Moon hoax question: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

reply to post by Nightaudit

I have to assume that you are misinformed about the reasons for the shield in the shuttle mission in 2002.

Erm..?? I'm no expert but I think radiation might be the answer....
The astronauts also had to race to shoot the film before it was fogged by the high levels of radiation in space.

I wasn't talking about the astronauts. I'm talking about the 70mm film. That is why I mention the 2002 IMAX film. It's hugely relevant as they used 70mm on Apollo and didn't bother with this precaution and so why bother now... this is the same as you saying 'why bother with the reflectors if it was a hoax'. I gave you a hypothesis and so what is yours re this?

Please enlighten me with

the reasons for the shield in the shuttle mission in 2002.

if it wasn't for radiation.

reply to post by manmental


I can only quote my post as you seem to not have read the important bit. But to make it easier I will change a word:

"Because what I DO know is that the scary van allen belt is not so scary at all. The film 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 fact remains that they didn´t use one before, because it wasn´t necessary. And they were obviously right as we have seen the footage and the film obviously made it.

Do you really think you can accurately judge these technical aspects from an outside view? I mean really 100% accurate? Do yo not think that there are just a few more details involved that would become clear once you dive deeper into the REAL info?

I always find it fascinating how immensely confident most hoaxers are. You guys are experts in almost anything. I however do know a thing or two about real life projects and the incredible amount of detail work connected with it, that you would not have predicted in a million years. I have learned to be humble about what I know and do not know.

Can you say with 100 % certainty that the film back then could not have survived without a shield?

Can you really?

Isn´t the burden of proof on your "side" anyway? You guys are the ones who are in doubt. The rest of the world is pretty much clear on the subject for ages.

reply to post by Nightaudit

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.

You do KNOW that do you? How so? Did Van Allen say they weren't harmful recently?
Well he changed his mind somewhat from his original writings on the subject (“Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March 1959.and “The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961) where he makes the big bad belts sound rather scary indeed. Perhaps NASA persuaded him to change his story in the light of the people calling 'hoax'.
And I think NASA announced recently they are conducting tests into the possible dangers of radioactivity for future Moon and Mars missions... why would they bother if they knew it was safe in 1969?
One might say they never bothered carrying out complete testing back then because the initial testing showed it would be too dangerous to send a man to the moon.

Originally posted by Nightaudit " the at least 100 documentaries that have been done by I don´t know how many production teams about the moon landing? "

all of which rely on the same, nasa-sourced photos and video.

reply to post by Nightaudit


Wow. Touched a nerve with this one have we?

I always find it fascinating how immensely confident most hoaxers are. You guys are experts in almost anything.

I sir am not a 'hoaxer' , but I would like to meet one as I agree that a hoax done well needs expert planning and thinking.

I am not confident in asserting that man did not land on the moon as I have stated numerous times that I am happily sitting on the fence... and enjoying watching you having issues with my comfort up here on the fence.

I am confident only in why I am on the fence and in why I believe what i do in this moment in time.

I might change my mind in an instant but right now any confidence that you are reading in my writings is just a confidence of me being me. Don't read into that confidence of me being right or better etc as I would dearly love to see close up photographic proof of evidence of man on the moon as taken by someone other than NASA. Then I will celebrate the moon landings as a feat of human achievement.

reply to post by manmental


Again, you have to read what I have written.

Here is what you ask: "How so? Did Van Allen say they weren't harmful recently?"

Here is what I already wrote: "The film passed it within 1 hour and received only a low dose of radiation. So low that a special radiation shield was deemed unnecessary."

Did I say it didn´t receive any radiation? No, I didn´t. I said the level of radiation wasn´t high enough to require a shield.

What do you think radiation is? Like a laser wall that cannot be penetrated?

And again, do you think you are capable and qualified to really judge these issues? What do you think nasa is? A company filled with evil old man who plot how to not let us know what they know?

They are a team of highly qualified experts who deal with exactly these questions. And they accumulate the experience of all the past mission within their research. I for one would think they know what they are doing.

reply to post by manmental


Oh, and btw I see this more as kind of a debate challenge. If I were in the least bit uncomfortable I wouldn´t be here.

reply to post by manmental


So why are you on the fence? Just the van allen thing? That is not very much Sir.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz

Originally posted by Nightaudit " the at least 100 documentaries that have been done by I don´t know how many production teams about the moon landing? "

all of which rely on the same, nasa-sourced photos and video.

This was posted in relation to corroborative evidence outside of nasa.

Are all the interviews with the crews of the satellite dishes faked as well. Or were the signals they received from the shuttles position faked?

It´s gotta be one of those right?

reply to post by Nightaudit


I answered why in the four points I answered earlier to you asking why before.

And i still wonder why 70mm film which is nowhere near the Van Allen belts needs any shielding at all...

