Moon hoax question: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I'm on the fence, the biggest question I have is why haven't we gone back? We did what two hands worth of manned missions, then just stopped? The moon is enormous, I could think of dozens of remedial experiments to give astronauts to do on the moon, so why not try? We can't possibly learn everything about the moon from Orbiters, and it's good training for exploration of a celestial body right in our backyards.

When you train scuba divers, you train them in a pool, before dumping them in the big blue yonder, so why not do the same with the moon. Send teams of Astronauts up to practice for future exploration, run drills of disaster scenarios and right the book of what if's. I know it's pricey, but it's much pricier to send men to mars or further, as well as more dangerous.

This always has been that fact that makes me go hmm... Why suddenly stop going? I'm aware of the apollo close calls, but part of making mistakes is learning from them and improving the areas that failed. You can't do that with out trying again.

We can see landing sites from satellites, as well as with some really good telescopes. How ever, you can not see evidence that a man was there. Foot prints are next to impossible to observe with out getting there to see they are really man made footprints. This remains the only reason I wonder why no one goes back, as well as NASA creating No fly, no go zones over and on it's previous landing sites.

As far as I'm concerned right now, evidence suggests they went. Lots of questions about it, but too many astronauts corroborate the story, the data is available to the public, no other nation blew the whistle on them. It's a pretty remarkable accomplishment people want to shoot down. Maybe their lives are so disappointing, and they're mad they don't have the flying cars media promised them in the "2000's"

There is more data to support a manned mission to the moon, than not. I'm sorry if you can't understand some of the data, but it is/was possible.




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
an unmanned mission probably put the reflectors there. looking at the mountain of photographic #ups in every single picture they brought back really should tell you that the photos were faked. if they indeed really go to the moon, what we saw on tv was a lie. its also entirely possible that we did go to the moon but were unable to bring back pictures for some reason, prompting the fakery we saw.



Sure. That is the most probable and most logical explanation.

So you say that it is even possible that we actually DID go there, were not able to make pictures and then faked the thing?

Guys, give it up! If there were a CREDIBLE expert who could demolish those pics (someone from Kodak or anybody with real credentials), don´t you think this would have been done ages ago?

We are talking about this for almost 60 years now.

But let´s stop this. I didn´t want to go off the laser topic, and here I did it anyway. I don´t want a hoax yes or no debate.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
I'm on the fence, the biggest question I have is why haven't we gone back?


Why should we? To get even more samples? To build a base? To enjoy the view?

Why?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 



Well, your title of the thread deals with Lunar ranging experiment to be the proof for Moon visit.

There are facts that refute that as "real" evidence, since we've established it could be done through other means.

So it's refutable evidence.

Let's move on to another subject...since this one is dead.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by VariableConstant
 



So you say that they did a mars rover style mission in which they placed the objects without the need of humans present? With computer and robotic technology of the 60`s?

Quite a mission. Forgive me for still choosing the official story because of the mountains of evidence surrounding it.


So you think an unmanned mission is doubtful because of the 'computer and robotic technology of the 60's' but you do think a manned mission was possible with the same technology? Surely an unmanned mission is easier?
As has been mentioned the Russions sent Rovers up there which performed remarkably well given the year.
In fact their 2nd 'rover', Lunokhod 2's journey is still (as of January this year) credited as
the longest any robotic rover, or any vehicle, that had ever driven on another celestial body.

Quite a feat. Given the year 1973. Their first Lunokhod rover was in 1970 so its feasible that NASA could have placed reflectors and taken photos and samples from unmanned missions.

And all of the mountains of evidence and data about the veracity of the Apollo missions comes from NASA itself... so if one believes a possible conspiracy of any sorts then all that documented evidence is of no use to persuade one otherwise. NASA hoax believers would require definitive (ie: close up) photographic or video evidence of stuff left on the moon (footprints would be good) from a couple of independent sources with no link to NASA to truly believe the NASA story.

