Reflectors on the moon

[ultima1]

The "NO MOON LANDING" people cannot debate the fact of American refelctors placed on the moon by manned missions.

[frobisher]

A lot of things cannot be debated about the moon landing yet they still are on here. Notably obvious things like the flag "blowing" in the wind and the radiation belts are still in constant question. Considering this sub forum is dealing with the theory that the whole moon is artificial (I haven't read the book so won't pass comment), the presence of reflectors doesn't seem a big deal.

[elite slayer]

The "NO MOON LANDING" people cannot debate the fact of American refelctors placed on the moon by manned missions.

Who says the reflectors are American? The Russians made unmanned flights to the moon and could have easily placed them.

[ultima1]

Who says the reflectors are American? The Russians made unmanned flights to the moon and could have easily placed them.

Because the American ones were made by NIST.

The Russians version was placed thier by unmanned flights on a rover . The American ones were placed and set up on the ground by manned missions.

I suggest doing some research before posting.

[elite slayer]

Because the American ones were made by NIST.

The Russians version was placed thier by unmanned flights on a rover . The American ones were placed and set up on the ground by manned missions.

I suggest doing some research before posting.


Oh so your saying a russian reflector couldn't possibly reflect an american laser beam. What rubbish. I suggest you do some thinking before posting.

[ultima1]

Oh so your saying a russian reflector couldn't possibly reflect an american laser beam. What rubbish. I suggest you do some thinking before posting.

If you did any research (which its clear you have not) you would know that the Russian reflector was lost for years.

Please be adult enough to answer the following,

Why are you so afraid of research?

Why are you so afraid of the truth?

[elite slayer]

If you did any research (which its clear you have not) you would know that the Russian reflector was lost for years.

Please eb adult enough to answer the following,

Why are you so afraid of research?

Why are you so afraid of the truth?


Lost. Ya. Some people will believe anything their government tells them. OOOOH! I'm so afraid of the truth!!!:D:D:D

[david c]

Unmanned craft can have adjustable reflectors attached to their sides.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology to send remote-controlled unmanned craft with adjustable reflectors on their sides.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

[ultima1]

Lost. Ya. Some people will believe anything their government tells them. OOOOH! I'm so afraid of the truth!!!:D:D:D

Just like you beleive what you have been told about a worldwide conspiracy / fantasy of a hoax. For which you have no evidence only theories and opinions.

The moon landing facts would hold up in court as evidence, your thories and opinions would not.

[ultima1]

If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology to send remote-controlled unmanned craft with adjustable reflectors on their sides.

You have no proof of reflectors on the sides of the unmanned craft. Also the fact remains the original reflectors had to be set and pointed to the earth.

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

I have proof that the Apollo 12 manned mission took parts from one of the unmanned vehicles.

[elite slayer]

Reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.


Exactly.

[elite slayer]

I have shown thae proof that the Apollo 12 manned mission took parts from one of the unmanned vehicles.


You just gotta love the logic when someone uses manned missions as proof of manned missions. :D:D:D:rolleyes:

[ultima1]

Exactly.

Can you show evidence of the Amerinca reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

I have proof that the Apollo 12 manned mission took parts from one of the unmanned vehicles.

[elite slayer]

Can you show evidence of the Amerinca reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

I have proof that the Apollo 12 manned mission took parts from one of the unmanned vehicles.

Oh you have proof do ya. When did you work for NASA?

[ultima1]

You just gotta love the logic when someone uses manned missions as proof of manned missions. :D:D:D:rolleyes:

You are a joke, you cannot read post or are immature enough to twiswt them, you cannot even accept or admit to facts and evidence shown.

Its too ridicules to even talk to someone like you without even basic common sense and intelligence.

[ultima1]

Oh you have proof do ya. When did you work for NASA?

Too immature of a post to even respond to.

When you are mature enough to have an adult discusson let me know.

[elite slayer]

Some people sure get upset when their logic falls apart. Some people are so emotionally wrapped up in the dream of going to the moon that their emotions get the best of them and blur rational thinking even when the cold hard truth is staring them in the face. Its foolish to get upset with people like this. They are just passionate about their dreams. Nothing wrong with that.

[ultima1]

Some people sure get upset when their logic falls apart.

Thats so funny and so sad since my logic and evidence would hold up in court, your poor pathetic theories and opinions would not.

Why do you live in a fantasy world and cannot accept reallity?

[ultima1]

Can you show evidence of the Amerinca reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

[elite slayer]

Thats so funny and so sad since my logic and evidence would hold up in court, your poor pathetic theories and opinions would not.

Why do you live in a fantasy world and cannot accept reallity?

Do you have circus music playing in your head?

[elite slayer]

Can you show evidence of the Amerinca reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

I have never claimed reflectors were placed by americans. You did. Why would I prove something I never claimed? Why do you talk in circles?

[ultima1]

I have never claimed reflectors were placed by americans.

So who / what placed the American ones? Oh you no moon landing people need to make up your mind on your stories.

Can you show evidence of the American reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

Otherwise if no the American reflectors were placed by manned miisions.

[elite slayer]

Oh you no moon landing poeple need to make up your mind on your stories.

Can you show evidence of the Amerinca reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?


Read back through the thread. Are you tired of looking silly yet?

[ultima1]

Read back through the thread. Are you tired of looking silly yet?

Why can't you answer a question?

Your fellow no moon lander David C stated this. You guys need to get your stories straight.

"If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology to send remote-controlled unmanned craft with adjustable reflectors on their sides."

[ultima1]

So who / what placed the American ones?

Can you show evidence of the American reflectors being placed on the moon by unmanned vehicles, YES or NO?

[elite slayer]

Why can't you answer a question?

Your fellow no moon lander David C stated this.

"If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology to send remote-controlled unmanned craft with adjustable reflectors on their sides."

I said "Who says the reflectors are American? The Russians made unmanned flights to the moon and could have easily placed them." You are the one that said americans placed them. You can't read back a few posts? Ask David C what he said. You shouldn't be drinking at this time of the day. Are you tired of looking silly yet?

[ultima1]

I said "Who says the reflectors are American? The Russians made unmanned flights to the moon and could have easily placed them." You are the one that said americans placed them.

Because NIST (an American company) made reflectors for (Americans) to put on the moon. The Russians placed their own using unmanned vehicles, we (The US) sent up manned flights to place the (American) ones.

You really do need to learn how to do research.

The unmanned vehicles David C is talking about are American but no evidence that they placed the relfectors.

