Im on the side that believes we been to the moon......my father worked on the Apollo program......my uncle was a chief engineer for general dynamics.....plus the Russians 20 min after touchdown confirmed to their people that Apollo 11 landed...if anyone was gonna say we faked it russia would have
@PoliceViolence Then ask why not all of the Russian reflectors are used. Some of them were "incorrectly placed." Since we're talking about 1969 robot tech (laughable), maybe pointing them at the Earth was exactly what was screwed up.
@jakebrake4343 I too would love to see nasa go back to the moon or do something else great. But they are not doing it. So which side is this an argument for?
The real question is:"If this is a hoax, why would the Soviets play along in the middle of the cold war?" They had several orbiters, two Lunohods, and could easily spot a hoax, yet, Vasily Mishin confirmed the landings. To think that the Soviets were total idiots is a bit too much for any reasonable person.
Why are people still questioning this topic? It is so funny how people in today's dumbed down,follower society will believe almost anything just because it is the new hottest conspiracy theory, listen folks going to the moon was not that big of a deal,they did it, took some pictures and came back wow, when someone goes to another planet or builds a faster form of space travel, that's when I will be all ears, that's what I call real news.
I may be out off date but i thought japan had started luna maping capable off seeing objects as small as one meter. I,m sure the satalite was launched in 2008.
You dont know if its tracked any off the landing areas, do you?
They did, and released great pics of what they saw to the international media. There's good footage uploaded to youtube right now. Try this one: watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
Like i said, one the worst deference vids ever. reflectors are really NASAs biggest mistake...incredibly weak proof. Proves we put something on the moon, but not any proof that is a man. Russians put reflectors on the moon, they work to... not as good, but they work. ours work better (better design) ...in no way does your video prove we were on the moon.
why you always so touchy when i start talking about
little robotic lander and that big beautiful moon ...oh, and lazer beams
Astronomers seem to think the reflectors are very good proof. So we can believe them, or hoax GED newbs. You be the judge. ;)
Russian landers have evidence for them. Documentation, witnesses, etc. How come you dont have equal evidence for the alleged USA landers? You just cant pull them out of your ass. Even though thats about your only tactic ;)
"troll" oh my dear little ignorant, I'm afraid your 8th grade reading level has exposed you as a retard yet again ;)
ALREADY been caught bluffing about russian scientists you cant name, radiation you're clueless about, and landers you pull out of your ass, BUT STILL you troll from movie to movie, hoping to find a hole deep enough to avoid any and all inconvenient questions.
the robotic units (rovers) were landed on the moon in coordination with the Apollo dates. Pretty simple. The LM could easily be guided unmanned to the moon with rover and land while astros wait in low orbit in return module.
Robotic landers that you pulled out of your ass? With no documentation? No witnesses? You mean you can just make up your story as you go? WOW, no wonder being a hoax spaz is so easy ;)
We know the russians have landers because of the blueprints and engineers and documentation. Where are the blueprints and engineers and documentation for the american landers? Equal theories require equal evidence.
SOME of us dont have to make up our story as we go. Fail ;)
Delighted to see that you abandoned the other thread, the one where I asked you for even ONE factual error and you ran screaming like a little girl. ;)
Its so much easier to gullibly believe retarded hoax theories when you're not asked inconvenient questions to pop your delusional bubble, now isnt it? ;)
so!!! we built better remote 'robot landers' with better a system of mounts an mirrors than the russians, still doesn't prove manned missions went to the moon. 'GOATS' always love claiming the mirrors as the ultimate proof, more ultimate spoof. not worth much when discussing "living" earthlings been to luna.
I'm saying you are far too bigoted to present an honest opinion. You just want to whine. And since you couldnt name even ONE factual error, its obvious you've nothing to say above the 4th grade level ;)
Were the probes heavy enough to carry reflectors? Did they have robotic arms advanced enough to pick the reflectors up and place them in the ground? Our Mars landers cant even do that today.
They also have a complete chain of evidence proving how the reflectors got there: the engineers who built the probes, the rockets that launched them, witnesses and documents. Thats exactly what we have to prove that our MEN put our reflectors there. You cant believe one and not believe the other. If the USA put our reflectors there with robot probes, we'd have to have identical evidence to what the russians provided for there probes. No such evidence exists.
@masterod1, It's pretty easy to just say that NASA used probes to place the retroreflectors, but where's the evidence? What launched them? Such a launch would be detected. What did the probe look like? Do you have designs or drawings? Who manufactured it? Why were the RRs suddenly detected on the day & at the place NASA said the Apollo landings took place?
You have a theory, but that's all. And everyone does NOT "know that."
