How to See All Six Apollo Moon Landing Sites

Walk in the astronauts' footsteps as you explore the places they visited in the heyday of Apollo program. Use these helpful maps to guide you to the Apollo landing sites.

Far away home

Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt with the American flag. Earth glows blue 240,000 miles in the distance.
Credit: NASA

We all love dark moonless skies, but let's face it, the Moon's out two weeks a month. How can you ignore it? You've doubtless observed craters and mountain ranges and probed for volcanic features like rills and domes. But here and there among the nooks and crannies, you'll find six of the most remarkable locales on the Moon — the Apollo landing sites. They're the only places where humanity has achieved one of its oldest dreams and "touched the stars".

As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.

Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024″ in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters) at the Moon's distance. In visible light, it's 0.05″, or closer to 300 feet. Given that the largest piece of equipment left on the Moon after each mission was the 17.9-foot-high by 14-foot-wide Lunar Module, you can see the problem.

Did I say problem? No problem for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail.

Apollo landing sites

Six Apollo missions successfully landed on and departed from the Moon between July 1969 and December 1972. Top, clockwise: James Irwin salutes the flag at Hadley Rill; Harrison Schmitt collects rock samples in the Taurus-Littrow Valley; Buzz Aldrin's footprint in the lunar regolith; Charlie Duke placed a photo of his family on the Moon and took a picture of it; Edgar Mitchell photographs the desolate landscape of the Fra Mauro highlands; and Pete Conrad jiggles the Surveyor 3 probe to see how firmly it's situated.
NASA, collage by Bob King

LRO's orbital imagery and photos taken in situ by the Apollo astronauts will serve to illuminate our ramblings from one Apollo site to the next. All the landing sites lie on the near side of the Moon and were chosen to explore different geologic terrains. Astronauts bagged 842 pounds (382 kg) of Moon rocks, which represented everything from mare basalts to ancient highland rocks to impact-shattered rocks called breccias. Apollo 12 astronauts even found the first meteorite ever discovered on another world, the Bench Crater carbonaceous chondrite.

Apollo landing sites: They're all still there!

Photos of each of the six Apollo landing sites photographed from low orbit by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. ALSEP stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package. The astronauts' tracks as well as the rover and other items are plainly visible. Click for a large version.
NASA / LRO

With the Moon waxing this week and next, the advancing line of lunar sunrise will expose one site after another beginning with Apollo 17 in the Moon's eastern hemisphere and finishing with Apollos 12 and 14 in the western. To see each locale, a 4-inch or larger telescope magnifying 75× or higher will get the job done. But the larger the scope and higher the power, the closer you'll be able to pinpoint each landing site and better able to visualize the scene.

Below are the approximate times and current dates after New Moon when each Apollo landing site first becomes fully illuminated by the Sun:

* Apollos 17 and 11: Six days past New (April 24)
* Apollo 16: Seven days, or First Quarter (April 25)
* Apollo 15: Eight days (April 26)
* Apollos 12 and 14: Ten days (April 28)

Five guideposts to six Apollo landing sites

All the landing sites can be found using these five prominent lunar craters. North is up in this view.
Credit: NASA/LRO

The base images for all the sites are photographs taken by the LRO. I encourage you to drop by the ACT-REACT QuickMap site, which features a zoomable lunar map of LRO photos that will practically take you down to the lunar surface. Click the "paper stack" icon and uncheck Sunlit Region to see a fully-illuminated Moon, no matter the current phase. Checking the Nomenclature box will bring up the names of craters, rills and many other features. More details about each of the LRO Apollo photos can be found here.

Following are maps for pinpointing each Apollo landing site. South is up, and clicking on the images will link you to higher resolution versions. Time to strap on your boots and follow in the footsteps of the first people to walk on the Moon.

Apollo landing sites: First Landing

Apollo 11 landed on July 20, 1969, on the relatively smooth and safe terrain of the Sea of Tranquility. For an extra challenge, see if you can spot the three craters named for the Apollo 11 astronauts just north of the landing site. They range from 2.9 miles (Armstrong) to 1.5 miles (Collins) across.
NASA / LRO

Apollo landing sites: Apollo 12 meets Surveyor 3

Pete Conrad and Alan Bean achieved a pinpoint landing on Nov. 19, 1969, in the Ocean of Storms south of the grand rayed crater Copernicus, landing within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 probe.
NASA / LRO

Apollo landing sites: Can you spot the golf balls?