[elite slayer]

Some people sure get upset when their logic falls apart. Some people are so emotionally wrapped up in the dream of going to the moon that their emotions get the best of them and blur rational thinking even when the cold hard truth is staring them in the face. Its foolish to get upset with people like this. They are just passionate about their dreams. Nothing wrong with that.

Except when they talk in never ending circles making no sense

[ultima1]

Except when they talk in never ending circles making no sense

Well anyone with basic common sense can see i post facts and evidence,i have to keep posting it for people with closed minds.

[elite slayer]

Well anyone with basic common sense can see i post facts and evidence,i have to keep posting it for people with closed minds.

You haven't posted anything in this tread other than words. Not a picture. Not even a single link to a web page. You keep babbling about proof. Are you tired of looking silly yet?

[ultima1]

You haven't posted anything in this tread other than words. Not a picture.

Well what quarentee do i have that you will even be mature enough to accept the facts and evidence i post?

Becasue you only believe what you are told and have not done any research or you would have known what i was talking about.

[ultima1]

Lets look at some facts. here is 2 just to see if you can accept and admit to evidence shown.

1. Apollo 12 manned mission landing on the moon and taking parts from Surveyor 3

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/surv3_apollo12_c1.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990408.html
Explanation: On April 20, 1967, NASA's robot spacecraft Surveyor 3 landed on the moon, touching down on the inside slope of a small lunar crater in the Ocean of Storms. Over 2 1/2 years later, on November 19, 1969, the lunar module Intrepid, piloted by Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean, flew overhead and landed nearby in the second visit by humans to the lunar surface. Intrepid touched down about 600 feet away and the moon walking astronauts were easily able to reach the Surveyor and examine the remote explorer that had preceded them. Intrepid is seen in the background of this striking high resolution picture of Surveyor 3. Surveyor's leftmost foot pad appears dug in while its foreground foot pad has made two distinct imprints in the powdery lunar soil - clear indications that the Surveyor slid and bounced on landing. Using bolt cutters, the astronauts removed Surveyor's TV camera (the cylinder shape at the right of the tall solar panel mast) and its sampling scoop (on the arm extended to the right), returning them to Earth for study.

2. American reflectors built by NIST.

http://units.nist.gov/News/Update/940718.html
One of the space program's longest-running experiments -- and one with a NIST connection -- celebrates its 25th anniversary this month by continuing to return data. During their pioneering moon landing on July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts set up a laser reflector to make precise measurements of the distance between the Earth and moon. The still-operational experimental station reflects a powerful laser pulse aimed at it from telescopes on Earth. By measuring how long the pulse takes to return to Earth (the round trip takes about 2.5 seconds), scientists have defined the Earth-moon distance to within 2.5 centimeters (1 inch). The reflector was designed primarily by James Faller of the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, operated cooperatively by NIST and the University of Colorado. It consists of a briefcase-sized aluminum panel studded with 100 corner reflectors (the corners of precision-ground glass cubes that have been cut off at 45 degree angles), each about 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) across. When a ray of light enters the cut-off surface, it is internally reflected from the three sides of the corner, exits the cut-off surface parallel to its entry path and then returns to its source. The same principle is used in bicycle reflectors. The Apollo 14 and 15 missions delivered two other Faller-designed reflectors, including one with 300 cube corners. All three reflectors are targeted almost nightly by scientists at observatories in Texas and France.

[elite slayer]

Well what quarentee do i have that you will even be mature enough to accept the facts and evidence i post?

Becasue you only believe what you are told and have not done any research or you would have known what i was talking about.

You post nothing and then keep ranting about all the proof that you have posted. Now you are scared to post your evidence because I might not believe it. You expect everyone to believe every word you say just because you said it with nothing to back it up at all. YOUR WORDS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Silly.

[ultima1]

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment was deployed on Apollo 11, 14, and 15. It consists of a series of corner-cube reflectors, which are a special type of mirror with the property of always reflecting an incoming light beam back in the direction it came from. A similar device was also included on the Soviet Union's Lunakhod 2 spacecraft. These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large telescopes on Earth. The reflected laser beam is also observed with the telescope, providing a measurement of the round-trip distance between Earth and the Moon. This is the only Apollo experiment that is still returning data from the Moon. Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Apollo_AS11-40-5952HR.jpg

http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/images/news/gallery/laser_big.jpg

[ultima1]

You post nothing and then keep ranting about all the proof that you have posted. Now you are scared to post your evidence because.

I am posting evidence as we speak, but you are too immature and closed minded to accept and admit to it.

I am going to keep posting untill you are mature enough to admit to it.

[elite slayer]

Lets look at some facts. here is 2 just to see if you can accept and admit to evidence shown.

1. Apollo 12 manned mission landing on the moon and taking parts from Surveyor 3

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9904/surv3_apollo12_c1.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990408.html
Explanation: On April 20, 1967, NASA's robot spacecraft Surveyor 3 landed on the moon, touching down on the inside slope of a small lunar crater in the Ocean of Storms. Over 2 1/2 years later, on November 19, 1969, the lunar module Intrepid, piloted by Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean, flew overhead and landed nearby in the second visit by humans to the lunar surface. Intrepid touched down about 600 feet away and the moon walking astronauts were easily able to reach the Surveyor and examine the remote explorer that had preceded them. Intrepid is seen in the background of this striking high resolution picture of Surveyor 3. Surveyor's leftmost foot pad appears dug in while its foreground foot pad has made two distinct imprints in the powdery lunar soil - clear indications that the Surveyor slid and bounced on landing. Using bolt cutters, the astronauts removed Surveyor's TV camera (the cylinder shape at the right of the tall solar panel mast) and its sampling scoop (on the arm extended to the right), returning them to Earth for study.

2. American reflectors built by NIST.

http://units.nist.gov/News/Update/940718.html
One of the space program's longest-running experiments -- and one with a NIST connection -- celebrates its 25th anniversary this month by continuing to return data. During their pioneering moon landing on July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts set up a laser reflector to make precise measurements of the distance between the Earth and moon. The still-operational experimental station reflects a powerful laser pulse aimed at it from telescopes on Earth. By measuring how long the pulse takes to return to Earth (the round trip takes about 2.5 seconds), scientists have defined the Earth-moon distance to within 2.5 centimeters (1 inch). The reflector was designed primarily by James Faller of the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, operated cooperatively by NIST and the University of Colorado. It consists of a briefcase-sized aluminum panel studded with 100 corner reflectors (the corners of precision-ground glass cubes that have been cut off at 45 degree angles), each about 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) across. When a ray of light enters the cut-off surface, it is internally reflected from the three sides of the corner, exits the cut-off surface parallel to its entry path and then returns to its source. The same principle is used in bicycle reflectors. The Apollo 14 and 15 missions delivered two other Faller-designed reflectors, including one with 300 cube corners. All three reflectors are targeted almost nightly by scientists at observatories in Texas and France.