That and don't forget that at the time, making and using an unmanned probe would be MUCH more costly than sending a manned one (hence the start of the space race). Yes, there could've been manned probes, but they were too costly and impractical.
The US were up in their necks with really costly problems during the Cold War. Wasting even more money to "fake" a moon landing while they already had a space program underway would not only be stupid, but dangerous as well.
They dont agree with each other on anything. They cant agree if the "set" was outside or inside. They cant agree if the "outside set" was in Nevada or Hawaii or Idaho or etc etc etc. Its all stupid. If after 40 years they cant even agree on a consistent story amongst THEMSELVES, theres zero reason anyone else should agree with them either.
I REALLY hate it when people LIE, no matter what side they are on, or WHAT they R arguing about! When they do it just makes their side look DESPERATE. & this guy is a LIAR. The whole thing about the reflectors never being used...LIE
"....the other Soviet reflector, on the Lunokhod 2 rover, to which we ROUTINELY send laser pulses..." T. Murphy,ass.professor of phys. at UCSD, ScienceDaily (apr.27 2010) One of the Russian ones was lost until just recently, & now found..it works shockingly well
T. Murphy needs to have a Halloween chat with the deceased soul of Dr. Carl Sagan, who said the Lunokhod reflectors were misplaced and unused in one of his own published works. That was my source when I made this video. The term "lie" is an ignorant cliche used with lazy bigotry, and only exposes your own desperation to start an argument any way you can.
@SpreadingtheMuse Well since Mr. Tom Murphy actually USES the lunokhod reflectors on a regular basis (as stated in article, which is online) in the course of
"head[ing] a team of scientists engaged in a long-term effort to look for deviations of Einstein's theory of general relativity by measuring the shape of the lunar orbit..." at UCSD where he is an A.P. of Phys., I think T.M. has nothing to fear from Sagan's Ghost! LOL However I concede, your Ignorance may B 2 blame rather than U Int Lying
Ill let Mr Murphy discuss it with Dr. Sagan himself. Its the right time of year for that kind of thing.
My "ignorance" consisted of several astronomy texts and teaching the subject at the professional level. You have never claimed this was a widespread use of lunokod and Its not in the professional record in any competent manner. If its so minor that modern astronomy texts dont bother mentioning it, I'm hardly worried. ;)
Since my information was directly from Dr. Carl Sagans published works, does he earn immature invectives of "liar" as well? And given the choice of believing or not believing the published works of Dr. Sagan, you'd really recommend calling him a liar first before engaging in adult discussion?
You more or less shot your credibility to hell by your first juvenile remark. Act like a screaming troll and you'll be treated like one.
And I suspect what happened here was the lunohkod reflectors having the advantage of advanced targeting technology that was only recently available. Meaning they were in fact mostly useless until their misplacement could be counteracted by new advancements that they never were have supposed to have needed.
The larger question is:
SO WHAT?
The russian reflectors were only a minor point of this video. Is any of the rest invalid?
@SpreadingtheMuse I am having quite a hard time beliving anything you are saying, since even a quick investigation proves that the Lunakhood 2 reflectors have indeed been used every since they landed. The fact are Luankhod 1 was lost, and only recently found (as stated in the first article I mention) But Lunakhood 's cubes is, and has been used. Its not misplaced, but its large size causes thermal distortions making it 30 [CONTINUED]
@SpreadingtheMuse [CONTINUATION].times weaker in lunar daylight, BUT the larger size makes for a tighter diffraction pattern during lunar night, so during this time period the effective cross pattern is actually larger than Apollo11/14's arrays! Let me tell you what I SUSPECT. Dr. Sagan talking about Lunokhod 1 being misplaced & lost, & U misunderstood. Trying to suggest there's no pro.record of Lunokhod's being used is frankly, bizarre considering how easily such records CAN be found. I must
If the lunokhod usage wasnt in the texts and papers I had access to then it wasnt there. Thats its own fault for not being publicized in a professional manner. I'm hardly going to scour around digging for information that I have no reason to suspect exists.
Besides, when did this happen? When did they use Lunokhod? It might postdate the production date of this video, and certainly postdate the professional publications of Dr Sagan that I used as my source material.
@SpreadingtheMuse No, my appologies, it didnt get eaten I erased it. It was the same as the 2nd' posting, except that it seemingly just ended mid sentence with no [CONTINUED]. To avoid confusion, I deleted it & added it. As for the subject at hand...Yes Lunokhod 2 has been used since it landed, as can easily be verified by many sources. Also invalidating your video was not my goal, rather I find that ANYONE using sloppy scholarship and/or outright lies 2 prove ANY point promotes only ingorance.
