It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon hoax question: Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by neveradullmomentino
 



The mainstream story is not logical.


That's not the mainstream story, that is a humorous anecdote. If you believe it, you must also believe that the Moon is harder to find with a telescope than the most distant galaxy. Do you believe that, too?




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neveradullmomentino
 





Keep in mind the Russians brought moon rocks back to the earth robotically.


The idea of a lunar soft land approach carrying human astronauts was another issue that dramatically increased risk and cost.

They had to invent a reliable rocket powered descent vehicle that could not be tested in the lunar environment ahead of time.

Gravity on the moon is much less than out at some desert test facility. Not only would that effect all the thrust calculations, visibility would likely be zero at landing due to displaced lunar dust. Rocket powered VTOL vehicles were notoriously unstable during landing tests anyways. Then there was the docking that needed to go off without a hitch in orbit around the moon. All this while carrying the extra weight necessary for the life support of the three astronauts.

If you were really hell bent on getting rock samples back to Earth an unmanned vehicle that could survive a hard landing with maybe a 60 to 80 percent chance of making it back to Earth would be a much more likely engineering choice.

Doesn't seem to make any difference though, we are not changing anyones mind with this thread are we?
In my case I've always felt the official Apollo program history was not economically feasable or safe but could have been done with an extraordinary amount of resources applied.

You would need another round of evidence to get the public to consider they had been duped. The Kennedy assassination woke some people up about the potential for disinformation and "2001 a terrorist attack" woke up a few more but again it seems to be the same people that respond skeptically.

I wonder if people that believe there was a Kubrick style soft lunar landing cover up for the public audience also tend to believe the 911 tower implosions were implemented as a planned obsolescence?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Well as far as astronomers Miller, Robinson and Wampler go that was the mainstream story. Are you saying that their contention about being told not to talk about the landing site is in error?

news.ucsc.edu...


Miller was busy fielding questions from television and newspaper reporters who'd gathered at the observatory for the historic moon landing. Ironically, he was not allowed to answer the question on every reporter's mind because of national security concerns. "The Russians knew very accurately the distance between Russian cities and between cities within the United States, but they didn't know the distance between the U.S. and Russia," explained Joe Wampler, professor emeritus of astronomy, who coordinated the experiment for the observatory. "Having an accurate measure of the distance to the moon at a moment in time would've given them that information. I was kind of upset about that, because we went into this as a scientific experiment. We weren't doing it for national security."


Are Miller, Robinson and Wampler making this all up? Are their memories that bad? Doesn't seem like an anecdote to me. What seems to be in error was the reason they were given for keeping their mouths shut. They are not making this up.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cauliflower
 


I couldn't agree more Cauliflower. Thinking about it here though I wonder if they ever considered a hoax seriously. You might think we can do it more cheaply this way. The public will never know. We'll grab some rocks with a robot. That sort of thing.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cauliflower
reply to post by neveradullmomentino
 

Keep in mind the Russians brought moon rocks back to the earth robotically.
The idea of a lunar soft land approach carrying human astronauts was another issue that dramatically increased risk and cost.

They had to invent a reliable rocket powered descent vehicle that could not be tested in the lunar environment ahead of time.

"could not be tested" - Let's see . . . Apollo Missions:

AS-201 Feb. 26, 1966
First flight of Saturn IB and Block I CSM; suborbital to Atlantic ocean; qualified heat shield to orbital reentry speed

AS-203
July 5, 1966
No spacecraft; observations of liquid hydrogen fuel behavior in orbit, to support design of S-IVB restart capability

AS-202
Aug. 25, 1966
Suborbital flight of CSM to Pacific ocean.

Apollo 4
Nov. 9, 1967
First flight of Saturn V; Earth orbital CSM flight; demonstrated S-IVB restart; qualified CM heat shield to lunar reentry speed

Apollo 5
Jan. 22-23, 1968
First Earth orbital flight of LM, launched on Saturn IB; demonstrated ascent and descent propulsion; man-rated the LM

Apollo 6
April 4, 1968
Attempted demonstration of trans-lunar injection and direct-return abort with SM engine; three engine failures prevented S-IVB restart. Flight controllers used SM engine to repeat Apollo 4's flight profile. Man-rated the Saturn V.

Apollo 7
Oct. 11-22, 1968
Wally Schirra, Walt Cunningham, Donn Eisele
Earth orbital demonstration of Block II CSM, launched on Saturn IB. First live television publicly broadcast from a manned mission

Apollo 8
Dec. 21-27, 1968
Frank Borman, James Lovell, William Anders
First manned flight to Moon; CSM made 10 lunar orbits in 20 hours.

