That is, if each reflector element were too big, then due to the earth's rotation the return beam would be so narrow that it would land west of the telescope that sent the laser pulse and be missed. I.e., any natural structure would have to look exactly like the artificial reflector to behave as it does. And what's the chance of finding one of them at (and only at) the known Apollo and Lunokhod LRRR locations???
@hunchbacked Well, here's your problem. The earth isn't rigidly fixed in the lunar sky; it varies about +/- 6 degrees with libration. So over each month you'll see the return pulse regularly broaden and narrow with the earth-reflector angle. The measured broadening is consistent with the actual size of the Apollo arrays, but if there were too many cornercubes, or too far apart, then the pulse would vary much more than it does.
@hunchbacked I thought you didn't think they actually existed? Don't confuse efficiency with size. A small reflector can be very efficient in reflecting those photons it actually intercepts, and as I explained the reflector array *cannot* be larger than about 1 m or the return pulse will be too wide during much of the month when libration takes the incidence angle off normal. The individual reflector sizes were chosen to *increase* the diffraction to overcome velocity aberration.
@hunchbacked Remember the basic purpose of these reflectors: extremely accurate earth-moon distance measurements. That's much more than just getting pulses back. Accuracy inherently conflicts with reflecting lots of photons, so the ground telescopes and lasers are necessarily large and powerful.
@hunchbacked What do you define as "accurate"? And where are your calculations to show that they don't meet the accuracy levels stated? I've seen the very detailed calculations done by the people actually doing the work, and they're enough like radio link budgets that I understand them. And I see where they get their stated accuracy. Where are your alternative calculations? You do understand that you're just handwaving without any proof, right?
The plot of photon return times includes lunar orbit and earth rotational corrections, as it should be obvious that the relative motion of earth and moon changes the round trip distance much more rapidly than the scale of that plot would indicate. This line simply wouldn't be flat if any of the parameters in the model were in error, including reflector size, shape and location. There's even an upper limit to each reflector size due to velocity aberration and diffraction.
Unfortunately you don't know enough math to compute the absurdly tiny odds of these reflectors being natural. You need corner reflectors, not flat mirrors. The earth is NOT directly overhead at any site, so they must all be normal to the earth-moon line, not horizontal. Libration is seen as a monthly broadening of the return pulse, limiting the reflector physical width to <1m and requiring it to be VERY reflective. It's just absurd to conclude they're natural!
You still cite the pre-Apollo laser experiments even though you've been repeatedly told that they're extremely misleading. Although they did achieve reflections off the natural lunar surface, the return pulses were extremely broad -- many milliseconds. There was no mistaking either their strength nor their width for returns from an artificial retroreflector. It is simply impossible to get ~1ns return pulses off the natural lunar surface; only a carefully aligned retroreflector can do that.
Just one more of your *MANY* errors: you don't understand that the random photons are always there. Only the thick horizonal line goes away when the laser is turned off. I.e., the random photons are background light, e.g., sunlight scattered off the lunar surface. Yes, the Apache Point people say that the Apollo 15 reflector is good enough to be used during the lunar daytime.
I'm glad to see you finally starting to do some calculations, but unfortunately they are flawed. As you yourself note, the effect of moving the reflector on the round trip distance depends on things like the shape of the surface. But then you ignore that very important point and assume exact vertical incidence on the lunar surface!
But none of the reflectors are at the exact center of the near side, so moving them has a drastic effect on the round trip distance.
The LRRRs were aligned with a sundial and then leveled them with a bubble level. This worked only because they were permanently set up by hand in a particular location. A reflector mounted on a rover would have to be realigned every time it moved, and since it didn't have an astronaut to perform that aligment it needed remotely controlled actuators to do it.
I honestly can't see how you can miss such an obvious explanation, except that you're blinded by your own ego.
The LRRRs were not aligned with a sundial and leveled with a bubble level because there was nothing to adjust them, at least nothing practical; the documentation and the photos very clearly show that there was nothing practical to adjust them.
@hunchbacked Please read the documentation!! It says VERY explicitly that the elevation was set prior to launch, and that the astronaut used a sundial to set azimuth and a bubble (or ball) level. The Apollo 11 astronauts even discuss it during the deployment, as they had trouble getting it level.
@hunchbacked Your "elementary logic" fails you yet again! The landing site location is known prior to launch so the elevation of the earth in the sky at the landing site is known, although it varies a little with libration. That allows the tilt of the reflector to be set prior to launch. The deployment time is also known, giving the sun's position and allowing the sundial to be calibrated prior to launch. All that's needed is a gravity level. Do you really not understand this?
@hunchbacked The relief of the ground is completely irrelevant! The landing site and deployment time are known in advance, so the reflector tilt and sundial can be set prior to launch. Then the astronaut only need level the base and rotate the unit around the vertical axis to put the sun's shadow in the right place on the sundial.
The accuracy of the alignment only has to be within the monthly variation due to libration, and it is. You do know what libration is, right?
@hunchbacked 'Relief' is totally irrelevant!! All that matters is that the face of the reflector be within a few degrees of normal to the earth. To handle sloping ground, the mount had adjustments and a ball level.
This is trivial geometry; do you really have trouble with this? (I know the answer is obviously yes, but it's a rhetorical question.)
@hunchbacked I stand corrected; although the LRRRs were adjusted prior to launch for the planned landing site and time, I can't find any astronaut adjustments. However, they were unnecessary as long as the astronaut could find a level surface and align the sundial and bubble level. And they all did.
AS14-67-9385 shows the deployed Apollo 14 unit with the sundial and bubble level.
