Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra

 

Forgive my ignorance, but if the beams are diffracted THAT much then why are they worried about a beam bouncing back of the reflectors??

Well b in b the reflectores are designed so that the beam goes straight back same direction it came did you know or think about that?

How many photons come back from the reflector and what is the margin for error in the test? Because from my understanding they only get back a couple of photons and there has to be a margin of error in the testing.

Originally posted by nataylor


Notice how there are breaks in the tracks around the sites for Apollos 11, 12, and 15, which just happen to be the ones that deployed retroreflectors.

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

Originally posted by backinblack
Forgive my ignorance, but if the beams are diffracted THAT much then why are they worried about a beam bouncing back of the reflectors??

Because if one of those beams hits the retro-reflector, it goes directly back to orbiter and it could damage LOLA's receiver. With a $504 million orbiter, it's just better to be safe than sorry.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
How many photons come back from the reflector and what is the margin for error in the test? Because from my understanding they only get back a couple of photons and there has to be a margin of error in the testing.

You only get a couple of photons back when you shine a laser at the LRRR from Earth because the beam is spread out much more over the Lunar surface. From 50km above the Moon with the beam only spread a few meters and you'll get a much stronger return that would overwhelm the receiver. It's designed to pick up laser light reflecting off the Lunar surface, not off a mirrors.

reply to post by jra

Because if one of those beams hits the retro-reflector, it goes directly back to orbiter and it could damage LOLA's receiver. With a $504 million orbiter, it's just better to be safe than sorry.

And they're not concerned about beams bouncing back from all the equipment left at the other Apollo sites??

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

During the 1960s, an upsurge in space research and the imminent Apollo programme stimulated increasing requests for meteorites. With Ed Henderson of the Smithsonian Institute, Mason initiated a search for new meteorites in the Australian Outback, where the arid desert conditions were favourable to their survival and recovery. In four expeditions between 1963 and1967, the pair covered 40036 miles and made a significant number of finds. Then in 1965, Mason joined the Smithsonian, as the meteorite division expanded in anticipation of the need for significant scientific backup to support the lunar programme.

Because back in the day Brian Mason proved that moon rocks can be found right here on planet Earth.

I think that is very important information that you brought forth. I dont recall Jarrah White bringing this up.
There was a surge in searching for meteorites prior to the moon landing...

MOTHERLODE

When such objects hit the moon they must throw up a spray of lunar rocks, many of escape the moon s weak gravity. Some may have fallen onto the earth - New York Times - Aug 28, 1966

Did you ever hear of Project Moon Harvest?
This is from the Milwaukee Journal - ‎May 6, 1965‎

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a840602da7a.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/894274c3eb67.gif[/atsimg]

This is the proof that NASA was hunting for
lunar samples here on Earth (In IOWA for all places)
prior to Apollo launching. Notice, IOWA is called a blind alley
and it that it would help scientists toward another avenue that
would be more productive. Can we assume... Antarctica two years later?
Obama sez "Yes we can!" And other places we were not aware of.

We also have to wonder if they actually didnt find specimens from Project Moon Harvest for use in faking their moon rocks? 400 hundred stones...

Soviet Scientists say the moon's soil is similar to Earth's basalt.

After Surveyor 5, the same conclusion was also made:
lunar surface = earth's basaltic rock

The igneous rocks in the earth s crust contain from 1 to 10 per cent of water of crystalization. Similar percentages may be expected on the moon

Hartford Courant - Dec 18, 1960

Originally posted by backinblack
And they're not concerned about beams bouncing back from all the equipment left at the other Apollo sites??

To my knowledge none of the other equipment left on the Moon is retro-reflective, so I'd assume no.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
And they're not concerned about beams bouncing back from all the equipment left at the other Apollo sites??

To my knowledge none of the other equipment left on the Moon is retro-reflective, so I'd assume no.

Odd. most is metallic..
Good reflective stuff there..

reply to post by FoosM

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

Weren't you just implying that data from the laser ranging instrument would reveal that there was nothing at the Apollo landing sites? Now you have the data, get to work. If you can use this data to prove that Apollo was a hoax, I will publicly "apollogize." The same goes for your offer to examine all the star field photos from the SIM Bay mapping cameras in order to compare them to what the star fields should actually look like. I realize that you are already terribly busy poring over astrophotographs of the period looking for the tell-tale streaks that would prove that the CSM remained in low Earth orbit rather than going to the Moon, but I think your hunch that these LLR readings are the smoking gun is the way to go.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

Weren't you just implying that data from the laser ranging instrument would reveal that there was nothing at the Apollo landing sites? Now you have the data, get to work.

Sorry, but all I see is some red lines.
Doesnt say anything too me.

reply to post by DJW001

Weren't you just implying that data from the laser ranging instrument would reveal that there was nothing at the Apollo landing sites? Now you have the data, get to work. If you can use this data to prove that Apollo was a hoax, I will publicly "apollogize."

Must be tough on Apollo believers also..
Seems every time NASA is given a chance to 100% prove the landings, there is always an excuse why they can't.

Originally posted by backinblack

Must be tough on Apollo believers also..
Seems every time NASA is given a chance to 100% prove the landings, there is always an excuse why they can't.

It's all extremely interesting. This goes so far beyond the simple question of "Did humans set foot on the moon ?"

The question of how passable the radiation belts is a face off between two different paradigms about human-kinds place in the universe, hinging on a presumably immutable underlying truth.

The lunar rock issue asks a delightfully delicious question "Given rock sample x, could you, without a comparison sample from the lunar environment, determine whether it was of lunar origin and whether it had been taken from the moon's surface or fallen to Earth ?"