"sloppy" implies more scorched earth bias on your part, willful ignorance towards any number of equally valid scenarios why that fact was presented as it was.
My "scholarship" was the complete published works of Dr. Carl Sagan. If he cant be trusted, who then is an Astronomy Instructor supposed to trust?
I also havent seen it demonstrated that the russian reflectors have been in continuous use, rather than just being used recently.
@SpreadingtheMuse Not sure what you mean by me having a "scorched earth bias", but that aside, If your main source of scholarship is from reading Sagan, then that is probably Y U lack knowledge of certain things, such as the history of the Russ. Reflector's Use in astronomy. Mr. Sagan IS a great source...if you are lamen, with a lamen's interest in Science, for this is who his books are aimed at. U need to go a bit deeper if U want 2 know the deeper details of the subjects. [CONTINUED]
"scorched earth" is a reference to your unreasonable desire play the "Liar" card first and foremost, only pretending to consider other alternatives after you were chastised for a rush to judgment.
If you think Sagan's stuff is all aimed at the layman, you've never read "Dragon's of Eden, which I based my Masters Thesis on."
But there's nothing complicated about lunokhod. If he says "they were incorrectly used" theres nothing hard about that.
@SpreadingtheMuse [CONTINUATION] ......details of the subjects. Another thing to consider, is that Carl Sagan is not beyond reproach...on the contrary, he has demonstradedly been wrong many times. For example, at the outset of the Gulf War, Sagan warned that if Saddam set fire to Kuwait's oil wells, that a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur. Hussein followed through with his threat, but the fires had little effect beyond the Gulf region and virtually no ill effects globally.
Everyone's wrong about something at times, but concerning details of the space program in the 60's and 70's, had I done any double checking into other sources (which in fact I did), any other article discussing lunokhod would likely have also have been written by Sagan, or used him as a reference.
And he wasnt wrong about the oils wells. A "variation" DID occur with a minuscule drop in world temperature. He never said the drop would be 50-100 degrees.
If you had facts to say we DIDNT go, then you would have posted them instead of acting like a immature 8th grader.
We went, and anyone who doesnt understand witnesses or moonrocks or reflectors is a retard who'll beleive any retarded thing he reads on a dufus webpage.
Sorry but the SpreadingtheMuse is so full of himself. I don't care if he makes good money and got a degree because the end of the day it's your personality what makes people like you and I seriously don't like you sir have a good day.
Truth vs Fiction isnt about "like" or dislike. As a teacher I learned that if you are "liked" then chances are you're doing something wrong.
I'm here to correct rampant error and stupidity of hoax pushers who bluff and get caught. I dont expect them to "like" me for exposing how stupid they are.
@SpreadingtheMuse Is that because you have nothing else better to do with you're life? Never mind I don't really care as I am not that much into fiction I search all types of categories and give my opinion.
It might interest you to know, that any idiot with a calculator can deduce the total travel time for a laser to see that bouncing off of a "satellite" took only a fraction of a sec whereas going to the moon and back would take as much as 20 times as long.
Hahaha, and all NASA has to do is dlay the return reflection by 20 times as long then SpreadingtheMuse, hahahahaa! Go tot he Moon with NASA, get Nucked before you arrive, PLEASE, hahahahah
Goody! PLEASE tell us the physics behind "delaying" a reflection. Tell us how the mirror magically holds it, tell us how it magically releases it exactly 20 times later. ;)
Or could it be, you got caught making an idiot out of yourself, so now its the ole "I'm going to invent ANOTHER retarded conspiracy to hide my incompetence in explaining the first retarded conspiracy!"
Have you actually measured the real distence between the Earth and the Moon, or do you just rely on what Nazi's at NASA tell you SpreadingtheMuse, cause I'ed say everything that come's out of NASA is Nazi propaganda, and unless you've been tot he moon and back yourself, you have you proof whatsover that NASA's movies, movie still's, or reflectors prove anything!
Hello Einstein, the Earth/Moon distance has been known for a couple hundred years. We'd like to thank you for being a total tard in your jr high science classes.
But this is getting dumber and dumber: The Earth/Moon distance is a conspiracy!
MY GOD! Why stop there? Even the MOON ITSELF IS A CONSPIRACY!
heheheh You cannot honestly be this stupid. Just admit you were wrong and stop making up your story as you go.
The reflectors prove it to people smart enough to know what they mean. REAL physicists, REAL astronomers all over the world, in foreign countries who hate us, use the reflectors with their own equipment and own lasers.
THEY say its real.
They ought to know, they actually have experience in astronomy, instead of retards like you who cut and paste "propoganda" inbetween shifts at McDs and pretend that makes you an expert.
