Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

From the Bonham's Auction House website:

History of Space Exploration Goes to Block in July Following the highly successful sale of a collection of papers from Rocket Engineering icon, Dr. Werner Von Braun, Bonhams New York will be presenting a sale entirely devoted to the history of man's exploration of space.

Taking place on July 16th, the approximately 400 lot sale fittingly coincides with the week of the 40th anniversary of man’s landing on the Moon and consists of items acquired either directly from the astronauts or that were originally in their collections.

The sale features every tier of space collecting, including artifacts carried inside spacecraft and taken out on the lunar surface. Some of these retain the lunar dust they came in contact with while being used by the Apollo astronauts.

It appears that there were NO auction results for July 16th on the Bonham website. So I guess Bonham's not only removed the camera but also cancelled the entire 400 lot auction.

Originally posted by DJW001

Now riddle me this: if there were no retroreflectors on the Moon, why would they need to turn the laser ranging equipment off? Incidentally, they don't turn the visible light cameras off. They have sent back pictures of the landing sites confirming that there is equipment there.

:lol

Think about it, assuming the Apollo landings are fake, which they are, they wouldnt want one instrument not agreeing with another. So the solution is to turn one off. Now you all you have to worry about is to fake one. In this case the easiest one. the 2D image.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So we're dealing with Mitchell's Camera #1 and Mitchell's Camera #2 now? See, I was guilty of skimming but I'm admitting it here now. I wonder if that other camera is still on the auction....?

No, Mitchell was only trying to sell the one camera. The part you quoted clearly states that it was one of two cameras from the LM Antares. Not one of two camera's that were being auctioned. Apollo 14 brought three 16mm DAC's. One stayed with the CSM and two went down to the Lunar surface with the LM. The camera that Mitchell was trying to sell is one of the DAC's that was on the LM.

Here's an msnbc news article with the same photo: www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by dpd11

 

It has. The HBs believe they were put there by unmanned space flights. (see Lunokhod 1 and 2)

OK... Except for the fact that the first US one was placed there about a year before that. And the Luno ones brought smaller ones of their own. And the ones we put up were almost as big as the whole Luno vehicle, so how would they carry it? And the fact that you could have pinpointed the exact location of both the Luno ones and ours, proving they were two separate devices in two separate locations. And that imagery has been taken showing the original ones at the landing sites.

But yeah... Other than that, it's a flawless theory.

reply to post by dpd11

What exactly in your statement proves the reflectors were put there by man?

Time? No. Size? No. Location? No.

In other words, is there anything that the allegedly man-installed US reflectors do that the Russian reflectors cannot?

Originally posted by FoosM

The recent images released by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites are truly remarkable. But there is one instrument on board LRO that must avoid studying some of the the Apollo sites as well as other places where humans have placed spacecraft on the the lunar surface. The Lunar Orbiting Laser Altimeter (LOLA) pulses a single laser beam down to the surface to create a high-resolution global topographic map of the Moon. However, LOLA is turned off when it passes over the Apollo sites because bouncing the laser off any of the retro-reflective mirrors on experiments left by the astronauts might damage the instrument.

Don Mitchell, who owns a software consulting company and is writing a book on the Soviet Exploration of Venus, wrote about this problem on his blog, saying that if LOLA’s beam did strike the retro reflector experiment, “the light bounced back would be 1,000 times the detector damage threshold.”

Getting back to this topic, notice that he only mentions Apollo.

But what about... Lunar Surveyor?

reply to post by FoosM

Getting back to this topic, notice that he only mentions Apollo.

Busted:

David E. Smith, LOLA principal investigator confirmed that, indeed, LOLA is switched off over the Apollo and Lunakhod sites, to avoid damaging the instrument. He said the Russians have been very helpful in in providing the LOLA team the best known locations for the two Lunokhod landers. Lunokhod-2 has been located precisely and is routinely probed by lasers from Earth. Lunokhod-1 has never been found by laser, and it is not known for certain if its reflector is deployed. Smith said he and co-PI Maria Zuber have visited Moscow to consult with Russian scientists, who have shared their knowledge of the locations of their landers.

Your own source.

Originally posted by DJW001

Busted:

Your own source.[/url]

Whats that got to do with Surveyor?
I know he mentioned Lunokhod, sorry If I didnt state the obvious since I linked the article, I was referring to the US side of the space program. The one NASA should know more about.

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats that got to do with Surveyor?
I know he mentioned Lunokhod, sorry If I didnt state the obvious since I linked the article, I was referring to the US side of the space program. The one NASA should know more about.

What do the Surveyor craft have to do with retroreflectors?

Originally posted by lambros56
What niggles me about the Moon landings is, if Apollo 13 would have completed it`s journey and landed on the Moon.
That would have made it THREE Moon landings in less than 10 months.
I just find that amazing for NASA to be able to do that in that Era.