@hunchbacked Given your incorrect claim that local gravity, one star and time can't be used to calibrate the landed LM inertial platform, I should not be surprised that you got this wrong too. If the LRRR is deployed at a known surface location and time, all that is needed is a way to level the device (a bubble level) and to orient its azimuth in a specific way to the sun (a sundial). "Relief" has nothing to do with it as long as a level spot is found or made.
@hunchbacked I asked because I'm not sure what you mean. If by "relief" you mean the shape of the local surface, that's what the bubble level was for. The astronaut found a spot that was relatively level, then set up the LRRR and pushed it around until the bubble was in the center and the sundial also aligned. Once this was done, the face of the reflector array was within half a degree or so of the line to the earth. Done. Simple.
@hunchbacked Come to think of it, setting up the LRRR is exactly the same as aligning the IMU with local gravity and one star at a known surface location and time. The bubble level reads the local gravity vector to ensure it's normal to the base of the LRRR, and the sun (at a known time) is the one star. Together these measurements are enough to define a celestial direction, in this case the direction of the earth.
@hunchbacked I'm still honestly curious about what you mean by "relief" in this context. Are you talking about altitude? The shape of the local surface? Or what? How and why does it affect the aiming of the retro reflector array?
That's very simple: The retro-reflector is small and put on a place of the ground that it is impossible to know in advance what orientation it will have relatively to the earth.
So, the adjustment of the retro-reflector cannot be done in advance, it can only be done after the retro-refector has been put on the ground.
@hunchbacked Is that all? Because the LRRRs had bubble floats to show when their bases were level. The landing site and deployment time were known in advance, so with a sundial to set the azimuth what more needed to be done to position the arrays normal to the average moon-earth line?
Not the *current* moon-earth line, but the average over a month as the moon librates. Armstrong got that to within 0.5 degree.
@hunchbacked The bubble floats are plainly visible in the pictures of the LRRRs, they're described in the documentation, and the astronauts discuss them.
You apparently spend a lot of time on this. Do you always miss things that are this easy to see?
@hunchbacked I've already mentioned photo AS14-67-9385, showing the A14 LRRR deployed on the lunar surface. The sundial and bubble float are both quite plainly visible on the right side; the bubble float is the round silver-colored object next to the sundial.
The photo AS14-67-9385 shows a joke; what you think to be a "bubble float" in fact appears as a monolithic block of plastic which is suitable for no adjustment.
When I see bullshit, I know it is bullshit, and that's precisely what I see on this photo.
Only you, through the prism of your delusion, can see something which makes sense on this photo.
@hunchbacked That is a truly remarkable reaction. Whenever I find a picture that clearly refutes one of your incorrect assertions, you just flatly deny it. I guess that's more consistent than actually re-examining your pre-chosen conclusion that Apollo was fake; after all, you've invested years of your life on this and you'd feel pretty silly having to admit you're wrong. Yet you still compare yourself with Galileo and pretend to be motivated by truth and science. Remarkable.
You want everything concerning Apollo to make sense because you are totally fascinated by Apollo, but, when one looks at Apollo with the eyes of reality, all he can see is nonsense and absurdity.
I had no pre-chosen conclusion; my conclusion comes from the sum of incoherences I have seen; you, on your part, have a pre-chosen conclusion that Apollo must absolutely real, no matter what.
You are totally incapable to look at Apollo with objectivity; your fascination for Apollo blurs your sense of reality and makes you take for reasonable what is absurd.
@hunchbacked You seem to feel that there is no such device as a bubble level, that none has ever been made in all of human history, that ever making one even on earth is impossible, so it's reasonable to conclude that any purported picture of one must be a fake.
This remains true even when the object in the picture matches the description, and even when the bubble can be clearly seen centered in the top window.
Amazing. This is why I find you so fascinating, hunchbacked.
Don't make me say what I didn't say; I didn't say that bubble levels don't exist, I say that the retro-reflectors of Apollo had no real bubble level, that the bubble level is fake, and anyway not very useful, for it was very uneasy to adjust the retro-reflectors, not to say impossible in the conditions in which the astronauts were.
@hunchbacked But what reason do you have to say that the LRRR didn't have bubble levels? You just admitted that the technology does exist. You were saying that a bubble level and sundial would not have been enough to properly align them on the earth. When I showed that to be incorrect, you've quietly changed your argument to saying that they didn't have bubble levels - even when they're plainly visible in the photos. I'd say you've painted yourself into a corner. Again.
@hunchbacked Actually, I should restate this. You seem to feel that even the simplest device, even one widely used throughout the world for centuries, cannot possibly be real whenever one appears in a photograph of Apollo equipment. The thousands of engineers who "blew the whistle" on their CIA oppressors perhaps millions of times over the course of the project never passed up even the most arcane opportunity to do so. They'd never just use the real thing. Ever. Amazing.
I am an Apollo unbeliever, a pagan of the Apollo religion (for it is a religion, no doubt), and there is nothing you can do about it; I have excommunicated myself from this religion.
@hunchbacked You've claimed to be an atheist like me, but I'm beginning to doubt that you really are. You don't seem to understand the difference between religious belief and non-belief.
But back to bubble levels. You really believe that can't possibly be a bubble level? Is that because bubble levels don't exist anywhere, or only don't exist on Apollo lunar surface experiments?
In fact, I don't exactly know what I am; I am originally a catholic, but I dislike the excesses of the catholics over the centuries.
But I maintain that your faith in Apollo is religious.
You have exactly the characteristics of a religious fundamentalist; you don't believe in a religious god, but the way you ardently believe in Apollo is compeletely similar to the way a fundamentalist believes in a religion.