Apollo 14 touched down on Feb. 5, 1971, in the Fra Mauro formation. Somewhere in the scene are two golf balls hit by Alan Shepard with a makeshift club he brought from Earth.
NASA / LRO

Apollo landing sites: A stroll along the rill

James Irwin and David Scott spent three days alongside Hadley Rille in the rugged Apennine Mountains after landing Apollo 15 on July 30, 1971. This was the first mission to use the Lunar Rover, greatly expanding the amount of ground the astronauts could cover.
NASA / LRO

Apollo landing sites: In search of ancient rocks

Apollo 16 touched down in the lunar highlands on April 21, 1972, in the Cayley Formation, where astronauts John Young and Charles Duke hoped to find older Moon rocks than those previously found near the younger maria.
NASA / LRO

Apollo Landing Sites: Final Mission

Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan landed the final Apollo mission in the Taurus-Littrow Valley on Dec. 11, 1972. The astronauts once again searched for ancient highland material. In the process, they broke a rear fender on the lunar rover and re-attached it using maps and duct tape.
Credit: NASA/LRO


Speaking of landings . . . space exploration has proven difficult even with robotic explorers, and nowhere is this more apparent than on Mars, where historically, more landings have failed than succeeded. Download our free ebook, Mars Landings: Past & Present, and you'll also receive our weekly e-newsletter with the latest news from the world of astronomy.


CATEGORIES
Astronomy Blogs, Explore the Night with Bob King, Moon, Observing

TAGS
,

RELATED POSTS
Bob King

About Bob King

Amateur astronomer since childhood and long-time member of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO), Bob King also teaches community education astronomy and writes the blog Astro Bob. The universe invites us on an adventure every single night. All we need do is look up. My book "Night Sky with the Naked Eye" was just published and is now available on Amazon and BN. It covers all the great things you can see at night with just your eyeballs. No equipment needed!

35 thoughts on “How to See All Six Apollo Moon Landing Sites

  1. skenn_ie

    I sometimes wonder: If humans were to return to the moon, what are the chances of the Rover being repairable (new batteries, electronics etc. Are the wheels metal, or would they have degraded into dust along with other plastics ? Would the control electronics have been killed by radiation too ?

    1. Bob KingBob King Post author

      Hi Skenn,

      Fascinating to ponder. The wheel were made of aluminum, zinc-coated woven steel and titanium. I should think they would last a long, long time. Aluminum was also used in the chassis, so it would last too but everything would eventually become pitted over thousands of years by micrometeorites and impact debris. Here’s an article about the rover’s components: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html

  2. rwallace612

    I have a 120mm/600mm f6 refractor and a 6″ F6 916mm newtonian telescope. Would either of these be powerful enough to spot the landing sites with any kind of detail?

    1. Bob KingBob King Post author

      rwallace,

      With those scopes, you’ll be able to positively identify the location of each site relative to nearby ridges, craters and hills, so you’ll be able to say “that’s where they landed,” but you won’t see any Apollo details like landers, rover tracks, etc. Even large telescopes won’t show those.

      1. rwallace612

        Thanks Bob!
        I guess I was being too optimistic as to what detail I could make :).
        It shall be fun to identify the sites none the less.

        Thanks for your reply!

  3. Systemsplanet

    I can’t accept that we can’t scientifically verify the artifacts exist other than from blurry nasa photos.
    There has to be independent third party verification or the objects don’t exist.

    Do any of the sites have terrains where the artifacts will cast shadows that are long enough to be resolved by ground telescopes?

    What about bouncing lasers / radio waves / microwaves/ etc
    off the artifacts and detecting the reflecting interferrence /scatter patterns?

    Can multiple telescopes be combined to increase the resolution?

    Can a large comet/meteor that passes between the Earth and moon be used as a gravitational lense?

    Can multiple images be stacked to increase resolution?

    Is it possible for a civilian to build a small rocket that launches from a helium Ballon, with enough speed to send a very tiny camera / solar cell / transmitter that could capture high resolution images and radio them back?

    Could we croud source 1000 telescopes to image together and combine the images?

    Can we image from a high altitude baloon?

    Does a longer exposure improve resolution?

    Could we do a long exposure from a glider to reduce atmosphere and improve resolution?