Oh and to answer your other questions:

Cost of a manned mission to the moon? On Apollo tech very cheap i would have thought... but apparently that is all too unsafe and won't work these modern days so we have to build new stuff and make new plans and do more research and so therefore the price becomes loads... maybe almost as much as the US spends on Black projects in a few years... i've no idea. Can you enlighten me?

Why go back to the moon? Are you serious?

Why does man (and woman!) keep climbing Everest (and keep dying attempting it)? Why do people keep re-attempting amazing feats to break records or be better or go bigger.
Why are so many other people other than NASA excited about going to the moon?

It's the moon!!

reply to post by manmental


Well, the film wasn´t exactly free floating in space, was it? I am sure there was at least minimal protection.

And it is fine that you wonder about that. That does not mean your opinion is more valid than that of, I don´t know, an engineer maybe?

And the cost of a manned mission is hard to guess. But you wouldn´t even have to start planning under half a billion dollars. That is a very loose guess of course, it may probably be a lot more.

In any case, it is enough to want something in return for that. More pics or samples do not cut it.

And no, the everest idea does not apply. It did for the first landing yes, but now there is no real rational real world motivation anymore. At least not as far as we know now.

The only real reason to go back I can see is building a base. Either for tourism or research.

But just to have another man walk on the moon? Just to climb everest AGAIN?

No, I don´t think that would get funded. And I personally would have my country spent that money rather somewhere else to be honest.

reply to post by Nightaudit


have you seen this?



please watch and then ask why we should go back...

We should go back to create new heroes and new dreams and to persuade the new generation what is possible.
That grainy black and white footage doesn't cut it.
RED BULL Gravity XXX Games... that would make them billions!

I personally think the cost is a few billion at least. But every penny would be worth it!

reply to post by manmental


Of course the space missions have always birthed and developed technologies that have spilled over and influenced the civilian market. And I am all FOR space missions in general.

But technical advances like that are never born out of repetition of past challenges. They are born out of necessity because we face new challenges. Landing on the moon again would´t really do anything besides causing costs.

Landing on the moon again just for the spirit of it doesn´t work either. Do you want to explain to the population why that mission was possible while money wasn´t spent on other more important issues?

If anything a manned mission to mars would maybe get funded. Maybe not at the moment but I sure hope soon.

reply to post by Nightaudit

But technical advances like that are never born out of repetition of past challenges. They are born out of necessity because we face new challenges.

Surely loads of technical advances are born out of repetition of past challenges... the fastest land speed challenge... the biggest cruise ship... the highest building... the stealthiest stealth fighter.... the biggest bomb... the lightest gun... the smallest micro chip... the longest zoom lens... the list is endless.

There are few really new challenges so man is forced to try and better himself and this does lead, inevitably to improvements in technology.

The only real challenges for exploration are: the deepest places in the oceans, Mars the Moon and further out i think. Basically in alien environments, as we seem to have conquered our environment and messed it up big time in the process I might add!

reply to post by manmental


The fastest land speed challenge is not a repetition of past events. It´s faster hehe. I´m not pulling your leg though. You would be amazed how much development needs to be done in the record machines.

Each new massive ship, a super tanker or a big cruise ship, presents hundreds of new challenges. Building the second one is the easier part.

The same thing with buildings. You can´t just pile another few floors on top. If it were that easy we would have build a 1000 meter high sky scrapers already.

All of your points are examples of new technology, new barriers being broken.

And sure the challenges get fewer and the barriers higher. But that is part of the process we all are part of. That is part of progress. Landing on the moon has been done. Landing on mars would be a new challenge.

I agree about the deep sea and mars. I do not agree about the moon though. There have been five missions. What purpose would number 6 have in comparison to the last five?

reply to post by Nightaudit


Looks like we do agree on a lot!
I still think the Moon is a very relevant goal just because it's the moon and lots of folks and loads of young-uns can't realistically grasp the idea that man was there just because NASA says so and some grainy video. Most kids these days don't have time to look at photos unless its 'duck-face' photos on TMZ or the like.

So I hope that the next (or FIRST) people on the moon aren't the USA and I hope they capture the imaginations of a new generation and further inspire great thinking minds to pursue further incredible achievements.

Lets see man on the moon in HD please!

reply to post by manmental


Indeed we do! And I agree that it would be awesome if the chinese for example would do another mission. I think they wouldn´t really mind a billion or two in their budget, and I would love to see the moon in HD!

I am a big fan of manned space flight and one of my goals in life (I´m 31) is to at least be in orbit once.

That at least would be possible for 6 figures already, but I am sure we will see more of that in the future.

There has been talk of a hotel on the moon for years, but I do not really see that coming before at least 2030.

But I agree, a new mission would surely be exciting.

reply to post by filterfishing


dude.. you again? give it a rest with the military stuff.... you're the banned returneee i guess... whats your beef... go find another site that suits your spiel.. there are loads.