Moon hoax question: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

During the 1930's they were experimenting with directed microwave radiation bouncing it off the moon.
Of course the lunar missions could have been accomplished utilizing robotic technology.

During the late 1950's the US high altitude reconnaissance was done using piloted aircraft notably the U2 and A12, they lost a lot of pilots in crashes of those planes.

There was some rethinking done in the early 1960's, and the human piloted reconnaissance aircraft projects were replaced with safer unmanned satellites programs. There would be a terrible risk sending human astronauts to the moon.

Really no way for a child today to prove whether some pilots with the "right stuff" took the risk or whether they gave the PR stunt to Stanley Kubrick is there?

Maybe the truth is dependent on your psychological profile?

reply to post by MysterX

And since anytime the hoax theory is voiced, the reflectors are almost always brought up as a means to show how impossible or unlikely a hoax would have been

Yes indeedly.
The reflectors are very important for those who do believe man walked on the moon.
And that is reason alone why anyone skilled enough to engineer a hoax like this would of course say that man left the reflectors. makes complete logic to me... if it were a hoax.

Originally posted by Cauliflower

During the late 1950's the US high altitude reconnaissance was done using piloted aircraft notably the U2 and A12, they lost a lot of pilots in crashes of those planes.

Uhm, no they didn't. There were I believe six crew members killed in the A-12/SR-71 (the SR-71 had two crew). The U-2 has lost more pilots, but the U-2 is much harder to fly. At least 10 of the U-2 crew losses were Taiwanese pilots during Vietnam. The U-2 has a difference between stall and overspeed break up of 15 knots.

As for the moon missions, there was no way that they could have faked the moon walks, even with Kubrick doing it. The special effects from 2001 don't look anything like the moon walks do.

reply to post by MysterX


Neither did I. What I am saying is that is doesn´t make sense to plan and carry out an entire "secret" mission, "just" to make the moonlanding story more believable.

Armstrong on the moon is the whole point of the hoax. IF it were a hoax, why bring up the reflectors at all?

We have already established that the existence of the reflectors alone is not proof for either side on page 2 of this thread.

So what exactly is it you would like share with us then?

reply to post by manmental


Ok, I see there is no breaking through your logic. I guess if you really want to believe in the fake moon landing then nothing will do it. Of course, with unlimited money (which the bad government obviously has in your world) and no worries about keeping anything a secret all that would be possible.


Would it not have been very easy to find a schedule that doesn´t allow time for the reflectors? Or make up a technical glitch so they weren´t ready at launch? Or ANYTHING else?

Is it really the most logical option to assume that they didn´t do all that, but instead actually send a rocket to the moon to friggin place reflectors that nobody in the world cares about?

Really?

Let me ask you this, because I really want to understand what is going on in your head. What are the top three reasons why the original story has to be false?

The reflectors are by the by.What is true is that the astronauts themselves, probably unwittingly, proved that they went to the Moon. You all have seen them filming Earth from the space capsule, it shows not only the whole of the face of Earth, (the hemisphere) from at least 60,000miles out, (otherwise the face could only be partial) but it is also a picture of Earth on that day, with hurricane Bernice clearly shown in their picture, and also in a near Earth weather satellite picture taken at the same time. The two match up perfectly. You can see them here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Cauliflower


The truth is dependent on reality. It is amazing though what some people can ignore in order to "fit" reality into their world view.

Originally posted by smurfy
You all have seen them filming Earth from the space capsule, it shows not only the whole of the face of Earth, (the hemisphere) from at least 60,000miles out, (otherwise the face could only be partial) but it is also a picture of Earth on that day, with hurricane Bernice clearly shown in their picture, and also in a near Earth weather satellite picture taken at the same time. The two match up perfectly.

THANK YOU!

So, hoaxers. Your answer to this is?

reply to post by Nightaudit


I have been talking about the reflectors because in your OP you asked about how they might have got there if indeed man didn't land on the moon.
The main reasons I'm still on the fence about whether or not man walked on the moon (which is different from filming the earth from space) are the following:
1) The main reason is the lack of corroborative evidence from anyone other than NASA or NASA affiliates. I don't believe everything NASA says and I worry about its connections to the Government and military. I don't trust them basically.
2) The near perfect execution of all the missions from take-off to pin point accurate landings ESPECIALLY the stunning photographs on the Lunar surface (which I think were recreated on the Earth even if the mission was a success)... despite the fact that the Lunar mission was plagued with so many problems prior to 1969. The fact that the Shuttle had way more fatalities than Apollo shows me that the Apollo success rate was extraordinary. I do not include Apollo 1 in my thoughts because they failed to leave the launch pad. That only reinforces the thought I have that the later missions, especially the photography, are too perfect.
3) The fact that everything about the missions and the evidence could have been faked. And as I love huge conspiracies the fact it could have been done is a reason I'd like it to have been done. Because I love a great hoax.
4) The fact no-one has been back or anywhere as far in space since.

Having said all of that... the bit of me on the other side of the fence thinks man did land on the moon because of the amount of evidence which would be hardest to fake... especially the videos. In which case it is perhaps Man's most incredible achievement.

I think it would be worth hoaxing if something went wrong with the mission... the USA couldn't afford for this not to happen... and I'm sure they had a hoax scenario as a plan B... maybe they had to use it... and like I say I'm sure they recreated some of the Lunar photos on Earth.

reply to post by manmental


Thank you for your reply.

I will address your thoughts point for point.

1: "lack of corroborative evidence"

Here I thought you might actually be joking with me. I do not want to appear rude, but have you watched ANY of the at least 100 documentaries that have been done by I don´t know how many production teams about the moon landing?