    Could we build a giant concave mirror out of smaller mirrors that projects an image to a smaller imager to improve resolution?

    Can we put N cameras on a spinning wheel to gather more photons, then create image stabilization software to remove the spin ?

    Could we shoot laser light into the air to detect the atmosphere distortion and use that to remove the distortion?

    Can we use images of the moon from before the Apollo missions to subtract the land reflection from newer images to highlight reflections from the artifacts?

    Can we detect micro meteor collisions with the artifacts?

    There has to be a way.

    1. Bob KingBob King Post author

      Systemplanet,

      You’ve obviously given a lot of thought to this matter. Here are several things to take in:

      1. There is no question we landed on the moon multiple times. It’s in the history books and really, truly happened despite the conspiracy theorists. For that reason alone, there’s no actual need to verify that the hardware, etc. is still up there.

      2. We are still bouncing lasers from the ground off the retroreflectors the astronauts left on the surface to precisely measure the distance from Earth to the moon as well as measure the subtle movements of our planet’s tectonic plates.

      3. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’s camera/telescope is the only instrument close enough to the moon (~31 miles) to clearly record the landing sites, hardware, shadows and even the thread-like tracks made by the astronauts and rovers during their explorations of the lunar surface.

      4. Since all of this is proven and photographed, there’s no reason professional astronomers would take the time (and money it would require) to keep trying to verify that we went to the moon even if we had a telescope big enough to see the hardware. I know Hubble can’t do it (all the Apollo hardware, landing stage, etc. is below its resolution limit of its optics.), but even if the twin 10-meter Keck telescopes might be able to (I can’t verify this at this moment), there’s simply no need to do so. Keep in mind that those instruments are being used for important, groundbreaking research by astronomers around the world.

      All that said, one of things you mentioned got my curiosity going: whether any of the objects might cast shadows long enough to be detected. The tallest thing of substantial girth was the lunar descent stage at around 10 feet height. While I can’t be 100% sure, that still seems too insignificant to cast a substantial shadow.

      1. Robert8450

        Hi Bob, I promise I’m not trying to start a war here and I very much respect you and appreciate your information here so please don’t take the following abrasive or insulting an any way…

        Your #1 argument above to support the idea that we landed on the moon does not make it factual. In fact there are dozens of “questions” that shoot holes in the alleged moon landings so it is in fact very questionable the more you look into it.. just because you read something in a text book or watch something on television doesn’t make it true. In fact I can show you dozens if not hundreds of things our government has lied to us about and while it is quite painful for Americans to consider the reality of the moon landings being a hoax.

        As I said, I’m not trying to be unkind or start an argument here, I just would implore of you that you, being an honest and observant astronomer, do your diligence and apply a little scientific method (which isn’t unreasonable) as the above person (systemsplanet) stated above.

        And as I said below to someone else… We all know There are a lot of conspiracies out there on every subject you can name with good and bad information that support both sides, but if you really look into this one, you’ll find the answer as painful as it may be. For starters, try looking up a BBC documentary on YouTube called, “a funny thing happened on the way to the moon”. I very much look forward to your response to an honest viewing of that video.

        Please don’t delete these responses because you disagree with them but instead verify (or logically disprove) what is said in the documentary.. I am not making this up and it is not my information – I am just the messenger here and it was quite painful for me as well to come to the realization that we’ve been lied to and the moon landings are in fact a hoax. If you can prove otherwise, I would certainly like to see your supporting evidence., thank you for your honest consideration.

        1. Bluffcr

          You keep claiming the video was a BBC documentary….it wasn’t. It was created by Bart Sibel, a conspiracy fan known for claiming the moon landings were a hoax.
          It also contains false claims such as his claiming he was accidentally sent a piece of film that he wasn’t supposed to see…..the problem with that claim is that the film had in fact not only been published before but was even available on both a DVD series about Apollo 11 and an earlier VHS film about Apollo 11. He also makes other false claims, such as what was required to go through the van Allen belts etc. He also isn’t visiting the idea from a scientific discussion idea but instead is trying to claim it’s impossible for religious ‘because god’ reasons.

          At the end of the day, there really aren’t any genuine ‘questions’ about the moon landings. Just a lot of misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright false claims and lies made about the program, with most of the doubters doing so because of religious and not scientific reasons.