@hunchbacked You keep saying this, and of course it's simply to reassure yourself. If you were instead to agree that I accept the reality of the Apollo program because of the overwhelming evidence for it, then you'd either have to analyze this same evidence honestly or concede that your rejection of this same evidence is irrational. And you don't want to do either. You'd rather pretend that the evidence doesn't even exist by pretending that it's like a religion.
@hunchbacked Maybe they're different in France but I've never had a religious fundamentalist (or religious person of any kind) tell me they had overwhelming evidence for their beliefs. In fact, they go the other way in stressing that their beliefs are all based on faith, i.e., WITHOUT evidence.
So once again, your attempt to paint this as some sort of religious parallel fails. You do remind me of the creationists who attempt to paint "Darwinism" as a religion of its own, though.
Logic of it doesn't happen, never have any humans observed a birth of a species, not one observed by fossil hunters, in the way you claim it. The species are just there, and then they slowly die out. Lots of species dies out every day, and have done for the last million year, but none have popped up.
The evolution is reasonably proved, but how it's done is a theory. Any claim of knowing how, is based on faith.
No, it's not, a dogma is an established explanation, laid down by an authority, you the majority. And I reject your laid down dogma, because that what it is, a dogma. It's not proved, rather on the contrary, it's proved a stupidity, because this evolution is never observed, and therefore it's rather proved not to be the explanation.
Oh, it's a dogma because evolution is now a majoritarily accepted!
May I remind you that, for very long, a much longer time, it's creationism which has been in the majority; but you are going to explain me that it was not a dogma then.
Creationism was a dogma, and is still a dogma, even if it now is in minority.
I think a dogma is always accepted by the majority, because the majority don't think, they are always ruled. It's decided that god was no longer the name of the game, then you came up with this evolution stupidity. I am explain to you that a dogma is a set of principle laid down by the authority, as incontrovertibly true. And has only the power of the authority to forcefully make it the true. And you know that, but you play dumb, you use the same tactic as the Moon landers.
To hell with the creationist, it's about the stupidity of the evolution, that creationism pisses you off, does not make a dogma as evolution right, the evolution is a dogma, and you are a dogmatist.
@kennjohnsen You don't know much about evolution or the evidence for it, do you?
There's a very strong correlation between education and acceptance of evolution. The more education you have, the more likely you are to accept evolution. I think that's very telling.
@kennjohnsen I don't know as much about evolution as about Apollo and space, because I'm an engineer, not a biologist. But I know as much as anyone with a general science education. I didn't sit through biology class with an ideological set of fingers stuck in my ears. And I've since made a point to learn about it as a result of the disturbing resurgence of anti-intellectualism in this country that's behind creationism, global warming denial, and yes, Apollo denial.
It just take a deeper understanding, no matter how the species occurs, it must.....it must occure fully viable, and that's what the species does, and there must be at least two of them. And no one have ever observed this happening. Evolution is a religion, a faith-based belief.
@kennjohnsen So you keep saying. And I suppose as long as you keep yourself rigorously ignorant of the mountains of data it produced, you might even convince yourself of it someday. But I'm not the Ravenous BugBlatter Beast of Traal, so covering your head with a towel doesn't really help you.
@kennjohnsen You couldn't be more wrong about me, but I can sort of understand how you might feel that you'd have to take it all on faith if you've never spent the time learning the science and math you need to understand for yourself how the universe works. Our poor educational system has failed a lot of people, sadly including you.
You are a perfect example of the types there are dominating the so-called educated breeded class. Like a fool there have been in a Bible class, you think you know it all because that's what you been told, and what you been told is holy truth. You are right there where the higher places want yo to be, a brainwashed idiot, and you don't know it.
@kennjohnsen You keep making my point better than I ever could. When you're ignorant about math and science, it all seems like magic and you understandably think you have to take it all on faith from a higher authority. But if you'd had a proper education you'd understand how science actually works, that it's not magic or dogma, and no one is above the laws of physics.
What's a propper education, a education sat up by the state, no that's propaganda, and the goal is to make you submissive. And your Apollo, evolution, global warming, is dogmas.
@kennjohnsen In other words, you're proud of your lack of education.
I really feel sorry for you. You're so uneducated that you don't even know what the term means. Far from making you "submissive" and accepting of dogma, a really good education above all teaches you the right questions to ask, who to ask, how to ask them, how to understand the answers, and even whether to accept them.
My education is as an independent, a far superiour education to yours being employed
What term, submissive, that's such one as you, a submissive idiot to the Government, is it not ? and you are not told to ask question, you are told to accept what you are told.
@kennjohnsen Check out the Wikipedia article on "crank (person)". Do you recognize yourself in any of those characteristics? Note that one distinguishing feature of the crank is an active hostility toward relevant education, claiming that it "poisons" the mind.
No, i'm not against education, just the so-called you idiots call education, free me of your education, I'll take a class by Viktor Schauberger, or Tesla, born talented, instead such idiots like you, your educations is a substitute for the talent you don't have. My education is an independent, far superiour education to yours being employed.
@kennjohnsen So you like Tesla? So do I, before he went off the deep end in his later years. So can you describe his main inventions to me? I can think of two that you have certainly used, though probably not at home. How do they work? What made them useful and why?
@kennjohnsen Oh, and by the way a good chunk of my education (my two university degrees past high school) was not set up by the state. And on top of that I have a good deal of self-education and education gained through my profession. You never stop learning.
@kennjohnsen As I said, you don't even know what education is all about. And anyone who knows me would laugh out loud at any suggestion that I don't think for myself.
I do feel sorry for you. You go through life without understanding, eventually becoming bitter and paranoid. And not completely without reason; uneducated people are often the victims of others who prey on their ignorance.
@kennjohnsen If you can't see them, I suggest using a spell checker or even a paper dictionary.