And your qualifications to assess such a thing are...?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The only people who could possibly testify that the moon landings happened for real are the astronauts themselves. The ground controllers at mission control could not testify... (where is that quote someone said that the ground controllers would never know if it was a simulation or not)

Plus the mounds of scientific evidence they've published and made available for scientific scrutiny.

Everything else seems quite circumstantial.... moon rocks (improperly inventoried for 5 years and the rocks might have been picked from Antarctica)

No. They have characteristics which cannot be reproduced on Earth.

photos (every single one of them cleared by American intelligence at Langley)
telemetry tapes (which were easily destroyed)

Source.

3rd party radio intercepts and telescope "sightings"... all these are circumstantial evidence.

The moon rocks are direct evidence. Unfakable. Plus all that other stuff.

We could divide up all this circumstantial evidence and have experts pour over it (like they have done for 42 years) and these experts STILL could not testify that the astronauts really walked on the moon. Because they weren't there when it happened. All we will ever have is circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the astronauts.... the books, the interviews, the appearances...

I wasn't there when my sister was born, yet I'm pretty sure she was. If we can't assert anything we weren't there to see, then the entire court system is useless.

Jarrah White has taken all this circumstantial evidence (and the inquiries of his predecessors) into his videos and provided his interpretations to it.

Your hero seems to have mixed up the shielded and unshielded numbers, along with a ton of other things.

And the rest of your post is just rhetorical nonsense. Can you prove that the landings were false? Because skepticism requires affirmative proof, not just doubting the other guy.

Also, I find it strange that you provide no evidence that the astronauts were lying, and are pretending astronaut testimony is the only possible evidence. If everything else is a lie, what exactly is to stop them from lying? If they were say they didn't go to the moon, who is to say they're telling the truth? Your argument, to use the term loosely, doesn't even hold up under its own weight.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Isn't it shameful that some people are so unAmerican that they'll use almost any reason to say the USA couldn't have faked a few moon landings?

The USA landed men on the moon right? I'm pretty sure they could have convinced a large segment of the earth's population that they went. But it seems some people want too poo poo America so bad, they'll deny we could even fake it.

I'm glad Jarrah White is debunking this harmful propaganda.

And your direct evidence that the andings was faked is...what, exactly? Remember, you have to find the flaws in scientific data that has held up for forty years. Scientific flaws, not something that "looks wrong". Can you do that?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
Those "thousands" (1,500) of architects and engineers in AE911Truth represent, collectively, only 0.1% of their professions in the US alone. Don't make me include the numbers of firemen, paramedics, and cops, as this will only worsen your argument.

Maybe you need a million people to tell you something is wrong when its wrong. But I dont.

So when you say X amount of "experts" agree with you, it's in support of your point, but when I point out that >X experts disagree, you berate me for using big numbers to try and support my point.

When the top demolitions expert says a building is being imploded by bombs. How many more people do you need to verify his observations to your own observations? If takes more than a thousand, you probably have to consider yourself officially brainwashed.

Is that the same guy who was shown nothing more than a video of the collapse with the sound turned off? The same guy who changed his mind when he saw the real thing and did research?

Also, the amount of people who do or do not believe in a given theory does not confer legitimacy.

Now what are you saying? You changed your mind to your above argument?

No, I'm debunking yours. By your own logic, it either matters how many experts agree with you (and yours are in the majority), or it doesn't (in which case the exact number is irrelevant). I gotcha comin' and goin'.

To you. Suspect to you. And you are not a scientist. You're not a dietician. You're not a photographer. You're not an engineer. You're not an astronomer. You don't even have very good grammar. Your opinion, and those of your ilk, is the overwhelming minority, contradicted by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

So now you know what I do for a living? No wonder you believe in moon landings. LOL.

I notice you don't disagree that you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, you quote-mined again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001

Now riddle me this: if there were no retroreflectors on the Moon, why would they need to turn the laser ranging equipment off? Incidentally, they don't turn the visible light cameras off. They have sent back pictures of the landing sites confirming that there is equipment there.

:lol

Think about it, assuming the Apollo landings are fake, which they are, they wouldnt want one instrument not agreeing with another. So the solution is to turn one off. Now you all you have to worry about is to fake one. In this case the easiest one. the 2D image.

Were the lasers and visible light cameras ever both on at once?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by dpd11

 

What exactly in your statement proves the reflectors were put there by man?

Time? No. Size? No. Location? No.

In other words, is there anything that the allegedly man-installed US reflectors do that the Russian reflectors cannot?

edit on 31/8/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: (no reason given)

Huh? Dude, the laser can show where the reflector is on the surface. A laser showed that the first reflector was at the landing site, right where it should be... about a year before the Russian one got there. When the Russian one got there, a laser could show that it was at the location that IT was supposed to be at. Two different locations, two different reflectors. Unless of course you want to claim that all the data collected was a lie. Which I'm sure people will. Because calling everything a lie is the only way anybody justifies this stuff.

reply to post by FoosM

Whats that got to do with Surveyor?
I know he mentioned Lunokhod, sorry If I didnt state the obvious since I linked the article, I was referring to the US side of the space program. The one NASA should know more about.