          1. Bob KingBob King Post author

            Shbitz,

            This is an excellent link. Great information on the radiation belts and how conspiracy theorists have taken quotes about the Van Allen Belts out of context. Thank you!

          2. SciPhy

            I worked in television broadcasting for a number of years in an engineering capacity. Climbers of TV towers (station engineers and antenna installers from tower company’s) routinely climb TV towers, going RIGHT PAST the broadcast antennas of 5 million Watt ERP full power TV stations, passing through this very intense broadcast radiation (500-800 Mhz, longer microwaves). Furthermore, they work up in the vicinity of this broadcast radiation for full days at a time and in my experience in the industry, NONE have ever been killed, cooked (ok, maybe a little cooked, but still very RARE I can assure you), roasted, or injured. The strength of the radiation in the Van Allen belts does not come close to comparing with level of radiation these engineers are exposed to on an almost daily basis across this country. Additionally, any astronauts who might find themselves traveling through the Van Allen belts are safely behind a metal shield, the body of their craft, which would prevent most if not all of any radiation their craft may be exposed to, from reaching them. Sorry conspiracy theorists, the Van Allen Belts argument does not hold.

          3. PaulMakesThings

            SciPhy, well put. I think this is another case of people confusing types of radiation. Just like they often think cellular tower EM radiation is the same as the Gamma radiation that emanates from nuclear waste.

        2. cicada

          I watched this a while back but I only got to the part where the narrator mentioned there should of been sound from the lunar module rocket engine. Seems like they would have realized the whole no air no sound thing?

    2. Canis Major

      Think of it this way: The Soviets were trying to get to the moon, too, and they sent unmanned probes that orbited the moon and took photos after Apollo 11 landed. If we didn’t land on the moon, then the Soviets let us get away with one of the biggest propaganda wins of the Cold War when they easily could have embarrassed us mightily. What’s more, they could have kept at their program and scored the additional coup of the first “real” moon landing. They didn’t accuse us of faking anything, and they abandoned their moon program. That should tell you that our landing was legitimate. Our Cold War adversary would have never let us score such a propaganda win by fraud.

      1. Robert8450

        Your theory sounds good but unfortunately isn’t the case. They most likely stopped their missions after they learned about the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”. Look that up. Humans can not safely pass through it without high levels of radiation exposure. And likewise, they could easily be told to keep quiet about it for fear of US Retailiation. Tensions were already high and pissing off the Man with his finger on the Nuke button is not really worth going to war is it?

        I’m not trying to start a fight here, but don’t you think logic, reason, observation and (god forbid) “the scientist method” would be better than mere speculation just simply believing what you’re told ?

        We all know There are a lot of conspiracies out there on every subject you can name with good and bad information that support both sides, but if you really look into this one, you’ll find the answer as painful as it may be. For starters, try looking up a BBC documentary on YouTube called, “a funny thing happened on the way to the moon”. I very much look forward to your response to an honest viewing of that video but try to keep the insults and name calling to a minimum please – instead apply some logic and reason.

        1. zedmelon

          Robert8450, you’re not recalling the Cold War well enough. When either side got a chance for a massive PR victory, it was taken. The Soviets wouldn’t have skipped a chance to tell the world “Our Russian scientists learned the futility of this mission faster than the foolhardy, overzealous Americans, too busy irradiating chimpanzees to notice the danger.”

          Mutually assured destruction kept everyone at bay, and ideological differences aside, Brezhnev wasn’t an idiot–he knew “American egg on our face” wouldn’t start WWIII, and he’d have jumped at the chance to publicly outwit the US. Nixon wasn’t twitching on “the button;” he even improved diplomacy with Communist China. The Doomsday Clock was actually relaxed during this time, further relieving nuclear tension. Dismissing the space race as unsafe may have been a semi-pyrrhic victory, but it would’ve still been a finish line of sorts and made great press in the USSR…and improved their standing with other nations, neutral and otherwise.

          If moon landings had been a hoax, the Soviets would’ve been Woodward and Bernstein all over it.

    3. Robert8450

      I agree you 100% and I too very much want to see the “scientific method” being applied as opposed to the “well hey, we were told it happened and so it did – don’t question authority” – Where is logic, reason, and observation when we need it ? When you get a few minutes go to YouTube.com and search a BBC documentary called, “a funny thing happened on the way to the moon”. I very much look forward to your response and input that video.