I don't know about you, but I feel that how I write reflects on me especially to the many people who will never meet me in person. So I try to spell correctly and to use proper grammar. I still make mistakes, but at least I don't come across as just plain sloppy.
And where have this evolution been observed, no farmer, midwives have ever observed any evolution other than negative, no one have seen an evolution in action. People get resistant too, but it got nothing to do with a new species.
@hunchbacked Shouldn't you at least be consistent? When you think you can interpret an Apollo picture to support your position, you do so. But when someone interprets an Apollo picture against your position, you say it "shows a joke" and simply deny that it shows what it shows.
And you claim to be a scientist. That's the real joke here.
Have you ever heard of something called a "checklist"? Or "pre flight training"? The astronauts practiced just about everything they would do on the moon so they didn't have to waste valuable time being told what to do. This included the deployment of the LRRRs on 11, 14 and 15. And if you weren't such a lazy know-it-all, you could have read the astronauts' checklists yourself and seen that they contained all the instructions for setting up and aligning the LRRRs.
You haven't been paying attention to the story of the rediscovery of Lunokhod 1 by LRO. Lunokhod 2's position has always been known and its reflectors used. Neither rover has been moved, or was capable of being moved, since the early 1970s. Searching for a reflector whose position is unknown was too slow to be practical, which is why the use of this reflector had to await the rediscovery of its correct position by LRO.
Your ability to delude yourself is truly remarkable. I will have much more to say about this typically absurd HB production, but I'll start by saying that the Apollo reflectors WERE adjustable in elevation (around the horizontal axis). But they were adjusted BEFORE THE FLIGHT because the landing site was known and along with it, the elevation of the earth in the sky at the site. There was no need for an astronaut to adjust the elevation, only to level it and orient the azimuth.
This is really not in my field of work and I have very little knowledge about the subject beyond the basics. You claim to have taken a more scientific approach to this topic HB. But frankly you haven't at all. I would suggest that you take a look at philwebb59's "MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #11B: LLR After Reflectors".
Perhaps the topic has not been extensively exhausted with his video, but it's a lot better base for a discussion than this video ever will be.
@hunchbacked He seems to have dealt with most of the points you have here. He also deals with the number of photons returned based on the different sizes of the reflectors. So I don't know, this video is really not dealing with the points already presented in a proper way imo.
I have talked about his points; I have shown that the number of photons has only to do with the distance traveled by the laser beam and not the size of the reto-reflector like some incorrectly think.
@hunchbacked So if they just aim it almost randomly at certain locations until they just hit a reflective surface, would not the distance vary greatly each time they measure? I do not care about the proof aspect of this since it doesn't prove the Apollo missions one way or another, but your reasoning sounds flawed.
@rawmonkno1 What I wanted to say more clearly is that knowing the uncertainty in your measure is vital. Just because there are tools that can measure with an error of only 20 cm does not mean that you can get a valid measure with an error of just 20 cm if you do not know from where you are measuring.
@hunchbacked It never ends, does it? The number of photons returned to the telescope depends on BOTH the distance to the target AND the size of the reflector. That's because the laser illuminates an area on the moon far larger than the reflector, so a bigger reflector captures and returns more of them.
And guess what? The A15 reflector is three times the size of the A11/A14 reflectors, and it does return a stronger signal.
You're going into dangerous ground. People who really designed these lasers know what they're meant for and know that they work. If they're not in on the coverup, you must be wrong. And for them to be in on the "coverup" that would mean hundreds of people were in on it, which means the truth would slip out. Wrong. But I'll give you a thumbsup for trying.
On youtube, you can find plenty of videos made by creationists who claim to have overwhelming evidence for their belief.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
You can find plenty of videos of evolutionist there claim to have overwhelming evidence for their believe too.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
That is, if each reflector element were too big, then due to the earth's rotation the return beam would be so narrow that it would land west of the telescope that sent the laser pulse and be missed. I.e., any natural structure would have to look exactly like the artificial reflector to behave as it does. And what's the chance of finding one of them at (and only at) the known Apollo and Lunokhod LRRR locations???
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
I didn't say that the cornercubes on the big retro-reflector had to be big, they may just be in greater number.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Well, here's your problem. The earth isn't rigidly fixed in the lunar sky; it varies about +/- 6 degrees with libration. So over each month you'll see the return pulse regularly broaden and narrow with the earth-reflector angle. The measured broadening is consistent with the actual size of the Apollo arrays, but if there were too many cornercubes, or too far apart, then the pulse would vary much more than it does.
Ready to concede the LRRRs are real yet?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Except that I doubt that the Apollo reflectors are really efficient because of their small size.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked I thought you didn't think they actually existed? Don't confuse efficiency with size. A small reflector can be very efficient in reflecting those photons it actually intercepts, and as I explained the reflector array *cannot* be larger than about 1 m or the return pulse will be too wide during much of the month when libration takes the incidence angle off normal. The individual reflector sizes were chosen to *increase* the diffraction to overcome velocity aberration.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Remember the basic purpose of these reflectors: extremely accurate earth-moon distance measurements. That's much more than just getting pulses back. Accuracy inherently conflicts with reflecting lots of photons, so the ground telescopes and lasers are necessarily large and powerful.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
They are accurate, but not at a so great distance;
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked What do you define as "accurate"? And where are your calculations to show that they don't meet the accuracy levels stated? I've seen the very detailed calculations done by the people actually doing the work, and they're enough like radio link budgets that I understand them. And I see where they get their stated accuracy. Where are your alternative calculations? You do understand that you're just handwaving without any proof, right?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
The plot of photon return times includes lunar orbit and earth rotational corrections, as it should be obvious that the relative motion of earth and moon changes the round trip distance much more rapidly than the scale of that plot would indicate. This line simply wouldn't be flat if any of the parameters in the model were in error, including reflector size, shape and location. There's even an upper limit to each reflector size due to velocity aberration and diffraction.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
Unfortunately you don't know enough math to compute the absurdly tiny odds of these reflectors being natural. You need corner reflectors, not flat mirrors. The earth is NOT directly overhead at any site, so they must all be normal to the earth-moon line, not horizontal. Libration is seen as a monthly broadening of the return pulse, limiting the reflector physical width to <1m and requiring it to be VERY reflective. It's just absurd to conclude they're natural!