You just don't get it do you.

The reason there are moon hoax threads at all is because we don't believe what NASA is telling us. Now your proof is a couple of weak paragraphs directly from NASA who we don't believe. If we believed NASA this wouldn't even be an issue silly.

[ultima1]

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/ApolloLaser.jpg

Scientists who analyze data from the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment have reported some watershed results from these long-term experiments, begun 25 years ago when the Apollo 11 astronauts deployed a reflector array in the Sea of Tranquillity. "Using the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, we have been able to improve, by orders of magnitude, measurements of the Moon's rotation," said Jet Propulsion Laboratory team investigator Dr. Jean Dickey. "We also have strong evidence that the Moon has a liquid core, and laser ranging has allowed us to determine with great accuracy the rate at which the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth."

[ultima1]

http://www.100.nist.gov/ph_spaceage.htm

In their pioneering moon landing on July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 crew left behind a briefcase-sized array of reflectors that bounce back a powerful laser pulse aimed at it from telescopes on Earth. By measuring the round-trip travel time for the pulse (about 2.5 seconds), scientists defined the distance between the Earth and moon to better than 2.5 cm (1 inch). The experiment—one of the space program’s longest running and most cost effective—was suggested by James Faller of JILA, a Boulder, Colo., research institute jointly operated by NIST and the University of Colorado. He also provided the initial design for the Apollo 11 array and the two additional reflector arrays that were left by later missions, Apollo 14 (shown on right) and Apollo 15. The experiment, which is still active today, continues to provide new insights into the length of the Earth’s day; knowledge of the moon’s orbit, the lunar tides, and the combined mass of the Earth and moon; and an important test of gravitational theories.

[ultima1]

You just don't get it do you.

No you do not get the fact that thier is more evidence from agencies beside NASA.

Unless you have proof to debate agencies like NIST.

[ultima1]

Other agencies and countries also watched and tracked the moon landings.

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&qpvt=Third-party+evidence+for+Apollo+Moon+landings&src=abop&fwd=1&q=third-party+evidence+for+apollo+moon+landings&FORM=O1FD
Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Apollo 10
Main article: Apollo 10
A list of sightings of Apollo 10 were reported in "Apollo 10 Optical Tracking", Sky & Telescope, July 1969, pp. 62–63.

Apollo 11
Main article: Apollo 11
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[24]
A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11", Sky and Telescope, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.[25]
Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.[26]
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it had been many years previously for Sputnik.[27]
At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[28]
In July 2009 Jodrell released some recordings they made.[29]
Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.[30] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include Capcom in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from Earth.[24][31]

Apollo 12
Main article: Apollo 12


Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space MuseumPaul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.[32]

Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12.[33] These samples were determined to have been exposed to lunar conditions.[34]

[ultima1]

You just don't get it do you.

No you do not get the fact that thier is more evidence from agencies beside NASA.

Unless you have proof to debate agencies like NIST.

[elite slayer]

No you do not get the fact that thier is more evidence from agencies beside NASA.

Unless you have proof to debate agencies like NIST.

NIST. Yet another government agency. Highly believable.:rolleyes:

Gotta go out so I'll check the thread later to see how your doing. Later.

[ultima1]

NIST. Yet another government agency. Highly believable.:rolleyes:

Gotta go out so I'll check the thread later to see how your doing. Later.

NIST is not a top government agency only affiliated through U.S. Department of Commerce.

Still waiting for evindence to debate NIST, or anything else posted.

[elite slayer]

NIST is not a top government agency only affiliated through U.S. Department of Commerce.

www.nist.gov :rolleyes: Another lie.

[ultima1]

www.nist.gov :rolleyes: Another lie.

Directly from the link you quoted.

"NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce."

If you call me a liar agian i report to mods.

[elite slayer]

Directly from the link you quoted.

"NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce."

If you call me a liar agian i report to mods.

Its ok. I understand you are just doing your job.:rolleyes:

[ultima1]

Its ok. I understand you are just doing your job.:rolleyes:

Its not my job. i am just posting facts and evidence. You are just too closed minded to accept and admit to it.

[ultima1]

NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce,,,YES or NO?

[elite slayer]

NIST, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce,,,YES or NO?

Yes. Which is a government agency silly!

[ultima1]

Yes. Which is a government agency silly!

Correct, now your getting on the right page. Is Commerce an intell agency, YES or NO?

How far down in chain of government do you think commerce is?

[elite slayer]

Correct, now your getting on the right page. Is Commerce an intell agency, YES or NO?

How far down in chain of government do you think commerce is?

It doesn't matter in the least. If you think one government agency wouldn't lie for another government agency you are way beyond gullible.

[ultima1]

It doesn't matter in the least. If you think one government agency wouldn't lie for another government agency you are way beyond gullible.

Your next post must show evidence of lying by NIST of the reflectors for the moon landing. Or admit your wrong.

[elite slayer]

Your next post must show evidence of lying by NIST of the reflectors for the moon landing. Or admit your wrong.

Well its been fun talking to ya but I cannot keep up with a government shill. Just because you post more than anybody doesn't mean you are right. Time to stop feeding the trolls.

[ultima1]

Dodge noted.

Let the record show that elite slayer cannot post evidence when asked to support his theories / fantasies.

[truegroup]

Dodge noted.

Let the record show that elite slayer cannot post evidence when asked to support his theories / fantasies.

I am of the opinion that you are as mad as a mattress.

[ultima1]

I am of the opinion that you are as mad as a mattress.

Why because i can post facts and you cannot?

[truegroup]

Why because i can post facts and you cannot?

That post. QED

[ultima1]

That post. QED

I have posted facts and you cannot when asked.

[truegroup]

I have posted facts and you cannot when asked.

ask me

[ultima1]

ask me

Please show evidence of lying by NIST of the reflectors for the moon landing.

[truegroup]

Please show evidence of lying by NIST of the reflectors for the moon landing.

I don't have any, the reflectors were placed there by the astronauts on Apollo missions.

[ultima1]

I don't have any, the reflectors were placed there by the astronauts on Apollo missions.

Oh come on, you gave up too easy.