      1. Bob KingBob King Post author

        Robert,
        Thank you for your e-mail – I appreciate your thoughtfulness. The Van Allen Belt issue is simply an early viewpoint that was later proven false by the Apollo missions. I’ve tried repeatedly over the years to present logical, scientific and physical evidence (not to mention the photos by LRO of the landing sites and machinery) as well as my own personal experience of the missions to conspiracy theory believers – to no avail. I wish you well in your quest and hope one day you’ll appreciate what an incredible achievement Apollo was for humankind.

          1. Bob KingBob King Post author

            Sertan,
            Of course, yes, there are Van Allen belts, but all the Apollo space missions and the astronauts made it through the belts safely. Although they did receive additional radiation exposure, it was not life-threatening.

    4. kbncincy

      you are in the wrong place — Sky and Telescope is for people who understand and appreciate astronomy and other space-related areas of science.

      Your silly comments are out of place here…if you honestly believe that just because there are no living witnesses to past events like the Civil War, that means that we can’t accept that they were real, they have to “be verified”, you are just babbling nonsense. And the space program DOES have living witnesses, multiple tens of thousands of them. Apparently you are not one, but that doesn’t mean the reality of the events “needs to be verified”. It’s not a belief system, it’s just information — and we already have the information. It happened, the photos and lunar samples are real, the astronauts really do exist and are normal human beings, not suffering from any delusions about visiting the moon. In fact, most of us are wondering why you would go through the trouble of claiming that you don’t “believe it”, when clearly you have no reason to doubt it. You know the lunar landings were real, so why pretend otherwise?

    5. PaulMakesThings

      If you don’t believe images from probes that went closer to the moon and sent back images why would you accept them if they came from a glider or an array that was digitally stitched? You would just say it was added in like you are assuming about the data from these probes.

    6. MarkACarbone

      Systemsplanet,
      I’m with you.

      Bob,
      The truth is that global warming email gate proved how much the so-called scientists have been telling lies about global warming, so much so, it’s now climate change. Come on. Get real.

      The last 2 years have shown us how much the DOJ and the FBI blatently lie to us.

      This is not BS. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is human nature and people lie to get what they want. Scientists are not special. Nurses are the most respected and trusted people as an occupation. Why are scientists not liars? They cheat on taxes and their wives and lie to their kids all the time. They are no better than stereotypical used car salesmen.

      We don’t trust what you are saying one bit. There was a lot at stake, mostly money and power and when those two things are involved the only variable that is constant is deception and self-interest. Occam’s Razor is the easiest way to understand this.

      Anyway, yes, we do need to prove it. I want to believe it and I love my country but our trusted officials who we grew up believing in are full-fledged liars. NASA is no better and no scientist is more trustworthy than anyone on the planet. No better than a teacher, no smarter than a great mother, no wiser than a CEO.

      Time to stop putting scientists on a pedestal. They rank right up there or down there with everyone else.

      1. zedmelon

        At least one argument will pain both sides of the Moon Hoax Debate but is irrefutable:

        If the NASA folks were willing to lie about a significant accomplishment (i.e. reaching the moon), what would prevent another mass fabrication by now? Modern CGI would make detection of the ruse all but impossible; if they were liars, by now they’d say we’re shipping someone to Jupiter–or at least we have fifty people living on Mars for the last decade. Maybe the movie Interstellar was actually leaked mission footage and Matthew McConaughey is secretly an astronaut, merely hiding in plain sight.

        If they were liars, then going fifty years without a bragging point to top “the last one” would be too much to bear. That’s why the CIA mission failed to colonize Mars.

  4. bmikeb

    I saw the post from Systemsplanet. My question is to Bob King, why? Why did you even bother to respond, and why point-by-point?

    The ability to pull off a hoax is inversely proportional to (at least) the square of the number of people that have to keep their mouths shut.

    A moon landing Hoax is simply NOT possible.

    The first “moon landing” was in the summer of 1969, Nixon was President, that would be the same Nixon who got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar when only a small handful of people knew about it and nobody was watching. This is the same President that Hoax proponents claim managed to fake a moon landing (not just once, but 6 times) while the whole world was watching, a fabrication that would have required dozens (if not hundreds) of people and yet, in 40+ years, none of them have spilled the beans.