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
You still cite the pre-Apollo laser experiments even though you've been repeatedly told that they're extremely misleading. Although they did achieve reflections off the natural lunar surface, the return pulses were extremely broad -- many milliseconds. There was no mistaking either their strength nor their width for returns from an artificial retroreflector. It is simply impossible to get ~1ns return pulses off the natural lunar surface; only a carefully aligned retroreflector can do that.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
Just one more of your *MANY* errors: you don't understand that the random photons are always there. Only the thick horizonal line goes away when the laser is turned off. I.e., the random photons are background light, e.g., sunlight scattered off the lunar surface. Yes, the Apache Point people say that the Apollo 15 reflector is good enough to be used during the lunar daytime.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
I'm glad to see you finally starting to do some calculations, but unfortunately they are flawed. As you yourself note, the effect of moving the reflector on the round trip distance depends on things like the shape of the surface. But then you ignore that very important point and assume exact vertical incidence on the lunar surface!
But none of the reflectors are at the exact center of the near side, so moving them has a drastic effect on the round trip distance.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
The LRRRs were aligned with a sundial and then leveled them with a bubble level. This worked only because they were permanently set up by hand in a particular location. A reflector mounted on a rover would have to be realigned every time it moved, and since it didn't have an astronaut to perform that aligment it needed remotely controlled actuators to do it.
I honestly can't see how you can miss such an obvious explanation, except that you're blinded by your own ego.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
The LRRRs were not aligned with a sundial and leveled with a bubble level because there was nothing to adjust them, at least nothing practical; the documentation and the photos very clearly show that there was nothing practical to adjust them.
hunchbacked 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Please read the documentation!! It says VERY explicitly that the elevation was set prior to launch, and that the astronaut used a sundial to set azimuth and a bubble (or ball) level. The Apollo 11 astronauts even discuss it during the deployment, as they had trouble getting it level.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Oh my god: They can't set it prior to launch because the orientation of the retro-reflector depends on the relief of the ground on which it is put!
It necessarily has to be adjusted after having been put on the ground!
This is elementary logic!
hunchbacked 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Your "elementary logic" fails you yet again! The landing site location is known prior to launch so the elevation of the earth in the sky at the landing site is known, although it varies a little with libration. That allows the tilt of the reflector to be set prior to launch. The deployment time is also known, giving the sun's position and allowing the sundial to be calibrated prior to launch. All that's needed is a gravity level. Do you really not understand this?
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked The relief of the ground is completely irrelevant! The landing site and deployment time are known in advance, so the reflector tilt and sundial can be set prior to launch. Then the astronaut only need level the base and rotate the unit around the vertical axis to put the sun's shadow in the right place on the sundial.
The accuracy of the alignment only has to be within the monthly variation due to libration, and it is. You do know what libration is, right?
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Yoy really live completely outside reality.
The landing site may be roughly known, but the minute detail of the relief is not known.
A little variation of relief can much change the conditions of adjustment of the retro-reflector.
hunchbacked 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked 'Relief' is totally irrelevant!! All that matters is that the face of the reflector be within a few degrees of normal to the earth. To handle sloping ground, the mount had adjustments and a ball level.
This is trivial geometry; do you really have trouble with this? (I know the answer is obviously yes, but it's a rhetorical question.)
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Oh no, it's not rrelevant at all.
And the retro-reflector had no adjustment at all, nothing pratical to adjust it.
hunchbacked 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked I stand corrected; although the LRRRs were adjusted prior to launch for the planned landing site and time, I can't find any astronaut adjustments. However, they were unnecessary as long as the astronaut could find a level surface and align the sundial and bubble level. And they all did.
AS14-67-9385 shows the deployed Apollo 14 unit with the sundial and bubble level.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Given your incorrect claim that local gravity, one star and time can't be used to calibrate the landed LM inertial platform, I should not be surprised that you got this wrong too. If the LRRR is deployed at a known surface location and time, all that is needed is a way to level the device (a bubble level) and to orient its azimuth in a specific way to the sun (a sundial). "Relief" has nothing to do with it as long as a level spot is found or made.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Please define the term "relief".
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Don't pretend not to know what I mean.
hunchbacked 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked I asked because I'm not sure what you mean. If by "relief" you mean the shape of the local surface, that's what the bubble level was for. The astronaut found a spot that was relatively level, then set up the LRRR and pushed it around until the bubble was in the center and the sundial also aligned. Once this was done, the face of the reflector array was within half a degree or so of the line to the earth. Done. Simple.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Come to think of it, setting up the LRRR is exactly the same as aligning the IMU with local gravity and one star at a known surface location and time. The bubble level reads the local gravity vector to ensure it's normal to the base of the LRRR, and the sun (at a known time) is the one star. Together these measurements are enough to define a celestial direction, in this case the direction of the earth.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
@hunchbacked I'm still honestly curious about what you mean by "relief" in this context. Are you talking about altitude? The shape of the local surface? Or what? How and why does it affect the aiming of the retro reflector array?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
curious?