You dissapoint me.

[truegroup]

Oh come on, you gave up too easy.

You dissapoint me.

You asked me a question, I gave you an honest answer. How is that a disappoinment?

[moving finger]

Oh come on, you gave up too easy.

You dissapoint me.

Look mate, you seem to have acquired the impression that you are a lone voice in the wilderness here, and that everyone posting is accusing you of not telling the truth.

Truegroup is one of the few people who has actually been arguing the same point of view as you in these threads. You're firing at anything that moves & hitting some innocent victims.

The facts speak for themselves. If people can't or refuse to understand them, that's their problem, It's not worth giving yourself an aneurism over.

[ultima1]

You asked me a question, I gave you an honest answer. How is that a disappoinment?

You did not try to come up with any evidence to debate me.

[thirty3]

Why did they put reflectors on the moon (they is an unknown at this moment:D)

[ultima1]

Why did they put reflectors on the moon (they is an unknown at this moment:D)

They use the reflectors to measure and keep track of the distance between the earth and moon, also for data on eclipses.

[truegroup]

You did not try to come up with any evidence to debate me.

Why would I try to come up with any contrary evidence to debate you?

[ultima1]

Why would I try to come up with any contrary evidence to debate you?

Well you seemed to not want to accept and admit to evidence shown and would not post evidence when asked.

[truegroup]

Well you seemed to not want to accept and admit to evidence shown and would not post evidence when asked.

Show me a post where I seemed not to accept your evidence.
Good luck finding it btw.

[truegroup]

Look mate, you seem to have acquired the impression that you are a lone voice in the wilderness here, and that everyone posting is accusing you of not telling the truth.

Truegroup is one of the few people who has actually been arguing the same point of view as you in these threads. You're firing at anything that moves & hitting some innocent victims.

The facts speak for themselves. If people can't or refuse to understand them, that's their problem, It's not worth giving yourself an aneurism over.

Maybe if I quote you back, the penny might drop. Personally, I think he's lost the plot.

[ultima1]

Show me a post where I seemed not to accept your evidence. Good luck finding it btw.

Well posts like this do not look good foer someone accepting evidence.

I am of the opinion that you are as mad as a mattress.

[truegroup]

Well posts like this do not look good foer someone accepting evidence.

Would that comment stand up in a court of law as evidence I don't accept your evidence?

[ultima1]

Would that comment stand up in a court of law as evidence I don't accept your evidence?

Well the evindece i have would hold up in court thats all the matters.

Your smart remark would not hold up as evidence.

[truegroup]

Well the evindece i have would hold up in court thats all the matters.

Your smart remark would not hold up as evidence.

Suppose that court had 12 jurors who were HBs, or that court were made up of the same people who found OJ Simpson not guilty.

That 'hold up in court' argument is the biggest pile of steaming donkey dung you could ever get. Get another catch phrase - because you sound like a stuck record.

Now, I believe the lunar reflectors were put there by Apollo, but I tell you what, I can't prove it. They are there, but I cannot offer conclusive evidence that it was Apollo that put them there. Lots of circumstantial evidence that it was Apollo - lots. SOLID evidence that they are operational - undisputable. No counter evidence exists (NONE whatsoever, not even circumstantial) that it wasn't Apollo.

I even know all the dumb arguments offered as to how they got there.

You need to let this go before your brain explodes.

[ultima1]

Suppose that court had 12 jurors who were HBs, or that court were made up of the same people who found OJ Simpson not guilty.

Thats why i would just go in front of a judge, that way it does not depend on peoples opinions.

Now, I believe the lunar reflectors were put there by Apollo, but I tell you what, I can't prove it. .

Well then you have not done very good research.

Becasue i can pretty much prove it.

[truegroup]

Thats why i would just go in front of a judge, that way it does not depend on peoples opinions.
The judge not being a person. OK.


Well then you have not done very good research.

Becasue i can pretty much prove it.

Good for you. You win. You are the best researcher on the planet.

[ultima1]

The judge not being a person. OK.

Not the point, the point is the judge can have experts look at the evidence and make a more enlighted judgement.

Come on you should know that.

[ultima1]

Bumped

[david c]

Now, I believe the lunar reflectors were put there by Apollo, but I tell you what, I can't prove it. They are there, but I cannot offer conclusive evidence that it was Apollo that put them there. Lots of circumstantial evidence that it was Apollo - lots. SOLID evidence that they are operational - undisputable. No counter evidence exists (NONE whatsoever, not even circumstantial) that it wasn't Apollo.
If they didn't fake the Surveyor program, they obviously had the technology to put unmanned craft on the moon with reflectors attached to their sides.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/surveyor.html
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

A remote-controlled craft could have a rotating top with adjustable reflectors on its sides. The reflectors would only have to be adjustable up and down. The required angle to reflect light from earth could be attained; it wouldn't be necessary to send people to put them at the required angle.

You people keep playing dumb about this. You have a foregone conclusion; you're not following the evidence to see where it leads. You're torturing the evidence so that it fits your foregone conclusion.

[truegroup]

You people keep playing dumb about this. You have a foregone conclusion; you're not following the evidence to see where it leads. You're torturing the evidence so that it fits your foregone conclusion.

Oh dear, what a hypocrite.


1/ The C-rock - A hair on a print, blurred on one edge. Original has no C on it, released to a verifiable journal magazine, two weeks after the mission.

2/ The 'wires' - In every case it is the radio antenna. Lens flare reflecting off the camera parallel to the flash. Other videos show the exact same flashes at 45 degree angles clearly showing the antenna, in the exact same place.

HBs argue simultaneously that NASA used wire rigs to simulate 1/6th G and that the fact that the astronauts weren't bouncing around all over the shop is evidence that they were not in a 1/6th G environment.

3/ Dust - No visibly suspended dust on the Moon. It is a vacuum. It is not washed soil, visibly made prints and tracks. It is not wet, as wet soil doesn't behave in that manner.

4/ Fluttering flags - Only moving when an astronaut is putting it up, or walking past it (or in the case of OCD Jarrah White - tiniest CRT effect, provable by bulging on the flag). In these same videos, NO DUST being blown up by this supposed wind. Never. Not on any video on any EVA. Flag NEVER moves when no-one is near it. Never.


Jarrah White is a proven liar.

Here is his video where he is doing a school project and interviewing his teacher of art -Jenny Heller!!
Moonfaker: Exhibit A. PART 2 - YouTube

Just look at the comments on that video.

