I am a new member here, so please forgive me if this has been asked already.
Does anybody know if the Apollo landing sites (any of them) are visible with any of the new telescopes that are out there (the big “super” scopes or hubble) or even been seen from orbiting sattelites? Its not that I am doubting or anything, but I actually ran into some freak a few weeks ago who swears up and down it was a hoax (and yes, this guy was a real prize allright). So, that got me thinking, if there are some “modern” photos to “prove” it, although I am sure he would say they were doctored somehow…
Check out the “Whitey’s on the moon?” thread in the Comments on Mailbag Answers forum. This is the exact question. If I could figure out how the make the link I would.
If you’re thinking of actually looking for the tracks and footprints, well, you’re going to need a really, really, really big telescope. While our pal the moon is a constant companion, it is in actuality quite distant–light itself takes a second or so to travel between earth and the moon. A rough equivalent might be akin to searching for a particular ant hive from a 747 at altitude.
As far as I know, no photographs exist of the landing sites as seen from the earth, at least none showing actual evidence of human exploration. But I’d love to be proven wrong.
Thanks, I checked out the whitey one as mentioned. I wouldn’t actually want to see “tracks” but I was hoping that one could maybe see the base of the lander or something like that.
There are no telescopes on Earth, or indeed the Hubble, which can resolve the landing sites. Details as to why are given at:
However, there is a reflector on the Moon left by the Apollo missions which can still be used to obtain distance measurements by firing a laser at it from Earth. So there is SOME evidence that there are man-made artifacts on the Moon.
The guys who claim the Apollo missions were a hoax generally point to “anomalies” in the photographs from the missions. Their two main points tend to be:
You can’t see the stars in the photographs.
The shadows in the photograph don’t appear to be parallel, as they should be if the Sun is the only source of illumination.
They often claim to be supported by photographic experts or to be photographic experts themselves when making these points. If so, they’re dead lousy at their jobs.
Point (1) is a simple matter of exposure levels, the stars are very dim compared to the lunar surface and so are underexposed on the photographs. The same happens on your holiday snaps taken at night with something well lit in the foreground. A photographic expert should know this! (You CAN see stars on a very few of the photographs, and more if you view them in negative.)
Point (2) is the result of perspective. The shadows ARE parallel, in the same way that railway tracks are parallel, but unless you take a photograph from directly overhead, they don’t appear to be parallel. Presumably, if you showed these guys a nice photograph of railway tracks meeting in the distance, they’d claim that trains are a hoax!
A site which answers the dumb claims made by these wackos can be found here:
Actually, yeah, I was aware of the mirror. My wife (A land surveyor and gemoatic engineer…deals with remote sensing, sattelite imagry, GPS etc…) told me all about it Its actually pretty neat.
In a kind of roundabout way the landing sites were seen but it was by a Russian remote control probe which isn’t quite the same thing. At least it proves the landings took place, unless there was some sort of stupid co-conspiracy between the Yanks and Commies.
as has been stated, nothing on the moon from the Apollo program can be seen through a telescope…especially not the Hubble. The required resolution is too great.
That Apollo-hoax drek has been around for a while. And as matt explained, it’s nonsense.
Its actually pretty neat.