orbit could see a flag? The closest satellite in orbit around the moon was Clementine, and its closest point was still over 2,000 km altitude.

And its high-res camera had a field of view of 0.3 x 0.4 degrees, which was a width of about 2 km at an altitude of 400 km).

Even the most powerful telescopes we have can only see objects of about 10 meters diameter at the distance of the moon (say 300,000 km). The landers, rovers, and other objects left behind are all MUCH less than that size.



So - convince me we didn't land on the moon. Consider that I watched it live (along with millions of other people), I have newspapers and magazines from that July, and several years later I met and talked with 2 of the technicians that were working in Mission Control at the time of Apollo 11.

Answer 4

You overestimate the size of the objects left on the Moon and the resolution of satellites and telescopes. Those things are just too small to see from Earth, even with the largest telescopes, even with the Hubble telescope, which is in such a low orbit that for the purpose of looking at the Moon it is almost as if it were on the ground on Earth. And almost no satellites have been sent to orbit the Moon since the landings. Those few that have do not have big enough lenses and fine enough resolution to see that hardware on the ground many miles below the satellite.



Anyway, if people say all the thousands of NASA photographs already published are fake, why would they accept a new one, from a satellite for example, as genuine? They wouldn't. They would call it a fake and part of the world wide conspiracy.

Answer 5

YEAH MAN, YA KNOW MAN YA RIGHT MAN YA KNOW DUDE, MAAANNN!!!!! (NOT!!!!!)

The logic of trying to prove that the landings on the moon are a hoax is...well...illogical. For example, the skeptics say why there no stars in the moon sky, and the answer to that is why can't you see stars, on earth, when the sun is shining? The sun's light overpowers the light from the stars.

Think about what the moon landing skeptics are saying, it is not scientific, what they say is bogus.

With an attitude like yours, I don't believe you will be convinced at all. You have already made up your mind and no matter what is said you will believe that the moon landings were all a hoax. So why bother asking to convince you, it can't be done.

Answer 6

Telescope resolution is calculated with "Dawes's limit" equation.



a = 116/D

where a is the smallest resolvable angle (in seconds of arc) and D is the "aperture" (usable diameter of the lens or main mirror of a telescope) in millimetres.

116 is the constant for visible light.



For longer wavelengths (like infra red) the resolution gets worst = you cannot see small details as easily. For shorter wavelengths (like X-rays) the resolution would be better except that... X-rays go right though mirrors without getting reflected.



A telescope on Earth (or in a low Earth orbit) is roughly at 380,000 km from the Moon, on average. Because the Moon's orbit is an ellipse, there are time when it is closer.



Let's be very generous and say that the closest distance is only 300,000 km (it never gets that close, but let's play along).



The base of the lander measures 4.27 metres across. However, if we include the extended landing pads, we could get a total span of about 9 metres (almost 30 feet).



I'll be generous and use 9 metres (easier numbers), even though the pads are probably covered with lunar dust after the blast-off.

Keep in mind that the flag is much, much smaller than the base of the landing module.



At 300,000 km (= 300,000,000 metres), a nin-metre object subtends and angle of:

9/300,000,000 radians = 0.00000003 radians.



There are 206,264.8" in one radian.

206,264.8 * 0.00000003 = 0.00619"



Or, as the kids now like to say: 6.19 mas (milli-arc-seconds)



Back to Dawes's limit:

a = 116/D

If we need to find D:



D = 116/a = 116 / 0.00619 = 18,746 mm = 18.75 metres (61.5 feet = 738 inches).



We'd need a telescope (or a camera lens) with a diameter of 18.75 metres.



The Hubble Space Telescope has an aperture of "only" 2.4 m (94 inches).



Telescopes on Earth are affected by the atmospheric turbulence and they are limited to resolutions of (at best, with adaptive optics) 0.01"

To be seen by an 18 m telescope on Earth's surface, a lunar object would have to be at least 15 metres across (under perfect viewing conditions).



In any event, the largest telescope on Earth is less than 11 metres in aperture.



---



Sure, we (humans) have satellites around the Moon. They are much closer, but they are generally equipped with much smaller cameras (aperture counted in inches). So they too are not equipped to find objects that small (I'm still talking of the entire lander base, never mind the flag).



I guess we'll have to wait a few more years.

Answer 7

shuttles? what sort of nonsense is this? is it something new to do with 2012?



the smallest object that earth-based telescopes can resolve on the moon is about 100 meters across. this is well-known to all but moon hoax morons and other mental defectives.



the smallest detail i can see on the moon aer the little craters on the floor of plato, 1.5 to 2 km across. this is a tough observation, requiring excellent seeing. what is the smallest detail you can see on the moon?



if you've never looked at the moon in a telescope, perhaps you should. you might learn something.

Answer 8

no longer plenty you are able to say. A theory that the moon touchdown did no longer take place has no rational foundation. for the reason that hi theory is irrational, logical arguments and information are not probably to sway him. you're in all possibility extra suitable off only dropping the location.

Answer 9

No satellite (or telescope) has adequate resolution to show such a small object on the Moon.



The six Apollo Moon landings are among the best documented events in human history: thousands of pictures, hours of video, nearly half a ton of Moon rocks, and millions of eye witnesses, including myself. There is not a single scientist in the world who doubts that they took place. To deny them is to discredit the magnificent achievement of the team which went to the Moon, and to reveal abysmal scientific ignorance.



The proofs of the Moon landings have been documented in detail on web sites like these:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

http://www.clavius.org/

Answer 10

The landing took place during the heighth of Cold War is it not reasonable that the Soviets or others who did not wish USA well would have exposed the landing as a hoax?

Answer 11

I can't. The rocks are fake and the reflectors were put there by earlier unmanned probes like the Ranger and Luna missions.

Check this out:

Lawn furniture or super groovy interplanetary spaceship of the naive 60's?

http://moonmovie.com/images/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg

(make sure to enlarge in order to really get a good look at American engineering at its finest)



Do some research on this illuminati guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons

Answer 12

Telescope tracking of the Apollo missions, some by amateur astronomers:



http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html



A Swedish astronomer's account of radio tracking Apollo 17. You can bet the Russians were listening in too!



http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm



The SEQ bay pendulum footage. Shows a loose cord behaving just like a pendulum in 1/6 g in a vacuum!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kojsfbN8ulc

Answer 13

Honestly i cant convince you due to the fact i dont believe it either, but i will say i do beleive they have been there since. Just with the whole video not to beliveable. But yes i do beleive we have been there

Answer 14

Convince me that Buzz Aldrin wouldn't punch your lights out if you asked him that same question.

Answer 15

If you don't believe, ask your teacher, go to the the Museum of Nautural History to check it out, or contact NASA.

Answer 16

It was all staged. I know because I built that paper shuttle.

Answer 17

...and if you were on the Moon, armed with a telescope, how many school buses would YOU see on Earth?



Answer: zero, genius.

Answer 18

Search it in Google

Answer 19

Huh?