That's very simple: The retro-reflector is small and put on a place of the ground that it is impossible to know in advance what orientation it will have relatively to the earth.
So, the adjustment of the retro-reflector cannot be done in advance, it can only be done after the retro-refector has been put on the ground.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked You mean simply because the ground might not be level?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Of course the ground might not be level.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Is that all? Because the LRRRs had bubble floats to show when their bases were level. The landing site and deployment time were known in advance, so with a sundial to set the azimuth what more needed to be done to position the arrays normal to the average moon-earth line?
Not the *current* moon-earth line, but the average over a month as the moon librates. Armstrong got that to within 0.5 degree.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
They had no bubble floats; they were not easily adjustable.
Look at the photos of the missions: They appear completely ridiculous on them.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked The bubble floats are plainly visible in the pictures of the LRRRs, they're described in the documentation, and the astronauts discuss them.
You apparently spend a lot of time on this. Do you always miss things that are this easy to see?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked I've already mentioned photo AS14-67-9385, showing the A14 LRRR deployed on the lunar surface. The sundial and bubble float are both quite plainly visible on the right side; the bubble float is the round silver-colored object next to the sundial.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
The photo AS14-67-9385 shows a joke; what you think to be a "bubble float" in fact appears as a monolithic block of plastic which is suitable for no adjustment.
When I see bullshit, I know it is bullshit, and that's precisely what I see on this photo.
Only you, through the prism of your delusion, can see something which makes sense on this photo.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked That is a truly remarkable reaction. Whenever I find a picture that clearly refutes one of your incorrect assertions, you just flatly deny it. I guess that's more consistent than actually re-examining your pre-chosen conclusion that Apollo was fake; after all, you've invested years of your life on this and you'd feel pretty silly having to admit you're wrong. Yet you still compare yourself with Galileo and pretend to be motivated by truth and science. Remarkable.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
You want everything concerning Apollo to make sense because you are totally fascinated by Apollo, but, when one looks at Apollo with the eyes of reality, all he can see is nonsense and absurdity.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
I had no pre-chosen conclusion; my conclusion comes from the sum of incoherences I have seen; you, on your part, have a pre-chosen conclusion that Apollo must absolutely real, no matter what.
You are totally incapable to look at Apollo with objectivity; your fascination for Apollo blurs your sense of reality and makes you take for reasonable what is absurd.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked You seem to feel that there is no such device as a bubble level, that none has ever been made in all of human history, that ever making one even on earth is impossible, so it's reasonable to conclude that any purported picture of one must be a fake.
This remains true even when the object in the picture matches the description, and even when the bubble can be clearly seen centered in the top window.
Amazing. This is why I find you so fascinating, hunchbacked.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Don't make me say what I didn't say; I didn't say that bubble levels don't exist, I say that the retro-reflectors of Apollo had no real bubble level, that the bubble level is fake, and anyway not very useful, for it was very uneasy to adjust the retro-reflectors, not to say impossible in the conditions in which the astronauts were.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked But what reason do you have to say that the LRRR didn't have bubble levels? You just admitted that the technology does exist. You were saying that a bubble level and sundial would not have been enough to properly align them on the earth. When I showed that to be incorrect, you've quietly changed your argument to saying that they didn't have bubble levels - even when they're plainly visible in the photos. I'd say you've painted yourself into a corner. Again.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Actually, I should restate this. You seem to feel that even the simplest device, even one widely used throughout the world for centuries, cannot possibly be real whenever one appears in a photograph of Apollo equipment. The thousands of engineers who "blew the whistle" on their CIA oppressors perhaps millions of times over the course of the project never passed up even the most arcane opportunity to do so. They'd never just use the real thing. Ever. Amazing.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
I am an Apollo unbeliever, a pagan of the Apollo religion (for it is a religion, no doubt), and there is nothing you can do about it; I have excommunicated myself from this religion.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked You've claimed to be an atheist like me, but I'm beginning to doubt that you really are. You don't seem to understand the difference between religious belief and non-belief.
But back to bubble levels. You really believe that can't possibly be a bubble level? Is that because bubble levels don't exist anywhere, or only don't exist on Apollo lunar surface experiments?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
In fact, I don't exactly know what I am; I am originally a catholic, but I dislike the excesses of the catholics over the centuries.
But I maintain that your faith in Apollo is religious.
You have exactly the characteristics of a religious fundamentalist; you don't believe in a religious god, but the way you ardently believe in Apollo is compeletely similar to the way a fundamentalist believes in a religion.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked You keep saying this, and of course it's simply to reassure yourself. If you were instead to agree that I accept the reality of the Apollo program because of the overwhelming evidence for it, then you'd either have to analyze this same evidence honestly or concede that your rejection of this same evidence is irrational. And you don't want to do either. You'd rather pretend that the evidence doesn't even exist by pretending that it's like a religion.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
The religious fundamentalists also find they have "overwhelming evidence" for their belief.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Maybe they're different in France but I've never had a religious fundamentalist (or religious person of any kind) tell me they had overwhelming evidence for their beliefs. In fact, they go the other way in stressing that their beliefs are all based on faith, i.e., WITHOUT evidence.
So once again, your attempt to paint this as some sort of religious parallel fails. You do remind me of the creationists who attempt to paint "Darwinism" as a religion of its own, though.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Now you just need to excommunicate yourself from the evolution religion.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
Why would I do that?
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Respect for logic.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
What logic?
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Logic of it doesn't happen, never have any humans observed a birth of a species, not one observed by fossil hunters, in the way you claim it. The species are just there, and then they slowly die out. Lots of species dies out every day, and have done for the last million year, but none have popped up.
