Simple solution to validate or invalidate hoax!

[jhm69]

Although I am new to the forum, I did a quick search to see if anyone has posted this idea and came up with no comparable threads. If this idea has already been posted, then I apologize in advance.

The whole notion of the video tape that was broadcast worldwide was done in advance makes sense to me since the US did not want to flounder on what is arguably one of humankind's greatest achievements.

Obviously based on the serious debate being waged on the legitimacy of such claims, I have come up with a relatively simple solution to validate whether or not a man actually walked on the moon.....

Take a picture!!!

That's right, if we can launch satellites into space, propel the Hubble telescope into space to reveal stars as galaxies, then we should have the technological capacity to take a high resolution of the alleged flag on the moon, not to mention the Apollo module left there as the lunar craft departed.

As they say, "a picture's worth a thousand words"...if someone can legitimately take a photo of the "lunar trash" we left behind, then I think the debate would be over.

A simple solution, but one that deserves exploration!

[Jason]

This has actually been covered several times. The problem is that the Hubble and Earth-based telescopes don't have the resolution to see man-made artifacts on the moon.

Plus why would a hoax believer believe pictures taken by Hubble today were authentic when they believe all the pictures taken during the actual missions were fake?

[jhm69]

Well, if military satellites can take a picture of a golf ball on the surface of the earth, then the technology is available. It may not be available to the average astronomer, but it is available.

Thus, credible third party validation would be essential.

Now, the trick is to find someone with deep enough pockets to get one of those satellites aimed at the moon.

Or better yet, get Richard Branson or someone with comparable means to incoroporate this "project" during one of his upcoming space tourism flights.

If there is a will, there is certainly a way!!!

[jhm69]

As for the Hubble pictures, my boss has several that he had access to when he worked for NASA. I have no reason to believe otherwise that they are genuine, but do believe that they are "touched up" from time to time to keep certain "unnatural" aspects of them secret (ie.space craft). But that's my .02 and I have no way of proving it...

By the way, seeing pictures of galaxies that appear to the naked eye as stars from earth is really cool!

[Jason]

Military reconaissance satellites can take high-resolution pictures of the Earth's surface because they are in close orbit around the Earth. Aiming them at the moon from Earth orbit would not be enough - you would have to actually put them in close orbit around the moon.

No one I know of is interested in spending that much money to prove something that most people already believe.

[JayUtah]

As it stands the HST cannot see anything on the lunar surface that's smaller than a football stadium. It sees faraway galaxies because they're extremely huge. The relationship between distance and apparent size is covered by the concept of angular resolution, which is roughly actual size divided by distance. Neither distance alone nor size alone dictates whether something will be seen by a telescope.

Many of the HST images released for public entertainment have been enhanced for color. The HST does not see in the same wavelengths as the human eye, so all color assignment is algorithmic and somewhat speculative. If you want scientifically rigorous images, you have to understand about the nature of remote sensing and know what to ask for.

If we could put the HST or a spy satellite in lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit, there's a good chance it could see the Apollo equipment well enough to recognize it. But that would be a very expensive proposition. Nobody has risen to that challenge yet.

[jhm69]

I don't discount the fact that most people only seek information to prove or disprove their own belief systems. But in theory it can be done. It's just that no one has been willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I still think that attaching some type of high powered telescope to one of the Space Tourism flights is a workable solution that will provide proof of a lunar landing and not just anecdotal evidence to support one theory or another.

One thing I've found interesting is that the US Government will have a difficult time masking extraterrestrial life when paying citizens start seeing extraterrestrial space craft circumnavigating the globe.

[LunarOrbit]

The only way this would work is if the satellite that takes the photograph is designed, built, launched, and controlled by hoax believers, with Apollo believers there only to ensure that it is aimed at the right spots (otherwise the HB's could intentionally miss the landing sites to "prove" they don't exist).

Hoax believers will not believe any photograph that they did not take themselves (and sometimes not even then).

[gwiz]

There are already photos taken from lunar orbit showing some of the Apollo LMs on the lunar surface. For that matter, there are plenty of phots taken on the lunar surface showing Apollo hardware. Why should people who do not accept the existing evidence believe any new evidence? What organisation capable of taking such pictures are they going to trust?

[dwight]

Why are the CSM photos of a LM on the lunar surface no less valiud than a photo taken today?

[pzkpfw]

jhm69 said:

One thing I've found interesting is that the US Government will have a difficult time masking extraterrestrial life when paying citizens start seeing extraterrestrial space craft circumnavigating the globe.

Ignoring the implication that the U.S. Govt. controls the entire world, it seems you believe that extraterrestrial space craft are already circumnavigating the globe.

I would be very interested to know what has convinced you of that.

The relevance, is that I'd like to compare the level of proof you have accepted for extraterrestrial space craft with the level of proof you demand for Apollo.

[Jason]

A high-powered telescope attached to a space tourism flight won't help either, unless that flight is to the Moon.

[Tanalia]

Yes, this has been covered many times. Again, this page has all the math needed.

Quick summary:

A telescope on Earth or in low orbit (such as a "tourist" flight) would need a mirror the size of a baseball field; the mirror on Hubble is smaller than the pitcher's mound.

Hubble would have to be moved to within about 1300 km of the Moon, instead of the approximate 400,000 km it currently resides at.

[JayUtah]

Ignoring the implication that the U.S. Govt. controls the entire world...

...and would "naturally" want to hide the existence of extraterrestrial life.

[PhantomWolf]

One thing I've found interesting is that the US Government will have a difficult time masking extraterrestrial life when paying citizens start seeing extraterrestrial space craft circumnavigating the globe.

So how exactly did the US government hide these things from the Soviets? Or those involved with the ESA? If we're just talking Earth orbit then there have already been paying customers up there, and you can add in the Japanese, Candanians, and Chinese all who have their own space satelites and in one case a manned programme. The simple fact of the matter is that the US doesn't and has never controlled space or information from space. The Soviets beat them to the moon with unmanned probes, they knew what the Moon's enviroment was like long before Apollo 11 got there, they knew about the VA Belts and had measured them themselves. NASA doesn't work in a vaccum (no wise cracks here) where they are the sole propreitors of information on Space.