ANY of them? There is such a HUGE amount of corroborative evidence that I wouldn´t even know where to start.
Just to give you one little source of corroborative evidence: The crews of the satellite dishes who bounced the radio signal to the shuttle and back.

And believe me, there are tons and TONS more. Fake all of them? Have fun with that...


2: "The near perfect execution of all the missions from take-off to pin point accurate landings ESPECIALLY the stunning photographs..."

I´m speechless. Too few injuries or deaths for your taste? Have you any idea how much discipline and training you need for a mission like that? Do you know what consequences the "mistakes" you want would have had? Have you been in the military or have you once experienced that level of training?

I don´t believe this....



3: "The fact that everything about the missions and the evidence could have been faked."

And he scores AGAIN!! Are you friggin´kidding me? You know what I think is fake? I think the olympics last year were completely fake. All cgi. You know why? Because it COULD have been done.

Oh, you know what else must be real because it is remotely possible? Pretty much ANYTHING. I mean do I have to paint you a picture or something? Do you not see how this argument is one of the weakest ever made in any discussion since the beginning of speech?




4: "The fact no-one has been back or anywhere as far in space since."


And you finish strong my friend. Wow. Ok here it goes. How many times have we tried?

Chew on that for a second before you answer. And here are two very real follow up questions:

1) What do you think a manned moon mission would roughly cost?

2) What purpose would another manned mission to the moon have?

reply to post by Nightaudit

I knew you'd have a field day with my post, and though I could argue every point it seems needless as I'm not here to change your beliefs and I don't expect you to change mine either .
You obviously find my way of thinking completely alien to yours and so I don't think its worth me answering more of your questions that are off topic. Because you will not like any of my answers.

reply to post by manmental


Oh, come on man! That is weak, don´t just butt out like that.

At least stand up for your belief and try to convince me. Unless you are already beginning to grasp reality.

Other than that, I am wide open. Ask me anything about the topic, show me anything you want to, give me a link, give me your best shot.

Do you really believe in the hoax? Show it.

As for the moon missions, there was no way that they could have faked the moon walks, even with Kubrick doing it.

There was a lot of footage shown on TV with a blinking "simulation" tag. The rest of the footage could have been faked a lot less expensively on Earth rather than spending an extraordinary amount to execute a safe manned mission to the moon.

As a young child I naturally wanted to believe in a manned moon mission. There is the classic emotive attraction for such a heroic "Odyssey" that would be felt by many. My grandfather was a physicist and forced me to look at the rational implications of an 8 day human space mission as well. Human astronauts needed life support systems that went way beyond the simple breathing needs of a scuba diver. Temperatures in occupied areas needed to be kept in a narrow thermal range. Three human astronauts would produce over 80,000 Kcalories of heat during the mission. Sure Nasa could have used endothermic reaction cooling systems and radiation shielding.

There are so many significant problems to overcome executing such a mission with the necessary 100% success guarantee.

My guess is that the US government would have wanted to spend the money on an extra keyhole program satellite instead.

reply to post by manmental


Oh, and I actually still would like to know if you have ever seen a documentary about the landing.

That part was only semi-rhetorical.

reply to post by Cauliflower


Hey there, just for the fun of it. Could you maybe name your top three arguments pro hoax? The deal breakers so to speak.

I would be very interested to hear them.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

Obviously, reflectors could have been put up by any of the unmanned missions.

What mission specifically?

reply to post by Nightaudit


Rationally from a physics and engineering standpoint the goals of a moon mission could be satisfied by implementing an economical robotic solution.

Historically satisfying the emotive needs of the masses has been the domain of the artistic community.

Back in the 60's I landed on the fence over this one, I believe they split it to increase the audience participation but it would have been a brilliant hack either way.

reply to post by Nightaudit

okay... I'll play along for a bit more, but it's your turn to answer.

Can you tell me why NASA felt it necessary to shield the IMAX film cannisters against radiation on the Shuttle in 2002 in LEO, when this wasn't a problem on the numerous Apollo missions which didn't shield the film from radiation and had no problems despite going past the Van Allen belts and all that.
Both film stocks were the same.. 70mm.
So why did the IMAX 70mm film need shielding?

reply to post by Cauliflower


Oh, somebody likes to use big words, hm?

Allow me to address you points.

1: "Rationally from a physics and engineering standpoint the goals of a moon mission could be satisfied by implementing an economical robotic solution."

In other words: There are no technical reasons that speak against an unmanned mission. Unfortunately just because something is possible doesn´t mean it is automatically a reality. A manned mission, like they did, would have been technically possible as well.



2: "Historically satisfying the emotive needs of the masses has been the domain of the artistic community."

Lol, I know that sounds cute, but could you clarify what the actions of the artistic community have to do with anything? We were talking about the supposedly faked moon landing.



3: "Back in the 60's I landed on the fence over this one, I believe they split it to increase the audience participation but it would have been a brilliant hack either way."

Phew, okay. Could you maybe clarify what they "split" exactly? And the "audience" participated how in what way exactly?

A little more info please. So far you do not make much sense.

reply to post by manmental



I have to assume that you are misinformed about the reasons for the shield in the shuttle mission in 2002. Or at least you do not know the full story.

Because what I DO know is that the scary van allen belt is not so scary at all. The astronauts passed it within 1 hour and received only a low dose of radiation. So low that a special radiation shield was deemed unnecessary.

Those are the facts. Why did they use one in the 2002 mission? I do not know. They will have had their reasons. Maybe they had to cross it in a way that exposed them for a longer time? Maybe the material of the film has gotten more sensitive? Maybe the film is a bit more exposed on the shuttle?

The point that you do not understand their reasoning for this, does not mean the original story has to be fake.