Thanks for removing that comment ( I can still read it over mail). I would have raked you over the coals. ;)
If you dont know anything about satellites, astronomy, or how smart astronomers know all the smart things that they know, the adult thing to do is to keep your mouth shut.
Actually SpreadingtheMuse, after I posted it it disn't sound esay enough for you to understand, and when I tried to repost it in easier reading for you YT wouldn't post it, so I'll repeoat the post for you now:
SpreadingtheMuse, how many dead Jews diamond pineal gands dose it take to make a NASA satalite? Or don't you have a pineal gland of our own to know how to think about the answer!
It's pretty easy to send a signal to a satalite and make out that it's a laserand delay the retrun signal, ccause all your looking at is data on a computer screen, you don't see no laser whatsoever SpreadingtheMuse, so your extremely easy to lie to arn't you!
And don't tell me to keep mu mouth shut you little wanka SpreadingtheMuse, I have my right to my opinion and there's fuck all you can do about it, ya wanka!
Your "opinion" has done nothing so far but exposed you as an ignorant 8th grader.
So in MY "opinion," it would be best for you not to mouth off and whine about anything else you're a retard in. You obviously dont know shit about astronomy.
"dead first?" The technical analysis of a youtard illiterate? Well that sure convinces me! ;)
Why dont we let you make an idiot out of yourself, again. Please explain exactly why people would be "dead." And we expect you to use all the technical brilliance that made you say that satellites can "delay reflections." Your science brilliance is no doubt stupendous. ;)
2 Kings 18:18, 'Sennachrib' means "Dust", 'Hezekiah' means "Returns", you know fuck all about Neutrinos and the Van Allen, cause only Dust Returns to Earth!
"Van Allen" is a word hoax newbs cut and paste, pretending it makes them sound clever. But lets exposed how moronic your knowledge is:
- What kinds of radiation are in the belts?
- How do you block those kinds?
- How much radiation is fatal?
EVERY SINGLE hoaxtard who has tried a retarded bluff about radiation has been asked those questions has bombed. Failed. Crashed and burned. And you'll be no different.
So I guess you fumbled and bombed on my challenge to explain "dead first?"
You mean all I have to do to expose your bluffing and faking is to ask even the simplest follow-up question? LOL. I had no idea your credentials were quite so extensive. ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse, better get an eye examination to see if your colour blind, cause so is every Nazi NASA scientist, and with that ammount of psychology missing from your visual spectrum, no wonder your heading for Parkinsons brain degrade when you believe any Nazi NASA shit!
So like a tard, you got caught bluffing on radiation.
I told you so. ;)
HINT: Big words dont make you sound smarter, they make you sound like a little boy trying to use big words. ;)
ANY attempt to fake or pretend you're something you're not will be caught. Why is faking the only tactic you have? What are you going to pretend to be tomorrow? A rocket engineer? We're all just dying to read what moronic bluff you try next. ;)
Arrh diddums SpreadingtheMuse, didn't anyone ever tell you a feather on the moon at daylight temperate of 250C would be burnt to a crisp in seconds and render a hammer and feather test impossible to perform, or did you just do as much guess work as NASA not to know that!
Uh oh! You've found more hoax talking points to cut and paste! ;)
Having sounded retarded about satellites, Earth/Moon distance, and radiation, NOW its temp, which we both know is a direct regurgitation from a hoax site.
So:
BUT you mean its 250 C everywhere? Even on the dark side where sunlight never hits? Could you explain how that works? ;)
OR MAYBE its only 250 at high noon, NOT on the day/night border, where guess what, thats where Apollo landed.
We appreciate your cut and paste abilities, but you're obviously a newb in any science above the 3rd grade. Since you've already been caught sounding like an idiot in satellites, radiation, and now temp, there's zero reason to trust you in anything. You're a helpless idiot.
Stop acting like a clueless hoax retard and you'll stop being treated like one.
A feather cant be "burnt" without oxygen either. So way to go genius. ;)
If the feather scene was filmed closer the day/night border (it was), then the temp wasnt 250 anyway. You still havent explained how the dark side can be 250 when the sun never hits there.
Then again, you've never explained much of anything. Just a dumb cut and paste machine.
1, the apollo mission was filmed in sunlight, not the dark side of the moon, as the sun can be seen on the astonauts visers!
2, get a heat gun fro melting paint off wood, and see if a feather dosn't shrvel up on you at 200 degrees C, with or without oxygen the heat still does the same damage!
3, this is not cut and paste, and if you find this anywhere else other than here, you've copied and pasted it from here, dumbass!
1) Apollo was on the day/night terminator. I never said it was filmed on the dark side. If you cant read my own simple facts, we're certainly not going to trust you know anything about NASA.