Call me me crazy, but that's not what you were implying.

reply to post by dpd11


I'm not sure why you aren't getting this.

Huh? Dude, the laser can show where the reflector is on the surface.

Since the Lunokhod-2 was put there by unmanned flight, the fact that the reflectors are present on the moon's surface in no way proves man was there as well.

A laser showed that the first reflector was at the landing site, right where it should be...

We also know exactly where Lunokhod-2 is located. Again this in no way proves man was present on the moon.

When the Russian one got there, a laser could show that it was at the location that IT was supposed to be at.

Your point? We also know where the unmanned installed Lunokhod-2 is located.

Two different locations, two different reflectors.

And both could have gotten there through unmanned flight. I'm not seeing how having two or more reflectors proves man had to be there to deploy it. (Actually, I think there are 5 reflectors. The US have three reflectors (?) and the Russians 2.)

Unless of course you want to claim that all the data collected was a lie.

I make no such claim.

The presence of lunar reflectors does not prove man was on the moon. Period.



Looks like the MythBusters weren't getting this either. Like you, they were biased and it affected their judgments.

They are at the Apache Point Observatory. Dr. McMillan could have pointed her laser at the Lunokhod-2 reflectors and thus, by their own logic, proving "conclusively" that the Russians had been on the moon!!

She didn't do that because they probably thought it would confuse their viewers. I'm not sure if this was ignorance, intellectual dishonesty or straight-up propaganda on the part of the production team.

Originally posted by FoosM
Think about it, assuming the Apollo landings are fake, which they are, they wouldnt want one instrument not agreeing with another. So the solution is to turn one off. Now you all you have to worry about is to fake one. In this case the easiest one. the 2D image.

Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think LOLA is capable of picking up any details as small as the leftover Apollo hardware anyway. They simply don't want to risk damaging there equipment by having a laser reflect off one of the LRRR's. However, you can still generate 3d terrain models of the Apollo sites with stereo pairs from LROC.

Examples: Precis e 3D Measurements of Objects at Apollo 14 Landing Site and processing lroc nac stereo terrain

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Looks like the MythBusters weren't getting this either. Like you, they were biased and it affected their judgments.

They are at the Apache Point Observatory. Dr. McMillan could have pointed her laser at the Lunokhod-2 reflectors and thus, by their own logic, proving "conclusively" that the Russians had been on the moon!!

She didn't do that because they probably thought it would confuse their viewers. I'm not sure if this was ignorance, intellectual dishonesty or straight-up propaganda on the part of the production team.

Oh, and you AREN'T biased? lol I didn't hear them just keep on saying 'no no no' as an excuse to swat away all proof. They showed evidence... Not just empty claims. She "could have"? And do you have proof that's what they did? Or is this just more accusations of everybody being 'in on it'?

So you're theory is that, because it was possible to send a reflector there by using a robotic vehicle, that proves that ours were all placed there by robotic vehicles? So when and where exactly did these rockets carrying the robotic vehicles lift off? And what... Did they also create little fake indications by where they left the reflectors, to make it look like the landing sites in photos later?

I swear... To do all the stuff to make this conspiracy work the way people claim, it would actually be a 10 times bigger technological accomplishment than just sending the stupid people in the first place. lol I really don't understand why people just keep trying to pound a square peg in a round hole to make all this work.

reply to post by dpd11


IMO the onus is on proving they DID send man to the moon, not that they didn't...

And there's NO 100% proof that I've seen yet.
Nothing that couldn't have been done remotely or faked..

reply to post by dpd11

Oh, and you AREN'T biased?

I have the same bias you do, that is I believe we went to the moon. However, unlike you I'm able to take off my blindfold and look around.

lol I didn't hear them just keep on saying 'no no no' as an excuse to swat away all proof.

You have no idea the difference between evidence and what constitutes proof, do you?

Not just empty claims. She "could have"? And do you have proof that's what they did? Or is this just more accusations of everybody being 'in on it'?

Did you see them point the laser at the Russian reflector? Are you aware that the Apache Point Observatory is able to? The Russian reflector would have returned the signal, same as the US one did. They claim (as you do) that a return signal "proves conclusively" that man was on the moon. It's dishonest not to make the viewers aware that the Russian refector would've returned the same signal.

So you're theory is that, because it was possible to send a reflector there by using a robotic vehicle, that proves that ours were all placed there by robotic vehicles?

No, that is not my theory. Where did I say that? Again, you are making hasty conclusions. It's only proof that there is man-made equipment on the moon, not that man himself was there. This is not so hard to understand, is it?

I swear... To do all the stuff to make this conspiracy work the way people claim, it would actually be a 10 times bigger technological accomplishment than just sending the stupid people in the first place.

I wrote almost exactly the same thing earlier in this thread. Maybe you should read the thread?