2mins 51seconds. The teacher says there are two lights sources for the object 'with two shadows'. When nothing else in the entire picture has two shadows. The extra shadow of the tiny rock is in fact a depression in the ground.

That is Jarrah's teacher he is interviewing - read this post (and the link on it for proof):
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058984679&postcount=1160


Go and get another mentor David c, maybe one of these?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2

All the following are debunking or replying to Jarrah White's stupidity:

Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon) - YouTube
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

or

http://www.youtube.com/user/GoneToPlaid

All the following are debunking or replying to Jarrah White's stupidity:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

or

http://www.youtube.com/user/Boozyscientist

Debunking Jarrah's school project!
Un Moonfaker: Exhibit A - YouTube

[david c]

post #81
Oh dear, what a hypocrite.
I wasn't referring to the stuff you posted. I was referring to the fact that reflectors aren't proof that there were people on the moon because a remote-controlled craft could have a rotating top with adjustable reflectors on its sides. The reflectors would only have to be adjustable up and down. The required angle to reflect light from earth could be attained; it wouldn't be necessary to send people to put them at the required angle.

Please address the above and watch this video and address what it says about unmanned craft.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

[paulside]

post #81

I wasn't referring to the stuff you posted. I was referring to the fact that reflectors aren't proof that there were people on the moon because a remote-controlled craft could have a rotating top with adjustable reflectors on its sides. The reflectors would only have to be adjustable up and down. The required angle to reflect light from earth could be attained; it wouldn't be necessary to send people to put them at the required angle.

Please address the above and watch this video and address what it says about unmanned craft.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv


They use a panel of retro reflecting prisms, whatever angle the laser enters the prisms it is then reflected back along exactly the same trajectory, so there is no adjustment required at the moon end,

[truegroup]

post #81

I wasn't referring to the stuff you posted. I was referring to the fact that reflectors aren't proof that there were people on the moon because a remote-controlled craft could have a rotating top with adjustable reflectors on its sides. The reflectors would only have to be adjustable up and down. The required angle to reflect light from earth could be attained; it wouldn't be necessary to send people to put them at the required angle.

Please address the above and watch this video and address what it says about unmanned craft.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv

No, think I'll pass.

The onus is on you to prove the reflectors were NOT put there by Apollo, not to offer proof of Soviet umanned reflectors.

You may find this hard to understand, but people who know the Moon landings were real, won't deny Soviet achievements, or try to wriggle out of admitting they did unmanned landings, because that is a fact.
UNLIKE HBs who deny everything that gets in the way of their belief.

[ultima1]

No, think I'll pass.

The onus is on you to prove the reflectors were NOT put there by Apollo, not to offer proof of Soviet umanned reflectors.

You may find this hard to understand, but people who know the Moon landings were real, won't deny Soviet achievements, or try to wriggle out of admitting they did unmanned landings, because that is a fact.
UNLIKE HBs who deny everything that gets in the way of their belief.

Repeated for truth.

[ketu7]

N ot
A
S traight
A nswer

Just a flawed moon movie made by hollywood starring neil and buzz oscar winners in sci fi category
No man landed on the moon that's why india had to prove theirs water on the moon maybe armstrong wasn't strong enough to buzz through and take proper samples
If they did with 60s technology I'm sure they can plug a leak in the BP oil fiasco on earth with 2010 technology !

[ultima1]

Just a flawed moon movie made by hollywood starring neil and buzz oscar winners in sci fi category.

Too bad you cannot explain away the reflectors on the moon.

No man landed on the moon that's why india had to prove theirs water on the moon !

The India probe also photgraphed the moon landing sites...OOPPS.

[ultima1]

We have the US, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian probes that have all photograped the manned landing sites.

Can anyone post evidence to debate this?

[astrochicken]

I've got a fucking good telescope and i can't see anything that has been "left behind" on the moon.

[ultima1]

I've got a fucking good telescope and i can't see anything that has been "left behind" on the moon.

And your not going to with a telescope from Earth.

But the all the probes mentioned above have taken photos of the landing sites.

[secretagent]

Retroreflectors on the Moon

Astronauts on the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 missions left retroreflectors on the Moon as part of the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. They are considered to conclusively prove that man-made equipment is present on the moon[2] and thus disprove some Moon landing hoax accusations. Additionally the Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals have been detected from 1971 until 2010, at least in part due to some uncertainty in its location on the Moon. In 2010 it was found in Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographs and the retroreflectors have been used again. Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth.[3] Even under good viewing conditions, only a single reflected photon is received every few seconds. This makes the job of filtering laser-generated photons from naturally-occurring photons challenging.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

I don't think it is possible to actually segregate one laser generated photon every few seconds out of a permanent and constantly slightly fluctuating flux of probably billions or more of naturally occuring ones. :rolleyes:

[ultima1]

I don't think it is possible to actually segregate one laser generated photon every few seconds out of a permanent and constantly slightly fluctuating flux of probably billions or more of naturally occuring ones. :rolleyes:

Well you need to talk to the observatories that are doing the laser ranging. I believe one even had a challange out for the hoaxers to come see the operation with the reflectors.

Also the TV show mythbusters did a show using the reflectors. I suggst you might so some more research before posting.

DO you have any evdence to debate the reflectors on the moon placed by the manned missions?

[dragond]

Well you need to talk to the observatories that are doing the laser ranging. I believe one even had a challange out for the hoaxers to come see the operation with the reflectors.

Also the TV show mythbusters did a show using the reflectors. I suggst you might so some more research before posting.

DO you have any evdence to debate the reflectors on the moon placed by the manned missions?

so wait a minute.. If anything that you cannot answer, people need to check with the very agencies they dont trust but anything u think u can, is accepted by you of course as evidence? you seriously need to get ur head checked..
the very reason people are here and on sites like these are because all the OFFICIAL information have been proved to be false.. this includes anything to do with any government agencies.. Since NASA is one of them then naturally there will be disinfo..

Reading few NASA pages with NASA info and NASA pictures doesnt mean u have evidence of anything. All u have is more NASA bullshit which from what i can see is causing you emotional distress and obsession..

Why am i here? is the question you should be asking yourself...


D

[frenat]

I don't think it is possible to actually segregate one laser generated photon every few seconds out of a permanent and constantly slightly fluctuating flux of probably billions or more of naturally occuring ones. :rolleyes:
Why wouldn't they know the exact frequency of the laser they used? Wouldn't only looking for that frequency narrow it down drastically?

[david c]

But the all the probes mentioned above have taken photos of the landing sites.
Photos are fakable so they aren't conclusive proof of anything.