2) It is NOT 200 C everywhere on the moon. Only on the high noon daylight side. On the day/night terminator its LESS. Make me explain that for the FOURTH time, and that'll make you look real smart. ;)
OF COURSE this is a cut and paste! You're dumb enough to think all these retarded points arent random?
You expect us to believe you PERSONALLY measured the moon temp?
You PERSONALLY took radiation readings?
You PERSONALLY saw "delayed reflection" satellites?
I laugh in your face. ;)
Every time you get exposed as an idiot on a point you switch right to the next one right off the dork webpage you're spoonfed your facts from. Its pathetically obvious.
Hahaha, it don't matter what you say what time of fucking day or night they landed on th emoon SpreadingtheMuse, the fact remains that an eagles feather would shrivel up in heat over 150C, so your completely fucked NASA never sent any man to the moon you fucking Freemason liar, so put that kid down and put your dick away paedo!
@KaOssis "doesnt matter" LOL! So says the science newb. ;) Your OTHER hoax retard friends SWEAR that the dark side of the moon is -200 C. So are you calling all of them idiots? We're glad you're on our side. ;) FIFTH TIME: Light side: 200 C Dark side -200 C In the middle: 0 C UNLESS you're going to be dumb enough to say the temp goes from 200 to -200 over the distance of one inch? Oh wait, you WERE just stupid enough to say that. ;) Dont use big words you dont understand little boy.
1) Feathers cant burn without air. So thanks for failing the 3rd grade. ;)
2) All Apollos landed on the day/night border 0 C. I told you that you could prove that by looking up the coordinates yourself. But you were too stupid to do it, werent you?
@SpreadingtheMuse, your talking about flames deario, cause whether of not there was oxygen, that feather would have been burned up to a crispy lump of carbon, so why don't you get yourself an electric overn, heat it up to 200C, then stick a feather in it, then stick the oven in a sealed unit with no oxygen for 10 minutes, then you'll have no feather left to take out of the oven!
Oh, by the way, your learning German-English psyicss, half the truth which does not include the Indigo spectrum!
So you have utterly failed to prove that Apollo landed exactly at high noon.
Predictable. ;)
You failed to prove that the day/night border is 200 C
Predictable. ;)
Why are you obsessed with cut and pasting what you dont know? With pretending to use big words you've never seen in your life? Are you an engineer or scientist with even a days experience?
Or just another walmart clerk? Begging for attention? ;)
hahaha, it's you that's the cut & paste expert here SpreadingtheMuse, your even using the none personal box at the top of this page to throw your replys into instead of posting them in my reply box, cause you hate having me reply to your infetile Nazi shite directly don't you, haahahah!
NASA has not landed anyman on the moon, all they've done is landed their Nazi shit into your pathetic little brain cell, another episode in the War of the Worlds movie!
Thank god you know all these big scary words you hear on TV. I was worried you were just another juvenile newb. ;)
I'm calling your bluff (again). ;)
I want you to explain EXACTLY what "nazi" has to do with anything. Cause from over here, all it looks like is a dorky word you're copying pretending it makes you sound smarter than you are.
I've put MOST of my replies into your reply box. Who the hell cares? Jeez what a spaz. ;)
I can and will insult you directly whenever you have the time. And since you always charge in here mere MINUTES after I respond (like a newb with no life), its obvious you have all the time in the world. ;)
DIRECTLY:
You're an ignorant spaz.;)
You've said moronic things about satellites, radiation, etc and I'll directly claim you're a retard in everything scientific.
But THANK GOD we have retarded newbs like to say they didnt. Newbs without a days science experience, newbs who work at walmart, newbs who cut and paste dork webpages pretending to sound smart.
And, Newbs who've been exposed as retards in EVERY SINGLE dumb point you've made. ;)
THANK GOD you're here, I almost listened to a professional engineer who actually works for a living.
SpreadingtheMuse, hahaha, when are you going to stop using pathetic immature reverse psychology over your obsessions with cut & Paste, cause your the one that's getting off on movies and fake studio photos of moon missions that never happend, and think a laser has been tot he moon and back when all you see is a computer program on a pc screen, which is no evidence that NASA put a man anywhere but in a movie studio, hahahaha. Are you still into kiddie cartoons as well, hahahaha!
SpreadingtheMuse, your fucking colour blind, and that prove's your still a fantesy land with Buzz Lightyear! Fucking grow up half brain, your embarressing yourself believing in movies and computer programs that don't prove fuck all!
Congratulations for charging in here like a little boy begging for attention within mere minutes of my post. Again. ;) I'm so glad its easy to get you to jump thru my hoops.
