With the hype about the moon missions being fake,Why not have a telescope like Fernbanks just show the site ?

Question

I mean, I've heard about how the government faked the whole moon mission thing. I personally believe the missions were real, however it seems to me that it would be so easy to prove. Why NASA hasn't done something like this before is strange. Maybe they have and I am the only one who doesn't know it?

Answer 1

Although my wife's father performed fuel calculations for the original Apollo landing, I'll spare you that speech. Instead, I will encourage you to watch two programs. The first show is called Conspiracy Moon Landing that it currently showing on the National Geographic Channel and it pretty much obliterates all of the popular conspiracy theories.

I would also encourage you to watch a movie called Capricorn One. Made it 1978, it is a fictional story about a fake mission to Mars. Although it is a science fiction story, it is a good example of how utterly impossible it would be to fake a moon landing for any length of time.

12 men walked on the moon from 1969 to 1972 and we have neither the resources nor the technology to pull off that big of a hoax for so long. Hundreds of thousands of people have worked on the space program. It would be far easier to put someone on the moon than to try and fake it and keep it secret for nearly 40 years.

The landings came at a time when our space program was ultra competitive with the former Soviet Union. Remember how big of a deal it was when Sputnik was put into orbit? They had the technology to monitor our moon shots and transmissions. Don't you think they would have called us out if they had evidence that it was all fake?

Perhaps the most definitive proof of our trip to the moon is what we left behind. For the last 35+ years, scientists have been beaming lasers to the moon and measuring the return times. How are they doing this? The beams are reflected back by equipment left on the moon on at 3 different locations.

Case closed.

Answer 2

Telescopes won't work just as boter_99 said but satellites might. America's been using satellites to track down robbers by zooming in to see the robber's car's license plate so why can't people just turn the sattelites to zoom in on the landing site? I hope some day the government does do that so all of this nonsense about the moon landing being faked could stop.

Answer 3

To answer the person above who proposed using satellites to photograph the moon:

It won't work. Imagery satellites are usually in low earth orbit, which is a few hundred km in altitude. The closest the moon gets to the earth is more than 350,000 km. No satellite has the optics required to resolve the moon landing at that distance.

Frankly, nobody should go out of their way to "prove" the moon landings. If you don't believe it .. well tough nuts, too bad for you. No amount of expert explanation will overcome your stubborn ignorance.

Answer 4

As people have stated before, it's a resolution issue. The Indian space agency is scheduled to send up a lunar remote sensing satellite in 2008 (Chandrayaan). One of its instruments is a camera strong enough to provide pics of the Apollo landing sites.

Answer 5

The simple fact is, there is no scope capable of clearly showing something the size of the rover on the Moon, besides, these conspiracy nutjobs would simply say it's computer-generated and/or doctored anyway. If you were to grab one of these guys, fly him to the Moon and show him, he'd claim the evil government had drugged or hypnotised him and he never went anywhere.

I think NASA want to avoid giving these idiots any credence by responding to their claims.

Answer 6

Mankind has as of yet been unable to build a telescope capable of zooming in on an object 14 feet wide from 255,000 Miles away with enough clarity to tell it is a lunar lander and not a big gray/black dot.