[graflok]

Also the TV show mythbusters did a show using the reflectors.

Oh, gosh. The mythbusters did a show about it. :rolleyes:

Two moronic drunks (one a failed actor and the other appears to have had so
much shock treatment he can barely express an emotion) have a TV show
where they blow up anything they can find and they did a show about Apollo
where all the equipment and facilities were supplied by, guess who? -- NASA!

And, you think this is some sort of proof of something? You must be in worse
shape than I even I suspected. :eek:

[ultima1]

the very reason people are here and on sites like these are because all the OFFICIAL information have been proved to be false..

Sorry but you have no real evidence that the information is fales.

I suggest you look up the facts of the Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes that took photos of the manned landing sites.

Why am i here.

Yes, why are you here? You are only posting opinions and theories not evidence.

[ultima1]

Photos are fakable so they aren't conclusive proof of anything.

But you have no proof of them being faked. PLease be mature enough to do research before posting.

You have no proof of the sceintist that did the analsys are wrong.

[ultima1]

Oh, gosh. The mythbusters did a show about it.

And still a lot more evidence then you can post, since you have posted none.

Too bad you cannot show evindence that the mythbusters show was wrong.

[graflok]

And still a lot more evidence then you can post, since you have posted none.


I've posted quite a bit, actually, and so have others. There is a huge amount of
evidence that the Apollo missions were faked.

[david c]

But the all the probes mentioned above have taken photos of the landing sites.

Photos are fakable so they aren't conclusive proof of anything.
------------
But you have no proof of them being faked. PLease be mature enough to do research before posting.
I think most people reading this thread know how to use the scientific method.

If a piece of evidence has more than one possible explanation, it can't be presented as proof. You say probes sent up by other countries have photographed the landing sites. We have the plausible scenario that they were colluding with NASA. Therefore, this isn't proof.

Here's an expample.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't using the scientific method when you put forth your "Proof" that the moon missions were real. You're making some very basic mistakes.

You assume that there will be evidence that other countries are colluding with NASA. If this is the case, they're not going to make anything available to give their scam away. The fact that we can't find any evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence.

I'm sorry to say this but you don't know how to arrive at a logical conclusion.

[dragond]

Sorry but you have no real evidence that the information is fales.

I suggest you look up the facts of the Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes that took photos of the manned landing sites.



Yes, why are you here? You are only posting opinions and theories not evidence.

LMAO so what ur saying is the TRUTH with evidence but what im saying is false/lies/opinions or theories?? because i dont have pictures from the very organisations i DO NOT TRUST? you seriously need to see a prefessional coz u have some problems!!

Il repeat my last post again for you since you dont understand my point!!

ALL YOUR SO CALLED EVIDENCE COMES FROM THE VERY PEOPLE THE INFORMED PUBLIC DOES NOT TRUST!!

have i made myself clear? even if they told me what colour the sky is i will go and check, unlike you who seem to eat all the BS that comes from NASA with some ketchup!!

and whats with this obsession with REAL EVIDENCE?? WHO really has any REAL EVIDENCE?? you?? LOL


D

[dragond]

I think most people reading this thread know how to use the scientific method.

If a piece of evidence has more than one possible explanation, it can't be presented as proof. You say probes sent up by other countries have photographed the landing sites. We have the plausible scenario that they were colluding with NASA. Therefore, this isn't proof.

Here's an expample.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")
-----------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't using the scientific method when you put forth your "Proof" that the moon missions were real. You're making some very basic mistakes.

You assume that there will be evidence that other countries are colluding with NASA. If this is the case, they're not going to make anything available to give their scam away. The fact that we can't find any evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence.

I'm sorry to say this but you don't know how to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Good post mate but this guy/girl is clearly obsessed with this topic and when obsession kicks in Logic will be the first casualty..

He/she clearly has all the REAL EVIDENCE we lack :rolleyes:


D

[secretagent]

Well you need to talk to the observatories that are doing the laser ranging. I believe one even had a challange out for the hoaxers to come see the operation with the reflectors.

Also the TV show mythbusters did a show using the reflectors. I suggst you might so some more research before posting.

DO you have any evdence to debate the reflectors on the moon placed by the manned missions?

AFAIK there are only two facilities in the world who are doing Apollo laser ranging, one is in the US and the other one in France.

I'd be curious to see what proof they offer they actually recover photons beamed at those retro-reflectors that are allegedly on the moon. Any link about that challenge to hoaxers or that mythbuster TV show (:rolleyes:) you speak about would be appreciated.

[deca]

dam can an recovered "proton" reflected back from a lazer beam pointed at the moon which would be 4.5 km wide by the time it hits the moon and if there is one of them shoe box size reflectors to reflect off and travel back to earth , how can it tell if it hit of the reflector and not only that who made the reflector and how it was placed there:confused:

[apollo_gnomon]

AFAIK there are only two facilities in the world who are doing Apollo laser ranging, one is in the US and the other one in France.

I'd be curious to see what proof they offer they actually recover photons beamed at those retro-reflectors that are allegedly on the moon. Any link about that challenge to hoaxers or that mythbuster TV show (:rolleyes:) you speak about would be appreciated.

There are as you assert 2 major research programs for Lunar Laser Range Finding - McDonald Observatory near Ft. Davis, Texas and Observatoire de la Côte D’Azur (OCA) are the 2 most significant. A third observatory atop the Haleakala volcano in Hawaii was used during the Apollo program.

The technology required for using the reflectors is pretty specialized and not all observatories have it.

At OCA a laser is fired through the 1.54 meter (60.6 inch) Cassegrain telescope that has been exactly aimed at the laser reflector on the moon. The YAG (Yttrium, Aluminum, Garnet) laser beam passes through a mirror rotating
at 10 times per second to split it into precise pulses. A cesium atomic clock at the observatory times each departing laser pulse with an accuracy of 10 picoseconds (10–12 seconds).
During the approximately 1½ seconds it takes for the laser to reach the moon, the beam spreads out to a width of about two kilometers. When the laser impulse strikes the reflector on the moon’s surface, the incident beam is reflected back by the silica corner cubes at precisely the same angle towards OCA. The accuracy required to strike one of the laser reflectors on the moon is similar to using a rifle to hit a moving 10 kroner coin at a distance of 3.2 kilometers (2 miles).

www.myspacemuseum.com/laser%20article%202.doc
You have to have the laser, a telescope of pretty significant power, good aiming apparatus, detectors to read the return, and highly accurate timers to send precise pulses and measure the return.