I tend to agree with some posters here in that I'm still on the fence as to whether man walked on the moon (the older I get the more I think they did) but I'm so sure that NASA recreated/faked some of their stunning photographs of man on the Lunar surface back on the Earth for all sorts of reasons. As is often said on ATS 'if there's no photo it ain't real'... so imagine if they came back from the moon with a whole load of fogged, blurry, wrongly exposed images... now that would be a disaster. Recently when IMAX shot a film in low Earth orbit and nowhere near the Van Allen belts they had to use major protection to avoid the radiation from damaging their film stock. No such care was taken on the Apollo missions yet their film is unblemished and their photos have a super high degree of expert framing and focus. Quite a feat in pressurized suits with no viewfinder me thinks.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


I have to admit that this is not definite proof either way. BUT there is still a pretty huge logical inconsistency.

Let´s assume you´re right (I assume you are pro hoax?), and the moon landing was fake. The whole point of it was not loosing face against the russians, right? The point was to bring a man to the moon, correct?

Ok. Now riddle me this. Why add this extra challenge in form of the reflectors? I mean why not just leave it away? Nobody asked about the reflectors back in the day, they took them with them because it was scientifically interesting.

Just like they collected samples because it was scientifically interesting. It was not the main goal of the mission though, and it would have been far off the point it this was just a hoax.

The main achievement, which most of the population remembers today, is Neil Armstrong on the moon.

There would have been no harm to the whole hoax scenario if the mirrors were never introduced into the picture. But they are there! Saying that there could have been a unmanned mission might be a technical explanation, it just doesn´t fit very well in the big picture.

The fact that laser experiments can be done without mirrors is nice, but irrelevant. I am talking about experiments that do require them, and which were done by several institutes.

Again, if it IS a hoax, why bring the mirrors into the picture in the first place?

Oh, and I do not think that you should necessarily mention dead topics. The moon landing hoax "theory" is over 50 years old now. Don´t you think it´s time to let it go?
edit on 13-2-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling
edit on 13-2-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling again



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 





Ok. Now riddle me this. Why add this extra challenge in form of the reflectors? I mean why not just leave it away? Nobody asked about the reflectors back in the day, they took them with them because it was scientifically interesting.


Perhaps the very reason they took reflectors was that they would boost their story of sending man there. Now they can say... 'here, look, these were put here by so-and-so... so man must have gone there.' The old 'double bluff'. Those folks at NASA are definitely not stupid and if they wanted to hoax us they definitely could and I'm sure they'd do it in a very thorough way... as demonstrated by the video footage on the lunar surface which, to my mind anyway, is the best evidence man was on the moon. I'm working on a theory on how the video could have been achieved... will be a future thread one day.

And speaking of 'scientifically interesting', I am still baffled as to why NASA didn't want any photos of the stars while they were up there... would be easy to set up a camera on a tripod and do some long exposures. They'd look stunning... but not one in all those missions.

And despite being able to seemingly get man to the moon with a computer smaller in memory than your mobile phone with zero fatalities (after leaving earths atmosphere) on many very successful trips (greaty photos, great videos, pin point accurate return landings for the cameras etc) they haven't been able to do the same using modern technology... and they've lost many more lives with the shuttle. Just seems a bit odd.

I'm sure the NASA believer big guns will be along soon to show us some blurry pics from NASA of stuff left on the moon. And mock us Lunar conspiracy lovers for being so stupid with our nutty beliefs that NASA might actually fake some photos and stuff. Usually happens about now.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


my reply was concise and accurate , there is however irrefutable evidence for the veracity of the apollo manned landings



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Ok, so they thought they had to fluff up the piece so to speak, I get that thinking.

Now, in all honesty, do you really think that planning and launching a mission that would cost millions of dollars and involve dozens if not hundreds more people into the scam than is needed would be the right way?

Do you honestly consider this as a valid option? Especially when you take into account that not even the majority of people today even know about those reflectors?

Do you know of any headlines those reflectors made? Any talkshows about them? Do you honestly think that they would start such a MASSIVE undertaking just to "fluff up" the Armstrong story? Especially with a piece that is virtually unknown to the public?

Well, that is your choice then. I personally do not see a big chance of that being true. Nobody likes unnecessary risk or cost.

