For Bob: Why Not Just Prove It?
>> Thursday, May 28, 2009
Bob asked: They mentioned that the Keck I and II scopes in Hawaii where so powerful that they could see a flickering light on the Moon.... do you see where I am going with this? If true, why can't we see the Apollo landing sites and photograph the remains of the LM and Lunar Rovers and put to rest all the Moon landing hoaxes going around since forever? I have heard similar comparisons about being able to see tiny stuff on the Moon with our most powerful telescopes but can never seem to research if it is really true, NASA seems not to want to talk on this point. I understand about telescope resolution and the such, but there seems to be quite a bit of confusion on what we can or can't see on the Moon. Was it a case of bad research on the part of NGC about the flickering candle or am I missing something here?
Good question and the answer (I have) is convoluted. First, let me remind you I'm not an astronomer. OK, first you spoke of seeing a "flickering light" on the moon. Well, I'm not sure what that means. Clearly, there's no open flame on the moon, but there are mirrors left from past missions, including the Apollo landings that have been used for ranging to the moon (Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment). Can't see a mirror (or use it to bounce a laser unless, hey, it exists.
But a "flickering light" doesn't give me a resolution. It is not impossible that we could get sufficient resolution to see some of the stuff we left behind, but we're not talking about something like the Great Wall of China (which can be observed from on orbit with, I think, the naked eye, but other man-made structures require telescopes). Relatively speaking, the landing sites are flyspecks on the face of the moon. Now, that doesn't mean the Keck and Keck II can't see them; it means I don't know if they can or not. And I haven't found any resolution specifics doing searching.
But as for proving things once and for all, why would it? If you're crazy enough to think the mirrors spontaneously appeared on the moon's surface, why would a picture convince you? The pictures would likely come from NASA and we already believe NASA's a liar. Doctoring a picture would be child's play.
There is, in fact, tons of objective evidence that proves we were there: tracking by different facilities all over the world, including the Soviet Union, transcripts of missions, equipment exposed to lunar conditions (as opposed to on orbit conditions), lunar dust and rocks samples older than ANY rocks we have on earth (by 700 million years). If someone doesn't believe that (and I know you're not foolish enough to be one of them), a photo ain't gonna convince you.
There are plenty of debunkers of the nonsense out there - I won't repeat what's been said a dozen clever ways, like this one and this one and this one.
"If you're crazy enough to think the mirrors spontaneously appeared on the moon's surface, why would a picture convince me?"
That pretty much says it all, right there.
Must start taking time to edit these better. I meant, of course, convince "you" (not you, Mother, I know you know better).
One of the things that get me on nonsense like this is how many who think we need to trot out an infinite amount of evidence. Um, if someone thinks we're lying, let them come up with actual evidence. Burden of proof. We've shown ours. What do they ACTUALLY have to refute it other than allegations that can be readily debunked?
Great answer Stephanie. I hear you about the pictures not being able to sway the hard core fake Moon landing people, nothing will convince them, but it might do something about the people sitting on the fence, one of which was watching the show with me, I let the statement go by hoping he wouldn't notice but then he matter of factly brought up the question, "Why doesn't NASA image their stuff they left behind then?" I said I would ask you,lol. Like you said there is so much circumstantial evidence already, just be nice to have those images.
And, truthfully, Bob, I don't know if we have the "resolution" to definitively differentiate the equipment from the rocks there.
But we are planning to send more lunar orbiters out there to take pictures. I would think, since they're looking for soft places to land later, they'd have some high resolution stuff going round there. You might get your pictures after all. Or they might already exist, but I haven't found 'em if they do.
I've never understood the people who insist that the Moon landings were fake. What's the point? Then again, there are a bunch of people who believe the Earth is flat, and even more people who believe it's on 6,000 years old. Crazies make the world go rpound, I guess.
I wonder if any of those 'experiments' that were setup are still 'phoning home' with data and information?
One of my favorite movies of all time, Capricorn One showed how to stage a fake moon landing.
Maybe the flickers of light are some kind of St. Elmo's Fire?
"If you're crazy enough to think the mirrors spontaneously appeared on the moon's surface, why would a picture convince me?"
Bang on.
I was working at a camp during the first human landing on the moon. The camp put a television in the dining hall and we were glued to the broadcasts. Imagine the work that would have gone into faking those broadcasts if, as Stephanie says, you were foolish enough to think that's what happened.
Now think of how easy it would be with today's graphics software to Photoshop a speck onto a picture taken from a telescope. So, why bother wasting telescope time to provide images that would be easier for someone to disbelieve than the original lunar landing broadcasts?
I liked Capricorn One myself, though I find it ironic that, in that movie, the trips to the moon HAD happened and the trip to Mars (NOT the moon) had been planned to happen, but changed at the last minute. That's pretty far different and, you'll notice the astronauts weren't likely to stay mum on it indefinitely. I've met a number of astronauts and I have to say I find it impossible that everyone who presumably walked the moon would have kept quiet indefinitely if it were a fake.
But I know so much about what went wrong that no one ever suspect, the dust problems, the close calls on landing (we got closer to crashing on the first flight than most people know), the unexpected finds (including a rock the crew picked up mission control wanted them to leave behind), the strange repairs of the lunar rover, the times crew fell and could barely get up - no way do I believe that was faked. You can read about it ALL here on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals just like it happened.
If you read those and you're still not convinced, well, I don't think you can be convinced. And, no offense, you're none too bright.
There, harsh but it had to be said.
Bravo, Stephanie! And I quite agree. Some people are just determined to stay stupid, based on some sort of ideology, and you're never going to enlighten them no matter what you do.