Best way to disprove the hoax

[bogsnot]

All we need are the co-ordinates on the moon where we can find the discarded remnants of the various moon missions, and a decent, commercially available telescope.
So, can anyone tell me where I would have to look on the moon for the evidence, as well as what would be the best mag level of scope to get?

Ive only come to this site recently due to conversations over the holiday season with family members, some of whom were dopey enough to fall for the myth, and even believe the Ruskies were in on it as well.
Ive already tried explaining about "rooster tails" from the moon buggies, vertical film winding on the camera, over/underexposure of film, external cameras on lander legs to show the exit and first step of Neil, and all I get is the standard "prove me wrong" response instead of them trying to prove themselves right.
Seems intelligence skipped a generation or two in my family.

[Czero 101]

bogsnot said:

All we need are the co-ordinates on the moon where we can find the discarded remnants of the various moon missions, and a decent, commercially available telescope.

Ok... here ya go...

Apollo 11
Sea of Tranquility
0° 40' 26.69" N,
23° 28' 22.69" E
(based on the IAU Mean Earth Polar Axis coordinate system)

Apollo 12
Ocean of Storms
3° 0' 44.60" S
23° 25' 17.65" W

Apollo 14
Fra Mauro
3° 38' 43.08" S,
17° 28' 16.90" W

Apollo 15
Hadley Rille
26° 7' 55.99" N,
3° 38' 1.90" E

Apollo 16
Descartes Highlands
8° 58' 22.84" S,
15° 30' 0.68" E

Apollo 17
Taurus-Littrow
20° 11' 26.88" N,
30° 46' 18.05" E


Good luck finding a telescope, though. As of the current state of the art, there is no single telescope in existence (including the Hubble Space Telescope) that has sufficient resolution to see even the largest artifacts left behind at the sites, the LM Descent Stage.

I can't remember the size of reflector you'd need on a telescope to get that resolution (it's H U G E), but I'm sure someone will fill in that little tid-bit for us fairly soon...



Cz

[nomuse]

Been answered a few times already....but unless your budget will stretch to an objective of 200 meters or so, you aren't going to see any man-made objects on the Moon.

Good idea, but the geometry isn't in your favor.

[echnaton]

Welcome to the board. You can't choose your family, that is what makes them special.

A telescope with the power to resolve the LM descent stage would just present a dot on the image. To actually see details you would need a scope with the power to resolve some the details. To get satisfying image, most people would want to at least see shape of the descent stage and its legs. Don't count on that photo coming any time soon.

Anyway people that ignore the mountain of evidence for Apollo already in existance, will just as conveniently ignore any new evidence.

[Jason Thompson]

bogsnot said:

All we need are the co-ordinates on the moon where we can find the discarded remnants of the various moon missions, and a decent, commercially available telescope.
So, can anyone tell me where I would have to look on the moon for the evidence, as well as what would be the best mag level of scope to get?

Not possible, I'm afraid. Telescopes have an inescapable physical limitation on their resolution. To improve resolution you need a bigger aperture. There is not one commercially available telescope that will get you enough resolution to see the hardware on the Moon. There isn't even a single telescope in existence large enough to show them. To identify the largest piece of hardware at any of the landing sites you would need a telescope on the order of a kilometre across. Sadly, your simple method is actually impossible.

[Tanalia]

Rasc Calgary Centre - Lunar Lander Telescope

[RAF]

I can imagine a time in the future when there will be "observing instruments" with a resolution capable of showing the "artifacts" left behind on the Moon.

Does anyone see a reason why that wouldn't be eventually "possible"?

[ineluki]

bogsnot said:

All we need are the co-ordinates on the moon where we can find the discarded remnants of the various moon missions, and a decent, commercially available telescope.*1

even believe the Ruskies were in on it as well.*3
all I get is the standard "prove me wrong" response instead of them trying to prove themselves right.*2

1. Besides the problems with the required optical resolution there are even more caveats.

a) The only thing that would satisfy a HB would be if he could look directly through an eyepiece of the telescope. I think most big telescopes these days use some sort of digital image.

b) Current images would show only the current status. It wouldn't prove that these parts were on the moon since 1969.
HB would still claim that they were sent there later (ignoring all questions how those launches were hidden).

2. The old HB-Trick "shift the burden of proof"
You might try to enlighten them about "negative proof" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof i.e. with vanRijn's "invisible elf" www.bautforum.com/671044-post19.html

BUT

3. Anyone THAT deluded is probably a lost cause

[bogsnot]

Thanks for the replies folks.
I had a semi-grand plan of lobbing over to the family home, setting up a 'scope, pointing it at the right spot, and saying "there you go you morons!"

Still, gives me something to look at when i do finally get myself a 'scope, even if it just turns out to be a tiny dot.

On a side note tho, I do remember seeing a cartoon once, of astronauts finally returning to the moon, only to find one of the buggies up on bricks, with its wheels stolen. ;D

[grashtel]

bogsnot said:

Still, gives me something to look at when i do finally get myself a 'scope, even if it just turns out to be a tiny dot.

Anything you see when looking at those sites isn't going to be from Apollo, the artifacts are far too small to be visible with any 'scope, it would be like trying to read the lettering on a penny from a mile away with just the naked eye.

[frenat]

Exactly. You wouldn't be able to see the penny itself and have trouble seeing the person holding it.

[PhantomWolf]

raf said:

I can imagine a time in the future when there will be "observing instruments" with a resolution capable of showing the "artifacts" left behind on the Moon.

Does anyone see a reason why that wouldn't be eventually "possible"?

Only is you're willing to be the one to volunteer to polish a primary mirror the size of a football stadium (or in the case of seeing something the size of the flags, about 1.7km in diameter... (footprints you're looking at 17km)

[RAF]

phantomwolf said:

Only is you're willing to be the one to volunteer to polish a primary mirror the size of a football stadium.

Which is the reason why I "qualified" my statement by saying "observing instruments" instead of telescope...yeah, that's the reason I did that.

[altair4]

back again

THE BEST WAY 2 DISPROVE THE HOAX IS 4 U 2 GO THERE YOURSELF!!! DIRECT EXPERIENCE!!!

I think it would be easier 4 U 2 actually go 2 the moon yourself and go 2 those latitude/longitude coordianates(serious!)

the way 2 go is by "astral travel/soul travel/out of body experience(serious)

U can learn Astral Projection it is extremely dangerous though I am warning U if U succeed in doing this if "you" dont synchronyse with your physical body then you will be found dead of unknown causes I can think of this happening 2 someone in London,he was into meditation..this in not a joke and is practised in the East,Hindus,Yogis,etc and adepts!!

I have had OBE(involuntary) B4 and I know other people that have had same experiences,if U have an open mind I am more than happy 2 share this with U(serious!)

OBTW read about a "ghost agent" on the internet named Paul Leeks

goto Paul Leeks in Google,type in Colin Macgregor,in the text it comes up with "that agent Paul Leeks..."

I never wrote the stuff on that website!!!

my experience comes under "ethereal experience"


Paul Leeks(New Zealand)

{the REAL PAUL LEEKS,thats had a REAL OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE!!}

[PhantomWolf]

Well that would certainly explain a lot of things. You know mixing P and MJ is a really, really, bad idea.