Apollo 9
Mar, 3-13, 1969
James McDivitt, David Scott, Russell Schweickart
Earth orbital demonstration of CSM, LM, and Portable Life Support System used on the lunar surface

Apollo 10
May 18–26, 1969
Thomas Stafford, John Young, Eugene Cernan
Dress rehearsal for first lunar landing; flew LM down to 50,000 feet (15 km) from lunar surface

Apollo 11
July 16–24, 1969
Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin
First manned landing, in Sea of Tranquility. Surface EVA time: 2:31 hr. Samples returned: 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg)

Apollo 12
Nov. 14-24, 1969
C. Peter Conrad, Richard Gordon, Alan Bean
Second landing, in Ocean of Storms near Surveyor 3 . Surface EVA time: 7:45 hr. Samples returned: 75.7 pounds (34.3 kg)

Apollo 13
April 11–17, 1970
James Lovell, Jack Swigert, Fred Haise
Third landing attempt aborted near the Moon, due to SM failure. Crew used LM as "life boat" to return to Earth.

Apollo 14
Jan 31-Feb. 9, 1971
Alan Shephard, Stuart Roosa, Edgar Mitchell
Third landing, in Fra Mauro. Surface EVA time: 9:22 hr. Samples returned: 93.2 pounds (42.3 kg).

Apollo 15
July 26-Aug. 7, 1971
David Scott, Alfred Worden, James Irwin
First Extended LM and rover, landed in Hadley-Apennine. Surface EVA time:18:34 hr. Samples returned: 170.4 pounds (77.3 kg).

Apollo 16
April 16–27, 1972
John Young, T. Kenneth Mattingly, Charles Duke
Landed in Plain of Descartes. Surface EVA time: 20:14 hr. Samples returned: 211.0 pounds (95.7 kg).

Apollo 17
Dec. 7-17, 1972
Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans, Harrison Schmitt
Landed in Taurus-Littrow. First geologist on the Moon. Surface EVA time: 22:04 hr. Samples returned: 243.6 pounds (110.5 kg).

Apollo 10 did everything except land on the Moon. So they tested everything, every aspect! And, by looking at the space missions time line, one would get the idea that there was a lot of testing and preparing prior to the first landing that occurred with Apollo 11. In fact, if you put all the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions together, there is a plethora of testing being done.

Here is a LINK to a comprehensive time line of the Apollo program.

This LINK give a good look at the over all time line of space exploration.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Cauliflower
 


No, the manned mission would have not added extra cost, because what actually happened was planned as a manned mission all along.

When you however do not plan to actually send someone to the moon (which is your story, you have the burden of proof here) then adding the reflectors to the mix would have added an extra mission to the plan that would have otherwise been unnecessary.

That should be relatively easy to follow.

And yes they had to invent all the things you mention, that is why we as humanity can and SHOULD be rightfully proud of the program as a whole.

And yes maybe an unmanned mission would have been easier, but that is not the point. The point was to send a man to the moon, which is what they did. All your if´s and buts have not damaged the original story in the slightest.

All you did is try to save the hoax from being impossible. See the difference? And if you don´t please try really hard again.

And no, we surely cannot change minds that are not open to rational thought and reason. I have to agree with that.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by neveradullmomentino
 


Just because a hoax is possible, does not mean it is reality. What you should do is try to prove that the original story can´t be real.

And any single shred of "evidence" produced by hoaxers has been thoroughly explained by reality and common sense. Yet you guys stand beside a mountain of logic and evidence and choose to run straight in the other direction.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Thank you very much for bringing reason to the party Gibborium!

I think some of the people here haven´t met her yet...



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
nice try bro

the mirrors were put there by the top secret lunar rover program, the same rovers that brought back the rocks




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Well THAT is convincing, bro! So how many missions were there? Just one or several?

Because the Apollo missions collected a total of over 800 pounds. Did your rover mission do all that in one take? Or did they use several immensely expensive rockets without anybody noticing to gather all the samples?

But the way you profoundly underlined your statement with solid arguments leaves no doubt to the rational mind.

I bow my head to your excellence.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 




Because the Apollo missions collected a total of over 800 pounds.


That's only if you believe all the 'moon-rocks' came from the moon.
Some say they could be meteorite samples found on Earth.
Some of it was even found to be petrified wood! Fake Dutch 'moon rock' revealed

edit on 16-2-2013 by manmental because: stuff



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by Cauliflower
 
No, the manned mission would have not added extra cost, because what actually happened was planned as a manned mission all along. . . .

. . . And yes they had to invent all the things you mention, that is why we as humanity can and SHOULD be rightfully proud of the program as a whole.

And yes maybe an unmanned mission would have been easier, but that is not the point. The point was to send a man to the moon, which is what they did. All your if´s and buts have not damaged the original story in the slightest.


