This site might be of interest to conspiracy lovers but more so to those with just plain genuine questions. The ones in the former group will not believe it anyway.

I love the one where people claim that we didn't have the technology or the understanding of physics in the 60's to go to the moon.

Astrofiend. And always a one way ticket. No return necessary

Amazing pics by the way.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/general/water_cooler_moments/25+believe+moon+landings+were+hoax/3273977

To summarise, 25% of Britons 'believe' moon landings a hoax

11 people of a sample of 1009, thought the first man on moon was Buzz Lightyear.

Makes you proud to be British…

Yes you're right, i didnt zoom enough, and the sun was from the other side, thanks

@Nancy…aka DJ's telescope inquiry.

Lighten up! From the way I read DJ's inquiry, he was just asking why telescopes were'nt able to see land site features. That's all.

And please, using terms like "End of Discussion" at the end of you reply to DJ is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I'm assuming from this comment that you were taking DJ's inquiry as being some kind of conspiricist, which he clearly said he is not.

John

http://www.google.com/moon/

Any clue ??

Thanks

http://moon.eu-tube.com

"as Torbjorn pointed out, but missed the essential question"

I covered both your "LRO is NASA" in my first comment and "enough resolution" (as opposed to focus depth) in my second. (Even if I bowed out of referencing the later optical measure because I was busy at the time. You see, I can see how to calculate the former at the top of my head, but for the latter I need to do some studying.)

What I didn't pound on was that it's old hat as Nancy did, which I'm grateful for.

The article from Dr. Phil Plait answered the very question that I was asking and that I keep hearing from time to time.

All I was trying to do was to see if there was an intelligent and logical [explanation] of why a land based telescope is not able to see any one of the landing sites with enough 'resolution' to be definitive and to put the conspirators to rest.

Dude, Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy gave a good explanation here:
Moon hoax: why not use telescopes to look at the landers?

My faith in the intellectual quality of the Universetoday's readers have been restored. Unlike the quick slap in the face remarks by a few readers.

It is interesting, but yet consistent, that when a non-scientific minded person is asked a question to clarify their stance on an issue that they do not have an answer for they will do one of two things. They either become defensive or they resort to name calling and mockery. This is in hopes that they will not have to show their "inabilities" to engage in an intelligent debut, or they really do not know why they believe on an issue other than everyone else did the thinking for them and it sounded good. Right Kbutler?

Thanks again Jon.

Wait another minute. How do kooks know there is no wind on the moon if nobody went there? Do you think they were lying about NASA lying? Where does this chain of lying liars end?

Its not really is it? LRO is NASA. If you believe in the photos from LRO then you should believe in the videos of the moon landing from NASA. To counter any conspiracy theories you need independent conformation of the event. LRO is not.

All I was trying to do was to see if there was an intelligent and logical explannation of why a land based telescope is not able to see any one of the landing sites with enough 'resolution' (as Torbjorn pointed out, but missed the essential question) to be definitive and to put the conspirators to rest.

I do not know the engineering of telescopes and maybe it would take a telescope with a diameter of 100 ft. to accomplish this task. I don't know but that is what I am asking for.

I know the Hubble's focal point is set to look deep into space and cannot work but there are a whole spectrum of telescopes from the professional to the amateur. Someone should have the right telescope to accomplish this. Right? What am I missing?

Huh? You are missing that the focal point isn't the problem. But resolution is.

I'm not an expert, nor do I want to make the effort to look into it right now. But it is my understanding that telescopes with a focus set to "infinite distance" can be, and is used, to observe objects a few hundred meters away since it is practically the same viewing angle.

Hubble has taken photos of the Moon. Here is one example.

However, if you look up Hubble specs, or deduce its angular resolution from its known dimensions, a little trigonometry will show you that Hubble can't resolve anything smaller than a football field at Moon distance.

LRO was launched was because it would cover areas, most of them already visible, at high enough resolution to explore new landing areas in detail. Something that cheaper methods like Earth based telescopes can't do.

I believe I was speculating on seeing the Moon rover's tracks, as LRO resolution at ~ 0.5 m is comparable to HiRISE def at ~ 0.3 m, which certainly sees smaller rover tracks. And possibly foot tracks, series of footprints. But if foot tracks are visible, by way of shadows, already at 2-3 times the final resolution, I was erring on the cautious side indeed.

If that doesn't convince them, then I don't know what will.

The difference between living in the real world and being satisfied with antiscientist faith is that nothing can persuade a believer. Ask them what could convince them about the falsity of their belief and they will be silent. They need to leave the window for using their quotemining (aka scholastics) by way of their Morton filter.

The main reason not to believe these photos is apparently that it is a NASA mission. Never mind that it is 2-3 gen after the fact, for a conspirationist conspiracies never die. (See Morton's filter above.)

That these antiscientists doesn't as much threat lives (prodeath vaxxers and antiabortionists) or science and education (antiscience creationists) as the honor and effort of those who made the reach to the Moon and especially those who died in the process doesn't penetrate to them. Nor that they take their own honor away.

Pity them and refrain from humoring their trolling, because that is all one can do.

the practice of recycling used film

Um, I believe you mean the practice of recycling erasable data media, which was used to store the data extracted from the transmitted data stream.

Ever seen photos of old style tape stations? The tapes were recycled every few weeks, and if anything important was on them presumably it would have been extracted and saved off line by then. This is still done, look at your hard drive.

For whatever reason the decision was that the secondary extracted data, which was reformatted for video/television and sent to broadcasters, was enough. On the face of it the burgeoning bureaucracy of NASA wasn't bureaucratic enough to warrant data archives directed to future data restorations.

[Incidentally, these archives would have been terribly expensive, even for the most interesting events. Data archives needs to be restored/updated with current technology at regular intervals. I guess that was the main factor, if anyone ever looked into the matter at all.]

Can't wait to see the higher resolutions pics.

I suppose even idiots are entitled to their opinions and theories, fine by me as long as they don't ram their opinions down my throat, especially using non scientific methodology.

Back to the article, these images are truly AMAZING.

Let's face it. If NASA was able to fake an entire moon program and ensure the continued silence of all the thousands of people who worked on it- and HAD to have been brought in on the conspiracy- for over forty years… if they were able to fool the Russians, who had every reason to denounce even the smallest hint of foul play, into believing the moon landings actually happened… why would the faked records of the events be so poorly done that amateurs in basements somewhere can expose it? The answer is, of course, there's just no way. The only thing these amateurs have exposed is their own ignorance of basic photography, of the way objects would behave in a lower-gravity, airless environment and fundamental physical principles like friction and momentum.

We went to the moon. That is a fact. There is no serious dispute on this point.

PS- playing the Nazi card means you automatically lose.