And thank you for admitting your utter incompetence in anything scientific:
- Satellites? Idiot
- Radiation? Idiot
- Moon distance? Idiot
- Moon Temp? Idiot
Just a continuous stream of whines.
Thank god you're here. SOMEONE needs to mop the floors at walmart. ;)
Your still colour blind and have less than 20% of oly half of your brain active SpreadingtheMuse, so go and find a good sunny day and blow yourself up with a nuke, cause your a waste of human tissue!
OH MY GOD! THE FREEMASONS! They're coming for you! They're going to burn your house and steal your dog! RUN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
;)
Please dont tell me you're that big of a paranoid yutz. We're going to believe any respectful hard-working Freemason before we EVER believe the rambles of an ignorant youtard who whines with fear-mongering. Like you. ;)
But good news. Your whines are over. See next post.
@SpreadingtheMuse I just knew that you would still be haunting the same channels trying to shut everyone down with your state college degree. Doesn't mean jack shit. you weren't there, you are only forcing your feeble minded opinion on people who don't know that you are a poser. So what is it now, lab tech, radiation tech, college special needs teacher, balloon seller at walt disney. You've proven me right, you're a shill, you spend all of your time on these channels, and you are a fraud!
And I knew you'd come barging in begging for an argument, still sputtering the same predictable jealous whines about my superior education and experience. I just LOVE how you go out of your way to bring them up. It proves what I always told you it did:
YOU are a janitor. ;)
And you're obsessed with begging for attention from educated men as you're horrified to admit you're a janitor.
You whine about my accomplishments and achievements and still-
Now vertigo, in your pathetic quest to scour every last page of the net to find me wherever I am, to prove your retarded contention that every single page that proves I'm every bit as experienced and educated as I say is fake (snicker), you made one newb mistake.
You never read this movies description.
Hi, I'm SpreadingtheMuse. ;)
This is MY movie. I made it. Therefore "trolling" is a dumb thing to say, now isnt it?
@SpreadingtheMuse I see the glorified high school teacher turned college ged teacher is still haunting every moon hoax channel after all this time. tell me did you get a .25 cent raise yet for doing your fulltime part . what credentials do you have to prove everyone else wrong other than being a boy man that still likes to dress up in star wars costumes and rate kid movies. I think I'll send a link to everyone interested to your precious lil star wars costume that you sport, DOUCHEBAG! LOL!
Your cry-baby whines prove you're still mad as hell that I make you look stupid. ;)
Yes we love hoax dorks who work at walmart and beg for attention online to make themselves feel important. We love how they cut and paste big words they dont understand and then get humiliated by real professionals.
You? You're the most pathetic. ;)
I'm the one with 3 degrees and who works at a Nuclear lab. All you can do is pretend. ;)
all you've got in your education, is half the truth, half the story, and half the intelligence, the rest Nazi's made up out of infertile bullshite SpreadingtheMuse!
@KaOssis I guess no one has told you that anyone with the necessary equipment can use the Apollo reflectors and get their own data -- you don't have to work for NASA or even be affiliated with it.
And guess what? Scientists around the world do exactly that. And they get the same data that NASA gets.
In closing, you guys should understand that the earth's rotation is completed in a 24 hour period (circumference being 24,880.685 average miles). This means that any particular spot on the surface of the earth paired to a single spot on the moon is flashing by at a surface speed of 1036.695 mph plus the moon's opposite direction of 35.75 mph, which is 1,072.445 mph over the earth's surface. If you still believe that a "blind" stationary observatory is proof then no amount of logic will suffice.
All movements of the Earth and Moon are irrelevant. As once again, you're using willful ignorance as an excuse to argue.
All modern observatories are built to track the motions of the sky, to move with them. The rotation and moon movement are both linear and predictable, meaning the motion needed to compensate is predictable.
This is decades old tech. Just because you're ignorant of it doesnt mean the rest of us are.
Now your total avoidance of explaining the observatory operators motivations in "pretending" to see lasers when they "really dont" is proof positive of your ignorance of this entire topic. You are grabbing at only minor facts you are neither experienced in nor competent in. You're clueless about all the available tech and relevant science.
If you cant answer a simple question about why observatories are faking it, then even you admit you're just making this up as you go.
The 24 hour period of the moon's orbit is a combination of the earth's rotation and the moon's concentric orbit around the earth in the opposite direction in which the moon will have traveled further in it's orbit around the earth's circumference. If the laser was trained to maintain movement to match the fleeting location of the reflector on the lunar surface, I would agree that it is a better argument.
Well good news, the laser IS trained to match the location. Its no different than matching a camera to the relative movement of a star across the sky to get a prolonged exposure. Astronomers have a little camera stand with an electric motor tuned to rotate the camera at the precise speed of the Earth's rotation. Thats 40's tech if even that. I've seen the device used. It would be no different to apply to a laser observatory.