The whole endeavor of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo was to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. This was the driving force for everything that was invented, produced, tested and used in these programs. Men and women, using their ingenuity, talents, and expertise produced equipment that actually worked! Why would we go to such lengths to then fake it? It just does not make sense.

If someone is willing, there is enough material to study what was produced and done to fill a life time. Sadly, there are those that pick up the buffoonery of a Moon landing hoax and then try to piece meal some kind of proof for it.

It is a misnomer to call the Lunar Ranging Retro-Reflector a mirror because it gives the connotation of it looking like this:



Below is a picture of the Lunar Ranging Retro-Reflector from Apollo in situ:


As you can see, it is quite intricate and designed to be manually set up. I don't think this was positioned and set up by a rover of any kind.
AS15-85-11468

APOLLO LASER RANGING EXPERIMENTS YIELD RESULTS
Lunar Retroreflectors
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


If they were found on earth, it would be obvious that they were from earth, and not from the moon. There would be scorch marks from coming through the atmosphere.

As for the wood "rock" that wasn't an official moon rock, and wasn't claimed to be. There are several threads on here where that is brought up, and explained by people that know a lot more than I do about it.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The moon rocks are in no way obvious in any sense. The majority are kept at the Johnson Center in Houston and there's another stash at White Sands. So much for the lion's share of our batch. Then there are rocks scattered about in the possession of scientists, museums, dignitaries, countries. A lot of times these are just flecks or little specks. You are wrong Zaphod58 meteoric or naturally transported rocks are different from the rocks collected by the Apollo astronauts or the rocks collected by the Russian Luna craft. But the rocks are never handled in any direct sense. They use special tools when examining them . The smallest of pieces is taken from larger specimen and delivered to a worthy researcher. The rocks collectively in no way prove man has been to the moon. As a matter of fact only the smallest portion of the 800 and then some lbs of rocks stored at the Johnson Center and in White Sands have been studied in any formal sense. There is no way to tell by looking at a rock that it came from the moon. It must be subjected to ugh level chemical and physical analysis.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence speaking in favor of a hoax is the fact that Neil Armstrong did not collect moon rocks first as he was supposed to do. He took photos. Now for one year he had been training and training and training. His activities had been planned with unbelievable attention. He only had two hours. First do this, then that, then that. The first and most important thing to do was collect rocks. They called this the "contingency sample". Collect the rocks first and foremost so that if something happened and the walk had to be terminated early for whatever reason he'd have those rocks. And what did he do? He stepped off the ladder, got the camera and started taking pictures BEFORE collecting the contingency sample.

I personally have thought you could say the Apollo 11 mission can be proven an unreality right there. The 800 lbs of rocks are God only knows what. They could put a pile of rocks from almost anywhere in those labs at the Johnson Center and White Sands and experts wouldn't know. The reason is because the experts only get the small flakes of rock delved out to them. Pea sized if that. Those little peas may well be meteoric or naturally transported.

I think its not real. Armstrong would have collected the rocks first. It's too important. The thing is simply not real.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Well THAT is convincing, bro! So how many missions were there? Just one or several?

Because the Apollo missions collected a total of over 800 pounds. Did your rover mission do all that in one take? Or did they use several immensely expensive rockets without anybody noticing to gather all the samples?

But the way you profoundly underlined your statement with solid arguments leaves no doubt to the rational mind.

I bow my head to your excellence.


I should have used more dripping sarcasm I guess.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by electronicspankingmachine
 


The rocks have been studied in part and in their entirety. Yes, portions are cut off, but they have also been examined as a whole.

There are pictures of rocks, and their make up here, and this page talks about the difference from earth rocks. Yes, there are a lot of small samples out there, but even a small sample can show evidence of entering the atmosphere on it, as well as the large rocks that have been studied repeatedly, and are still being studied to this day.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Well some say a lot of things don´t they? I´m afraid that in this case hearsay is not enough.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy side. And so far I haven´t heard of any experts who examined the samples claiming a hoax.

All that is just words. Some say this, some say that. That is far from proof.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by electronicspankingmachine
 


I don´t see what the location of the samples has to do with anything.

I also would like to know where you get your intricate knowledge of the testing of the samples. You seemed to believe that you know of every test performed? How so?

Would you care to share your source for Armstrongs agenda? I have never heard of that particular story. So his mission stated that he was supposed to get the rocks FIRST? That is unbelievable. You see me outraged. We have been lied to all those years...

But all kidding aside. You seem to have personally examined all the samples, as you can say with 100 % certainty that they do not come from the moon.

My advice would be to immediately alert news agencies of this development! The world needs to know!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Lol, I am sorry. I should have gotten that.

Truly sorry.




top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join