The evolution is reasonably proved, but how it's done is a theory. Any claim of knowing how, is based on faith.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
If you think that my skepticism on the moon landings is going to implicate also a skepticism on the evolution, you are wrong.
There is nothing religious in my skepticism on the moon landings, only reasonable scientific doubts.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
No I know you seem to be religious dense in this evolution stupidity.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
Why is it stupid?
Explain.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Haven't I just made the point, is it necessary to play dumb ?
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
I don't see what point you have made.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Now you do the same as the Moon landers, play dumb.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
I don't play dumb, I am entitled to my own opinions.
I don't have to have exactly the same opinions as you.
I can take some opinions from you like I can take some from AWR.
I am a person with his own originality which is not the same as yours.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
Opinion....opinion, when this opinion become a established dogma, then it's a different thing.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
rejecting evolution is also a dogma.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
No, it's not, a dogma is an established explanation, laid down by an authority, you the majority. And I reject your laid down dogma, because that what it is, a dogma. It's not proved, rather on the contrary, it's proved a stupidity, because this evolution is never observed, and therefore it's rather proved not to be the explanation.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
Oh, it's a dogma because evolution is now a majoritarily accepted!
May I remind you that, for very long, a much longer time, it's creationism which has been in the majority; but you are going to explain me that it was not a dogma then.
Creationism was a dogma, and is still a dogma, even if it now is in minority.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
I think a dogma is always accepted by the majority, because the majority don't think, they are always ruled. It's decided that god was no longer the name of the game, then you came up with this evolution stupidity. I am explain to you that a dogma is a set of principle laid down by the authority, as incontrovertibly true. And has only the power of the authority to forcefully make it the true. And you know that, but you play dumb, you use the same tactic as the Moon landers.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
Some creationists may not believe in moon landings because of their religious belief, but it is not my case.
My doubts concerning the moon landings are purely scientific.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
To hell with the creationist, it's about the stupidity of the evolution, that creationism pisses you off, does not make a dogma as evolution right, the evolution is a dogma, and you are a dogmatist.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen You don't know much about evolution or the evidence for it, do you?
There's a very strong correlation between education and acceptance of evolution. The more education you have, the more likely you are to accept evolution. I think that's very telling.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
What do you know about evolution, you don't know much about it, other than what you been told do you ?
Education is brainwashing, that's a side effect of education.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen I don't know as much about evolution as about Apollo and space, because I'm an engineer, not a biologist. But I know as much as anyone with a general science education. I didn't sit through biology class with an ideological set of fingers stuck in my ears. And I've since made a point to learn about it as a result of the disturbing resurgence of anti-intellectualism in this country that's behind creationism, global warming denial, and yes, Apollo denial.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
It just take a deeper understanding, no matter how the species occurs, it must.....it must occure fully viable, and that's what the species does, and there must be at least two of them. And no one have ever observed this happening. Evolution is a religion, a faith-based belief.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Your Apollo is a faith-based believe, wishful thinking, has nothing to do with reality.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen So you keep saying. And I suppose as long as you keep yourself rigorously ignorant of the mountains of data it produced, you might even convince yourself of it someday. But I'm not the Ravenous BugBlatter Beast of Traal, so covering your head with a towel doesn't really help you.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
You keep saying what the establishment in power have told you, and you will keep doing so, you're not born with the mind to wonder.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen You couldn't be more wrong about me, but I can sort of understand how you might feel that you'd have to take it all on faith if you've never spent the time learning the science and math you need to understand for yourself how the universe works. Our poor educational system has failed a lot of people, sadly including you.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
You are a perfect example of the types there are dominating the so-called educated breeded class. Like a fool there have been in a Bible class, you think you know it all because that's what you been told, and what you been told is holy truth. You are right there where the higher places want yo to be, a brainwashed idiot, and you don't know it.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen You keep making my point better than I ever could. When you're ignorant about math and science, it all seems like magic and you understandably think you have to take it all on faith from a higher authority. But if you'd had a proper education you'd understand how science actually works, that it's not magic or dogma, and no one is above the laws of physics.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
What's a propper education, a education sat up by the state, no that's propaganda, and the goal is to make you submissive. And your Apollo, evolution, global warming, is dogmas.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen In other words, you're proud of your lack of education.
I really feel sorry for you. You're so uneducated that you don't even know what the term means. Far from making you "submissive" and accepting of dogma, a really good education above all teaches you the right questions to ask, who to ask, how to ask them, how to understand the answers, and even whether to accept them.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
My education is as an independent, a far superiour education to yours being employed
What term, submissive, that's such one as you, a submissive idiot to the Government, is it not ? and you are not told to ask question, you are told to accept what you are told.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen Check out the Wikipedia article on "crank (person)". Do you recognize yourself in any of those characteristics? Note that one distinguishing feature of the crank is an active hostility toward relevant education, claiming that it "poisons" the mind.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
No, i'm not against education, just the so-called you idiots call education, free me of your education, I'll take a class by Viktor Schauberger, or Tesla, born talented, instead such idiots like you, your educations is a substitute for the talent you don't have. My education is an independent, far superiour education to yours being employed.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen So you like Tesla? So do I, before he went off the deep end in his later years. So can you describe his main inventions to me? I can think of two that you have certainly used, though probably not at home. How do they work? What made them useful and why?
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen Oh, and by the way a good chunk of my education (my two university degrees past high school) was not set up by the state. And on top of that I have a good deal of self-education and education gained through my profession. You never stop learning.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
One thing is, you are not self thinking.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen As I said, you don't even know what education is all about. And anyone who knows me would laugh out loud at any suggestion that I don't think for myself.