There's a whole science about two moving objects trying to hit each other. Navies in over-the-horizon bombardment fights have had to deal with that since WWI. Thats the origin of the term "firing solution."
With astronomy its even easier. You yourself admitted that we know all the speeds involved, we know all the directions and vectors. And unlike an ocean, everything is going in a straight line. I.E. the positions are PREDICTABLE on any given second. Easy.
All information was referenced at 'about dot com' and of course Wikipedia. My argument is that there are two heavenly bodies moving in opposite directions like two trains converging on separate tracks but this laser technology claims that at any time a stationary observatory can pinpoint a shoe-box sized object at a distance of 240,000 miles away and hit this object that no one can see, photograph, or even observe from the very observatory claiming to locate the reflectors. Just not good enough.
The moon, in its concentric orbit around the earth, takes 29 days to complete. Our earth’s circumference is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers) at the equators and 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km) from pole to pole which averages to 24,880.685 miles.
If the reflectors DONT reflect, then what exactly are you suggesting?
That every single person whose ever bounced a laser of them is crazy? Imagining it?
Or worse, bought off? Are they ALL bought off? Every astronomer in the 70's when the reflectors were put there? Given a wad of money with "For the next 40 years, everytime someone asks you to bounce a laser, only pretend to do it."
@SpreadingtheMuse Having no evidence of the knowledge, beliefs or intentions of operators of observatories anywhere, I can attest to the information that stems from the 50's where lasers were bounced off of the moon's highly reflective surface. The lunar surface is intensely reflective enough to brighten the night sky here on earth as it reflects the sun's light. The moon (with the naked eye or even binoculars) is intensely bright. Much brighter than what is shown on videos of the moon landings.
It is true that lasers bounced off the surface in the 50's.
It is also irrelevant.
As I stated before, and will repeat as you ignored it, there's such a thing as a "Light reflection pattern." There's a whole science based on it used by astronomers called "Spectrography." A laser reflected off of gravel WILL NOT BE IDENTICAL to laser reflected off of a mirror in any way.
I DO have knowledge and belief and intentions of that science.
Its very important that we discuss the reality of Spectography. Light reflection patterns are a science that goes back to Newton. These days its used in everything from Astronomy to Chemical processing. Just because you're personally ignorant of it doesnt mean the rest of us are. I've even taught it personally, and bring it up in one of my movies.
You cant use willful ignorance of a topic as a debate tactic.
This would mean that the resulting laser return reflection will be travelling across the earth's surface at a rate of 35 mph and would not be stationary for more than a fraction of a second within an area the size of a shoebox as it moves along the earth's surface. This is all hypothetical because why would the reflection return exactly towards the observatory? That would require the proper angle to reflect the beam back exactly to the observatory. Someone is trying to bullshit the public here.
If there's any trouble with a "proper" angle, then I would expect someone who actually operates a laser observatory to bring it up, not someone whose never even set foot in one in his life. Can you name any professional astronomers who've said "I've tried it and it doenst work?" Lasers are shot from all over the world. Surely there's someone somewhere who thinks so.
Unless, since these are "RETROFLECTORS," they dont work with angles. Look them up.
@SpreadingtheMuse 24901.55 + 24859.82 = 49761.37 / 2 = 24880.685 miles average circumference.
(/ = Division).
This means that these reflectors are moving across the earth’s surface at a rate of 857.95 miles in a 24 hour period (one day).
24880.685 / 29 = 857.95
This means that the moon travels across the surface of the earth at a constant speed of 35.75 miles per hour (averaging both circumference measurements).
857.95 / 24 = 35.75 mph. but the earth is spinning in the opposite direction!
In true concept, an observatory can indeed (with the appropriate technology to what I have no knowledge of what that could be) locate a shoebox sized reflector (but can not locate the lunar modules or other objects alledgedly left behind) and shoot a laser beam on the surface. Since the moon is traveling across the earth's surface at a rate of 35 mph, the resulting reflection, if the beam is kept on the location, will return traveling across the earth at a rate of 35 mph. does anyone agree?
We could just solve this whole moon landing business by simply finding all of the scientific telemetry tapes so that engineers around the world can compare the information and determine if (Van Allen Radiation belts argument aside) anyone actually landed on the moon. = )
There's nothing to "solve." The international scientific community already has access to everything it asked for, and already pronounced the landings real. There's no debate, no argument amongst anyone who counts. The "hoax" is entirely limited to the uneducated and inexperienced who flout about big words they have no idea how to use, totally ignorant of the science already available.
