Moon landing fact or fiction ? Here is your answer once and for all !?

Sigh...

Lets start off with a few of the fallacies you have in here...

First off, the military may have satellites that can detect an object the size of a cigarette pack - they don't have anything that can ''read the Surgeon General's warning from a cigarette pack'' as I have seen claimed by some overly hyper enthusiasts.

Those satellites are roughly 100 miles above the Earth's surface...

The moon's surface is approximately 240,000 miles away. Do the ratios, and you will see that our best telescopes on or orbitting Earth might be able to detect something the size of a medium sized house.

And the Hubble would *not* be moved to see anything on the Moon - - it is designed to gather light in giant 'gulps - and is too sensitive to be able to handle the tremendous glare that would come off the Moon's surface. (The Hubble also cannot be used to view the Earth, for similar reasons)

And no-one involved in the Hubble program would even bother in any case - even if the above reasons were eliminated. Why? Because they darn well know that the moon landings took place. They don't need to waste time and effort trying to 'prove' something to the deliberately-ignorant twits that make these claims. They also don't take pictures of the Earth to prove to the Flat-Earther's that the world is round. They also don't waste their time with using NASA equipment to prove that L.H.Oswald really did shoot J.F.K. to those that claim space aliens, Mafia gangsters, Russians, CIA hit squads or some other group were the 'real' killers.

WHY? Why don't scientists spend time proving these things - decades after the events? Because they are **KNOWN HISTORICAL EVENTS** - observed, and viewed and investigated ''beyond any reasonable doubt''. And those that dredge up the same old arguments, over and over again - - are *NEVER* going to be convinced - they will claim literally *any* evidence that contradicts their cockamamie conspiracy as being part of the conspiracy itself.

Feel free to see what happens - look for yourself. Find one of the loony-toons claiming that we never landed on the Moon. Show them the photographs of the landing sites - taken by the moon-orbiting satellite ( Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter ). They will claim that these are fakes. ''Photshopped'' or photos from some utterly different location. Anything other than what they are.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110908.html

Here is the thing, all those people who have billion dollar telescopes, they all believe the moon landing happened.

Also I'm not sure what you mean "The right place at the right time". The same side of the moon always faces the earth. If you can go outside and see the moon, then you can point a telescope at the landing site.

Also, no. We don't have a telescope powerful enough to see the foot prints on the moon. No one does. They don't exist. Foot prints are really really small. And the moon is rather far away (well not on a galactic scale, but compared to the size of the foot prints).

The satellites orbiting the earth are much much closer to the earth than they are to the moon. So it is easier for them to see things on the earth than on the moon.

Telescopes have an inviolate limit on their resolution, based on the wavelength of light and the size of the primary lens or mirror. It's not the distance that is the killer but the fact that the objects left are so small. At 250,000 miles away the hubble telescope can't make out anything smaller than a football stadium. From here, in order to see any sign of the things we left on the moon you would need a telescope several hundred metres in diameter. To actually be able to identify the objects as landers and flags you would need one several kilometres in size. Not only do no such things exist, it is not even practical to build them.

Indeed.

Now all we need is a telescope with an aperture larger than a football stadium since optical resolution is a function of aperture diameter, and seeing a 4m object at 356,000 km is equivalent to being able to see a .9 millimeter object from the ~900km altitude which is typical of the apogee of a KH-11 reconnaissance satellite. That's not the size of a pack of cigarettes. That's the size of a coarse grain of sand.

Or, we can send a probe with a smaller device into lunar orbit. You know, kind of like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. I seem to recall Arizona State University got to put a camera aboard that. Let's see what they found... Oh. Hmm!

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/531-A-Star...

That looks like a lunar module descent stage exactly where the Apollo 11 landing site was supposed to be.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/...

My. You can even see the footpaths in some of these.