I do feel sorry for you. You go through life without understanding, eventually becoming bitter and paranoid. And not completely without reason; uneducated people are often the victims of others who prey on their ignorance.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
My education is far supperiour to yours, you are nothing more than a child been bottle feed your whole life.
You are clinging to your so-called education, because your lack of talent, you sound very ordinary.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen Too bad your supperiour education didn't teach you how to spell.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Where exactly is my spelling mistakes.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen If you can't see them, I suggest using a spell checker or even a paper dictionary.
I don't know about you, but I feel that how I write reflects on me especially to the many people who will never meet me in person. So I try to spell correctly and to use proper grammar. I still make mistakes, but at least I don't come across as just plain sloppy.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen Wrong. Evolution has been observed many, many times, both directly and indirectly.
Do you know about the worsening problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Just one of many examples of evolution in action.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
And where have this evolution been observed, no farmer, midwives have ever observed any evolution other than negative, no one have seen an evolution in action. People get resistant too, but it got nothing to do with a new species.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@kennjohnsen
It is not because we both have doubts on the moon landings that we are going to agree on every other subject, deal with it.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked
That's right deal with it.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked
Now you just need to excommunicate yourself from the evolution religion.
kennjohnsen 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked Shouldn't you at least be consistent? When you think you can interpret an Apollo picture to support your position, you do so. But when someone interprets an Apollo picture against your position, you say it "shows a joke" and simply deny that it shows what it shows.
And you claim to be a scientist. That's the real joke here.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@hunchbacked AS15-85-11468 shows A15's LRRR, with sundial and bubble level.
ApolloWasReal 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasReal
Correction: What you think to be a sundial and bubble level, but what is in fact a joke.
The bubble level is just for the decoration, it is totally inoperant.
hunchbacked 3 weeks ago
Have you ever heard of something called a "checklist"? Or "pre flight training"? The astronauts practiced just about everything they would do on the moon so they didn't have to waste valuable time being told what to do. This included the deployment of the LRRRs on 11, 14 and 15. And if you weren't such a lazy know-it-all, you could have read the astronauts' checklists yourself and seen that they contained all the instructions for setting up and aligning the LRRRs.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
You haven't been paying attention to the story of the rediscovery of Lunokhod 1 by LRO. Lunokhod 2's position has always been known and its reflectors used. Neither rover has been moved, or was capable of being moved, since the early 1970s. Searching for a reflector whose position is unknown was too slow to be practical, which is why the use of this reflector had to await the rediscovery of its correct position by LRO.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
Your ability to delude yourself is truly remarkable. I will have much more to say about this typically absurd HB production, but I'll start by saying that the Apollo reflectors WERE adjustable in elevation (around the horizontal axis). But they were adjusted BEFORE THE FLIGHT because the landing site was known and along with it, the elevation of the earth in the sky at the site. There was no need for an astronaut to adjust the elevation, only to level it and orient the azimuth.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
This is really not in my field of work and I have very little knowledge about the subject beyond the basics. You claim to have taken a more scientific approach to this topic HB. But frankly you haven't at all. I would suggest that you take a look at philwebb59's "MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #11B: LLR After Reflectors".
Perhaps the topic has not been extensively exhausted with his video, but it's a lot better base for a discussion than this video ever will be.
rawmonkno1 1 month ago
@rawmonkno1
Oh I know this critique, but it is very oriented.
I show that it is not as simple as one might think.
That something on the moon reflects the laser beam is sure.
That this something is a retro-reflector left by the astronauts is less than sure.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked He seems to have dealt with most of the points you have here. He also deals with the number of photons returned based on the different sizes of the reflectors. So I don't know, this video is really not dealing with the points already presented in a proper way imo.
rawmonkno1 1 month ago
@rawmonkno1
I have talked about his points; I have shown that the number of photons has only to do with the distance traveled by the laser beam and not the size of the reto-reflector like some incorrectly think.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked So if they just aim it almost randomly at certain locations until they just hit a reflective surface, would not the distance vary greatly each time they measure? I do not care about the proof aspect of this since it doesn't prove the Apollo missions one way or another, but your reasoning sounds flawed.
rawmonkno1 1 month ago
@rawmonkno1 What I wanted to say more clearly is that knowing the uncertainty in your measure is vital. Just because there are tools that can measure with an error of only 20 cm does not mean that you can get a valid measure with an error of just 20 cm if you do not know from where you are measuring.
rawmonkno1 1 month ago
@hunchbacked It never ends, does it? The number of photons returned to the telescope depends on BOTH the distance to the target AND the size of the reflector. That's because the laser illuminates an area on the moon far larger than the reflector, so a bigger reflector captures and returns more of them.
And guess what? The A15 reflector is three times the size of the A11/A14 reflectors, and it does return a stronger signal.
ApolloWasReal 4 weeks ago
yeah the moon shills love this lie along with IF RUSSIA KNEW THEY WOULDA TATTLED!!!
no one has ever gone to moon, forget the blackops and german tech that got us there like sci fi pigeons such as jay weidner's fantasies
pt1gard 1 month ago
You're going into dangerous ground. People who really designed these lasers know what they're meant for and know that they work. If they're not in on the coverup, you must be wrong. And for them to be in on the "coverup" that would mean hundreds of people were in on it, which means the truth would slip out. Wrong. But I'll give you a thumbsup for trying.
unparallelshadows 1 month ago
@unparallelshadows
The people who designed the lasers know that they work if a reflective surface can send back the laser.
They don't mind about Apollo; they don't want to make a confrontation with the NASA and hurt the feelings of people who believe in Apollo.
They make their work, and don't mind about the interpretation of what sends the signal back.
I don't deny that a signal is received back from the moon, but just question what sends this signal back.
hunchbacked 1 month ago