There is now another location for the research, in New Mexico
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/cartoon.gif
As the above schematic illustrates, the beam we send to the moon diverges (much exaggerated) due to the earth's atmosphere. Only about one part in 30 million of the light we send to the moon is lucky enough to actually strike the targeted reflector. But the reflector is composed of small corner cubes, and for reasons related to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, the light returning from each of these small apertures is forced to have a divergence (called diffraction). In the case of the Apollo reflectors, this divergence is in the neighborhood of 8 arcseconds. This means that the beam returning to the earth has a roughly 15 kilometer (10 mile) footprint when it returns to the earth. We scrape up as much of this as our telescope will allow, but a 3.5 meter aperture will only get about one in 30 million of the returning photons—coincidentally the same odds of hitting the reflector in the first place.

[truegroup]

I think most people reading this thread know how to use the scientific method.

Hmmmm, that ain't true. The scientific acumen around these parts is akin to a chimp's tea party. With next to no understanding on gravity / pressure waves / inertia / weight and mass in zero g or 1/6th g / solar radiation / and on and on.

If a piece of evidence has more than one possible explanation, it can't be presented as proof. You say probes sent up by other countries have photographed the landing sites. We have the plausible scenario that they were colluding with NASA. Therefore, this isn't proof.
That same argument can be chucked back at your stupid yoochoob videos. Invariably though, in the case of your videos, the explanation is far more valid and scientific than the contention made in them(always from ignorance).
Your definition of a plausible scenario is irelevant, unsubstantiated and has zero proof. Even if they HAD colluded, so what, it pre-supposes an intent to deceive, which the staggering moon landing evidence indicates is un-necessary!

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")
How about - I've got the car keys - it opened the car - ergo it's mine.

You aren't using the scientific method when you put forth your "Proof" that the moon missions were real. You're making some very basic mistakes.
God on a bike! The basic mistakes from the entire HB community are staggering in the extreme. The ignorance of anything related to the missions at every level, is ludicrous.
An example:

You yourself cite the C rock as being unprovable!
The HB case points to a C on a rock, near a C on the ground on a photo from circa 1984 onwards - citing it as a studio prop.
The actual case, shows the original photo negative and a print from 2 weeks after the mission WITHOUT the C on the rock, the mark on the ground being a natural shadow. The photo with the 'C' is partially blurred and is clearly a hair on a positive print, slightly off the paper.

Your staggering ignorance and stubborness to concede just one easily provable point, shows more than anything, a complete lack of any scientific methodology.

You assume that there will be evidence that other countries are colluding with NASA. If this is the case, they're not going to make anything available to give their scam away. The fact that we can't find any evidence doesn't mean there's no evidence.
Strawman argument. Just because we can't see the fairies at the bottom of the garden..........

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, scientifically, there is no evidence, and you are making it up to support your non-argument.

I'm sorry to say this but you don't know how to arrive at a logical conclusion.

You don't, and on the many forums you have argued on, with your repetitive posting, you have had your ass handed to you and ignored everything said to you. Logically, I would say it was time to give up your worldwide forum quest to influence world opinion on Apollo.

[apollo_gnomon]

dam can an recovered "proton" reflected back from a lazer beam pointed at the moon which would be 4.5 km wide by the time it hits the moon and if there is one of them shoe box size reflectors to reflect off and travel back to earth , how can it tell if it hit of the reflector and not only that who made the reflector and how it was placed there:confused:

If you don't know the difference between a proton and a photon, perhaps more research would benefit you. Google is your friend.

As you assert, the returned photon does not carry with it any information revealing the provenience of the hardware which reflected it on the moon. However, the lunar missions by the US and USSR are documented to have landed on specific areas of the moon and the astronomers use that data to aim the telescopes. If their aim is off, the pulses do not give clean returns.

[secretagent]

Why wouldn't they know the exact frequency of the laser they used? Wouldn't only looking for that frequency narrow it down drastically?

All light, infrared, ultraviolet and beyond frequencies exist naturally in an order of magnitude far superior to the one photon that allegedly comes back every few second and is allegedly successfully segregated from those natural fluxes, no?

[apollo_gnomon]

All light, infrared, ultraviolet and beyond frequencies exist naturally in an order of magnitude far superior to the one photon that allegedly comes back every few second and is allegedly successfully segregated from those natural fluxes, no?

Huh? What the hell does that mean?

[deca]

sorry for my spelling mistake.....hmm amazing what these NASA whizzes could detect 40 odd years ago....hmm wounder what else they can detect these days via a low orbit satilite pointing down at us using the EM spectrum:(

[frenat]

All light, infrared, ultraviolet and beyond frequencies exist naturally in an order of magnitude far superior to the one photon that allegedly comes back every few second and is allegedly successfully segregated from those natural fluxes, no?
Do they really? At night? At the EXACT same frequency as sent out? At the EXACT time expected?

[secretagent]

Huh? What the hell does that mean?
It does mean that it does not matter IMO at which frequency the lasers operate.

What's the average natural photon flux density recorded by the detectors when the experiments are carried out?

Millions of photons per seconds +/- x%? Billions +/- x%? Or more or less? Do you know?

I'd like to know how it can be asserted that this plus one to ten extra photons they allegedly record every few seconds are truly returns from the laser beams and not mere interpretations of minute fluctuations of the natural photonic background.

[secretagent]

Do they really? At night? At the EXACT same frequency as sent out? At the EXACT time expected?

Perhaps you understand better what I mean in my post just above.

[frenat]

Perhaps you understand better what I mean in my post just above.
I do understand it. I also understand what I wrote. Also to consider is the photons received would be in phase as they were part of a laser. Random photons would not.

[ultima1]

ALL YOUR SO CALLED EVIDENCE COMES FROM THE VERY PEOPLE THE INFORMED PUBLIC DOES NOT TRUST!!

NO, the evidence i have comes from several different sources. Most people with common sense and basic intelligence know we went to the moon, only a very small population believe thories that we did not.

WHO really has any REAL EVIDENCE?? you??

Yes i have real evidence, the kind of evidence that would hold up in court as evidence.

[deca]

ultima1 are you/it some type of NASA forum spambot?

[ultima1]

AFAIK there are only two facilities in the world who are doing Apollo laser ranging, one is in the US and the other one in France.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/
Many of these measurements have been made by McDonald Observatory in Texas. From 1969 to 1985, they were made on a part-time basis using the McDonald Observatory 107-inch telescope. Since 1985, these observations have been made using a dedicated 30-inch telescope. Additional measurements have been made by observatories in Hawaii, California, France, Australia, and Germany.