    The Hoax claim boils down to the Russians, who had complete control of their media, couldn’t fake it first. Yet, the US Government could pull off such a hoax without the cold war Russians exposing it. Not to mention the silence of wikileaks 40 years later.

    The liftoff and splashdown were both covered live, by all the TV Networks. Start adding up people and the equipment and the people to supply the equipment to fake just the liftoff and splashdown. And how many people would have to be in on the secret in mission control at the Cape and in Houston. Never mind the moon landing, just liftoff and splashdown would require 100’s to keep the secret. This is simple not even fathomable.

    1. Universe23

      Ur basing ur decision on how many people would havta be in on it, n u say dozens even hundreds like thats alot? Base ur opinion on extensively looking at the moon landing footage n photos, they have beem proven without a shadow of a doubt to be fake. Diff angles of shadows, no blast crater, cross hairs behind objects, flag blowin in the wind, oh theres no wind on the moon so it was jus blowin lol the thing they went in looks so cheap its held together by foil n duck tape. Nasa admits today they cant get out of low earth orbit yet we went 6 time from 69 to 72, the phone i have in my hand has more tech then they nasa did in the 60s, yet they never went back? Not because they dont want to but they say because they cant?? Neil armstrong and buzz aldrin is on camera faking being halfway to the moon, i would find links for u butbi did in my previous comment so either look at that or look up what im saying.
      What u said is like saying life is too complicated too amazing the design is so perfect, no way there could b a creator, he would have to understand things like eternity and beginning and end when we cant fathom a true beginning because if there was a creator who created the creator n it could go on forever so with ur way of thinking u deny a creator because its too large of a creation for ur brain to think its possible.

      1. Mickchilders

        I have seen the so-called proof that the landings were fake, and I just don’t see it. I am an engineer with education in math and physics and some if not all of this evidence is total hogwash.
        For instance, a flag moving proving that there was wind. In the absence of an atmosphere and low gravity, the solar radiation could move a light material such as cloth, not to mention the effects of shadow causing 500 degree differences in temperature. Materials expand and contract with considerably less temperature difference than that. What about micro-meteorites? This is definitely not proof. Even I can’t say for sure what the environment would be up there. Is there absolutely no gasses at all up there, or maybe there is a very very thin atmosphere that is not detectable? Physics teaches that even the vacuum of space is not a true vacuum. What about stirred up dust? For some blathering idiot to claim that a moving flag is proof of anything is foolish and absurd.
        In fact, show me any claim of proof about anything and I can find some (possibly convoluted) way of casting doubt of that claim. This is the conspiracist’s disease, an endless supply of doubt to cast with no basis in reality. At some point, every claim of proof depends on at least one given assumption. Don’t believe me? Just Google the 600+ page proof that 1+1=2.

  5. ianodeon

    You’re wasting your time with the hoaxers. There’s no convincing them because, psychologically, they’re wired to accept conspiracies. 1) They tend to score high on paranoia (“they’re all lying to us, don’t you see?”). 2) they create connections between dots that are actually random clusters (“there’s a pattern, don’t you see it?” 3) They’re also highly distrusting people, especially of government. 4) They suffer from what’s called an attribution fallacy. In other words, they attribute happenings to personal motives (e.g., crack-cocaine epidemic was the work of the CIA against the black man, 911 was a conspiracy, they fired me because I’m white, I got a bad employment review because they hate women, and so on. There’s always some big, dark, diabolical secret or power agenda that needs to be exposed. and 5) they engage in confirmation bias. That is, they look for scraps of evidence to support their claims, ignoring the mountain of evidence in the opposite direction. Conclusion: Don’t bother engaging them. It’s like trying to teach a cat how to dial a phone.

    1. Bob KingBob King Post author

      Hi Ian,

      I’ve run into the confirmation bias problem over the years and sadly have always had to give up in the end. I’ll do my best and be respectful throughout, but there’s often no getting past that wall.

  6. ianodeon

    You have been very respectful of everyone in this comment section. Nothing wrong with that. Also, my compliments on an excellent article

    If you want to see a living, textbook example of the psychological predisposition I described in my comment, reread Mark Carbone’s comment on May 5th.

All comments must follow the Sky & Telescope Terms of Use and will be moderated prior to posting. Please be civil in your comments. Sky & Telescope reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter’s username, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

COMMENT