The tantalizingly tangible proof provided by rock returns and retro-reflectors alike asks if given one official narrative ( "They are here/there because we actually did this." ), an alternate narrative can be found that allows the same "proof" but bypasses the need for humans to have gone to the moon to provide it. ("They ... rock samples ... are here because we acquired them in such and such a manner, they ... reflectors ... are there because we got them to the moon in such and such a manner").

The question of stars in the lunar sky, and viewing conditions on the moon, asks us to take a position on how our terrestrial intuitions compare to the evidence presented by those who presumably were actually there, took photos, and gave descriptions, and how it all compares to our scientific knowledge of light and shadow and atmosphere on the moon.

The debates around all the matters that circle the central "Did we go ?" are almost more interesting than a straight-forward answer to the central question would be.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
And they're not concerned about beams bouncing back from all the equipment left at the other Apollo sites??

To my knowledge none of the other equipment left on the Moon is retro-reflective, so I'd assume no.

Odd. most is metallic..
Good reflective stuff there..

no not metallic, the Rover, MET, the tools, spent cartridges, PLSSs, bits of blown LM gold foil, were all made with non reflective black velvet cloth.

reply to post by backinblack

I think the keyword here is retroreflective. It means the signal is returned directly to the source.

PS: Don't worry, I had to look it up. I'm not that smart.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jra

 

Because if one of those beams hits the retro-reflector, it goes directly back to orbiter and it could damage LOLA's receiver. With a $504 million orbiter, it's just better to be safe than sorry.

And they're not concerned about beams bouncing back from all the equipment left at the other Apollo sites??

... and also every other piece of "government junk" (courtesy Ed Mitchell ) left on the moon...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20fa66f94604.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I think the keyword here is retroreflective. It means the signal is returned directly to the source.

PS: Don't worry, I had to look it up. I'm not that smart.

On the contrary, you actually looked up what a retro-reflector is and now understand how it's different from some regular metallic object. Unlike backinblack, FoosM and SayonaraJupiter who clearly haven't.

Originally posted by backinblack
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..

Uh no... Because by far the majority of people in the world think it's so ridiculously obvious, that they don't even waste time questioning it. For whatever reason, a small amount of people do. You are the minority. You are the ones claiming something outrageous. The responsibility falls to you to prove your theory. I could say I have a pet hamster that talks. Prove I don't.

There's never going to be proof in the minds of conspiracy theorists, because no matter what they are shown... they just say it's fake, a lie, or the people are part of the conspiracy. You could do that forever, and I'm sure the people that believe this nonsense probably will.

I think the real mystery is what motivates people to deny one of mankind's greatest achievements... not to mention their own country's greatest achievement. I mean what... Is your life too boring? Jealous? Hate the government? There has to be some reason why people systematically deny something, that is virtually beyond deniability. Why not say WWII never happened while you're at it? Or how about the Civil War? Gee, all we have is a bunch of stories and photos. Those must all be fake. Prove the Civil War happened... I'l come up with some silly reason to shoot down everything you say. Photos? Faked. Letters? Faked. Artifacts? Faked. Hey, this is fun... I can just deny anything in reality I want.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I think the keyword here is retroreflective. It means the signal is returned directly to the source.

PS: Don't worry, I had to look it up. I'm not that smart.

On the contrary, you actually looked up what a retro-reflector is and now understand how it's different from some regular metallic object. Unlike backinblack, FoosM and SayonaraJupiter who clearly haven't.

Bit insulting mate..I knew what it meant but it doesn't mean other items couldn't reflect straight back either..
Happens all the time and you'd think they'd err on the side of caution..

reply to post by dpd11


The majority believed the earth was flat ya know.

WWII is a plain STUPID comparison..
The landings have only ONE source of evidence, NASA...
The entire program affected very few people here on earth, unlike a war that killed 60million..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by dpd11

 

The majority believed the earth was flat ya know.

WWII is a plain STUPID comparison..
The landings have only ONE source of evidence, NASA...
The entire program affected very few people here on earth, unlike a war that killed 60million..

No, they don't just have one source. You act like there's 5 people working at NASA or something. Thousands of people around the world were involved in the program. People from all different countries. People from dozens of contractors. Virtually every major aerospace company of that time was involved with one component or another. You're talking about tens of thousands of people intimately involved. Collectively, probably the smartest people on the planet. But they're all in on it, right? Or did mysterious shadow people somehow pull the wool over the eyes ,of tens of thousands of the worlds brightest people?

I just gave one of many examples of non NASA involvement. The reflectors placed there. Numerous independent scientists from around the world that were not directly involved with NASA, took laser range readings from that. They saw it exactly at the spot where it was supposed to be... almost a year before the Russian vehicles were even there. There were numerous tracking stations around the world that could pinpoint the transmissions from the craft, both telemetry and voice comms, and see exactly where they were coming from. Some of those tracking stations were run by other people besides NASA. Oh wait, let me guess... All of these people are in on it too, right? So now you've got thousands of people all over the world in on this big scam, and they're all keeping it a big secret to this day. All president Clinton did was get some in his office, and he couldn't keep it a secret. But thousands of people in on the biggest conspiracy known to man, and the best anybody can do is claim everything is fake, and call people liars.

reply to post by dpd11


The challenge was issued pages ago to cite one 100% independent source to and there was NO takers..

Your welcome to post something..

It's already been mentioned that the Russians also put reflectors on the moon..
Did they have men there to do it?

As for all the tracking stations, I don't think anyone has stated that NASA couldn't get a craft to the moon..
The debate seems to be if men were in them or not..