As for the not wanting star pictures, I would say that this is an assumption on your part. I´m sure you are that right that there are none, but you know we can´t have anything. Reasoning that the moon landing is a hoax because they didn´t snap pictures of what you would have liked to see is a bit far fetched.

And they haven´t "been able" to send another man to the moon because they haven´t tried. And why should they? There have been many missions in the past and there are only so many hundreds of kilos of samples that we really need.

Missions like that cost a lot of money, I am sure we all know that. We also know that governments around the world have to think pretty hard on what to spend that money on. Another manned space mission to the moon would never get funded, and why should it?

The only real reason to go back there is to settle there, is to build a base.

Those blurry pics already have been released quite some time ago. You should try to stay informed about your hoaxes.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


my reply was concise and accurate , there is however irrefutable evidence for the veracity of the apollo manned landings


Gotcha.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
And speaking of 'scientifically interesting', I am still baffled as to why NASA didn't want any photos of the stars while they were up there... would be easy to set up a camera on a tripod and do some long exposures. They'd look stunning... but not one in all those missions.

And despite being able to seemingly get man to the moon with a computer smaller in memory than your mobile phone with zero fatalities (after leaving earths atmosphere) on many very successful trips (greaty photos, great videos, pin point accurate return landings for the cameras etc) they haven't been able to do the same using modern technology... and they've lost many more lives with the shuttle. Just seems a bit odd.


As for the star pics, a tripod and extra camera is more weight to carry up there. They had to justify every pound they carried, and pictures of stars wasn't going to do anything but look pretty.

As for the computers, look at some of the other things they did at the same time frame without even using a single computer. Kelly Johnson designed and built an aircraft that was so advanced it still holds records to this day, with nothing but a slide rule and pen. Engineers were smarter back then, because they had to do things the old fashioned way.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Good points!

I just thought about the star pics from another angle and actually had to laugh out loud, should have thought about it before.

Well, we already do that on earth and it is called astronomy. What advantage should pics from the moon have over pics taken from earth? Especially if you consider the relatively small and simple camera in comparison to the huge telescopes that we use from earth?

It wouldn´t even make any sense to take pictures from the stars, it would be a waste of time and film. We can see the stars already, take pics from the the moon! And so they did, I guess.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


Did you even read the rest of my post?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
edit on 13-2-2013 by alien because: Banned Returnee



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hijinx
 


Do you really want my thoughts on your training camp on the moon?

Ok, in a nutshell: The mission they would be training for would cost billions of dollars and is pretty hard to finance as it is. You suggest that they should have spent pretty much the same again (or even more) to do the training for this potential mission on the friggin MOON!

I didn´t really want to comment on that, but do you consider any real issues in your thoughts?

You consider spending hundreds of millions of dollars to repeatedly send astronauts up there to train for a mission that won´t take place for at least another 10 or so years if at all. Do you know what those astronauts you just trained for 250 million a piece will do in 15 years?

The world just does not work that way. Things have to be paid for and planned.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lutherbustworth
 


You randomly connect these issues that have nothing to do with each other as if to prove a point.

Where exactly is your evidence that the reflector was not put up by the apollo mission?

I fail to see the connection here. You jump to the conclusion that there has to have been an unmanned mission.

Where in your little story do you exclude the apollo mission from doing that?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
My question is, if it was an unmanned mission, how did they pull it off without people knowing? It still would have taken a Saturn V to have enough fuel for them to get to the moon, manned or unmanned. You can't hide a rocket launch, especially that sized. So where's the extra launch?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lutherbustworth
 




Why is this important? It means we don't know th real story by any means about the reflector. Who put it there? Probably a robot, manned placement was not necessary. Why was it there? Probably for military purposes.

You might be reading more into it than is actually there.

If we assume that the reflector could be used for distance measurement between Russia missiles and US cities.
Remember we under estimated the Russians just a few years earlier.
Why give the Russians any extra help in targeting US cities?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Well, that question has not to be asked as it wasn´t a hoax.

But to be fair maybe some hoaxers want to address that point.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
edit on 13-2-2013 by alien because: Banned Returnee





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join