Any link about that challenge to hoaxers or that mythbuster TV show you speak about would be appreciated.

Mythbuster tv show.

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Retroreflectors - YouTube

[ultima1]

ultima1 are you/it some type of NASA forum spambot?

NO i get my information from other sources besides NASA, if you would read my post and stop ignoring the facts you would know this.

Check out the following sites unless you are really afraid of the truth.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

http://www.physorg.com/news171102159.html

[deca]

how about critically analyzing , and think for yourself....or is that what ultima-2 will do?

[ultima1]

how about critically analyzing , and think for yourself....or is that what ultima-2 will do?

Seems like you are the one who cannot think for yourself. You have to repeat old debuked BS thinking it is fact.

Please show me the research you have done and sites used, or concede you cannot think for yourself.

[deca]

look just by looking at the size of the so called reflector and by looking at the moon and enjoying moonlight makes the whole idea and concept of it being proof on a appllo man landing as silly


look at the size of the thing.....just slightly bigger then a foot print
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12130/dn12130-1_433.jpg

[apollo_gnomon]

ultima1 are you/it some type of NASA forum spambot?

I can confirm that ultima1 is NOT a NASA forum spambot. He's actually considered an idiot, or possibly brain damaged, by the occupants of apollohoax.net.

I know of exactly 3 forum AI in the apollo-debunking "world", only 1 of which runs at this time. JayUtah's posts may or may not be written by the bot, based on text of previous human-generated posts.

The Moderator of apollohoax.net has a bot, but it was only used for a few weeks in 2006 for testing purposes. I think it has been rolled out at other times under other names on other fora. Try looking at the Education Forum. It was once briefly implemented as "screen saver" on windley's main work computer, but performance was erratic and it was uninstalled.

Several Hoax-Believer posters at apollohoax.net were actually test runs of the AI. All were "banned" by the moderator after the test runs were complete. In some cases the posts were bot-vs-bot.

The post bot known as JayUtah references an extensive database of posts written on a multitude of forums by windley. Keyword searches in some forums (but not BAUT - by agreement with the bad astronomer himself) will trigger the bot to respond. windley steps in when the bot gets too far into the weeds, but most hoax "proof" has been debunked over and over, so the bot just pastes together a response based on previously written responses by windley. The language an posting style is based on the words of windley, so most of the posts are indistinguishable from human-written posts. There are a few trademarks to look for: such as the word "hogwash." During review sessions the posts with that word were given ++ by many of the proof readers, as they seemed most likely to be written by a human.

JayUtah posts will pass the "turing" test, because windley posts independently of the bot, and steps in on conversations between the bot and humans. Casual conversation posts are by windley himself.

There is a thread on IMDB between JayUtah and Jarrah White. Virtually the entire thread was written by the bot - windley has no respect for jw and doesn't like wasting time with him anymore, so he lets the bot do most of the work.

The bot known as JayUtah runs on a little-used older model mainframe computer at windley's office. Sometimes the computer has to run real work, so the bot is turned off.

The JayUtah project was independently created by hobbyists and has no relationship with NASA - NASA is too busy exploring the solar system to bother debunking illiterate morons.

[deca]

sOw EyE m i G ht bee R ight A bout ulti mum 1 ThEn:D

[ultima1]

I can confirm that ultima1 is NOT a NASA forum spambot. He's actually considered an idiot, or possibly brain damaged, by the occupants of apollohoax.net.
.

Funny how people need to use name calling when they cannot have adult discussons.

Strange how i can post facts and evidence, but others cannot when asked.

Facts and evidence of moon landing will hold up in court as evidence, theroies that we did not land on the moon will not hold up in court.

[dragond]

Funny how people need to use name calling when they cannot have adult discussons.

Strange how i can post facts and evidence, but others cannot when asked.

Facts and evidence of moon landing will hold up in court as evidence, theroies that we did not land on the moon will not hold up in court.

Dude there is something seriously wrong with u, that is if ur not a BOT.. Ive been reading ur rather ignorant posts on apollohoax.net and u can even have a decent conversation with the very people who agree that all the moon missions were real and man did land on moon..

Do you not read before you reply? do you look but dont see, listen but dont hear? :D and yet u still have the face to mention an adult conversation when everything ur doing leads most to believe that ur nothing but a little foolish kid who just seen the clips of the so called moon landing and got a boner over its complications!

Do everyone a favor and Grow Up!


D

[elite slayer]

how about critically analyzing , and think for yourself....or is that what ultima-2 will do?

Well that explains a lot. No wonder it seems we are arguing with less than human intelligence. Ultima1 being a bot makes sense.

[redman]

I do not trust anything that comes from the Government and it's agencies.



Did we go to the moon ??


I don't know, but looking at the evidence for and against. And the way NASA and the government will not answer a lot of questions asked similar to how they are with 911.


Very good chance in my eyes that it was a scam.

[dragond]

I do not trust anything that comes from the Government and it's agencies.



Did we go to the moon ??


I don't know, but looking at the evidence for and against. And the way NASA and the government will not answer a lot of questions asked similar to how they are with 911.


Very good chance in my eyes that it was a scam.

Exactly, i just dont understand why people get weird when people like u and me say this.. It seems very odd too me.. maybe too much brainwashing at school and too much tv at home.. Havent history and the present tought nothing to people??


D

[ultima1]

Dude there is something seriously wrong with u, that is if ur not a BOT.. Ive been reading ur rather ignorant posts on apollohoax.net and u can even have a decent conversation with the very people who agree that all the moon missions were real and man did land on moon..

NO they could not agree with the facts and evience i posted about expert witness testimony of photos holding up as evidence in court.

Do everyone a favor and try to have an adult discussion with me and debate my evidence if you dare.

[ultima1]

I do not trust anything that comes from the Government and it's agencies.

[QUOTE=dragond;1059004235]Exactly, i just dont understand why people get weird when people like u and me say this.. It seems very odd too me.. maybe too much brainwashing at school and too much tv at home.. Havent history and the present tought nothing to people??

Maybe becasue you need to be intelligent enough to know THat if you do not trust what NASA says you go find other sources.

ITS CALLED RESEARCH.

[jackdaw]

Photos are fakable so they aren't conclusive proof of anything.

So exactly what would serve as conclusive proof for you then?

[ultima1]

So exactly what would serve as conclusive proof for you then?

I do not think any evidence is good enough for the hoaxers, they have thier minds made up.