Lasers bounced of of sand and gravel would have totally different reflection patterns than a laser bounced off a professionally polished mirror. There's a whole branch of optical science based on that principal called "Spectrography."
And guess what, not ONE hoax pusher who barges in with the dumb "50's!" has EVER heard of it. Its what happens when they cut and paste "laser" pretending it makes them sound smart. ;)
NOTE: Correction, where I used the term diameter is a mistake. That is incorrect. Circumference is the only term that applies to the outside area of the earth. I use diameter because I usually refer to the diametric distance of the earth's interior. Force of habit folks XD
35 miles per hour is not very fast, under astronomic considerations, but it seems to be faster than any of these telescope lenses are moving in order to keep track of an object that is 240,000 miles away about the size of a shoe box and moving, at least on earth's diameter circumference, at a constant rate of 35 miles per hour. Note that also the moon, having to cover a greater diameter around the earth at a distance of 240,000 miles away, is moving incredibly much faster than 35 mph.
If you're worried about the speed of lunar targets, wouldnt the proper response be to ask an actual astronomer who runs an actual observatory? Ask him how hard it is? Ask him how it all works? Ask him if its all fake?
Have you even EVER been in an observatory? Or is it easier to make flying guesses about a topic you have zero experience in?
To hell with being a physicist, any construction workers or masons here? You should know what plaster of paris looks like when you see it. One thing I want to know, the moon takes 29 days to orbit the earth. That means that these reflectors are moving across the earth whose circumference is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers) at the equators and 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km) from pole to pole (About,com/ Geography) which averages to 24880.685 miles, at a rate of 857.95 miles in a 24 hour period
Those "reflectors" are moving across the sky SLOWER than the turn of the Earth, which takes only a day to circumnavigate the entire sky. And yet, astronomers seemingly have no trouble locking onto tiny stars to take extended long-exposure photographers. See, there are specifically made astronomical cameras and devices just for that purpose. I've actually used them.
Since you had no idea they existed, you pretty much just made an idiot out of yourself. ;)
Im on the side that believes we been to the moon......my father worked on the Apollo program......my uncle was a chief engineer for general dynamics.....plus the Russians 20 min after touchdown confirmed to their people that Apollo 11 landed...if anyone was gonna say we faked it russia would have
jakebrake4343 1 month ago
What is this about proper placement of such reflectors? You just need to point them in the general direction of earth. Nothing more.
PoliceViolence 1 month ago
@PoliceViolence Then ask why not all of the Russian reflectors are used. Some of them were "incorrectly placed." Since we're talking about 1969 robot tech (laughable), maybe pointing them at the Earth was exactly what was screwed up.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
NASA went to the moon.
Labzo441 1 month ago
Then we could fire lasers at them and see if they reflect
jakebrake4343 1 month ago
Id love nasa to go back to the moon...take a few conspirators along prove we were there and just leave them there
jakebrake4343 1 month ago
@jakebrake4343 I too would love to see nasa go back to the moon or do something else great. But they are not doing it. So which side is this an argument for?
PoliceViolence 1 month ago
The real question is:"If this is a hoax, why would the Soviets play along in the middle of the cold war?" They had several orbiters, two Lunohods, and could easily spot a hoax, yet, Vasily Mishin confirmed the landings. To think that the Soviets were total idiots is a bit too much for any reasonable person.
dinoalberini 2 months ago 2
Why are people still questioning this topic? It is so funny how people in today's dumbed down,follower society will believe almost anything just because it is the new hottest conspiracy theory, listen folks going to the moon was not that big of a deal,they did it, took some pictures and came back wow, when someone goes to another planet or builds a faster form of space travel, that's when I will be all ears, that's what I call real news.
777haterslayerzmafia 10 months ago
if carl sagan says it right and god damn we landed in the moon.
Forman6 10 months ago
I may be out off date but i thought japan had started luna maping capable off seeing objects as small as one meter. I,m sure the satalite was launched in 2008.
You dont know if its tracked any off the landing areas, do you?
bigwilf1966 11 months ago
@bigwilf1966
They did, and released great pics of what they saw to the international media. There's good footage uploaded to youtube right now. Try this one: watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
SpeakerForBoskone 11 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone
Thx the link was very interesting, and irrefuitable but this being you tube im sure somone will argue.
bigwilf1966 11 months ago
Like i said, one the worst deference vids ever. reflectors are really NASAs biggest mistake...incredibly weak proof. Proves we put something on the moon, but not any proof that is a man. Russians put reflectors on the moon, they work to... not as good, but they work. ours work better (better design) ...in no way does your video prove we were on the moon.
why you always so touchy when i start talking about
little robotic lander and that big beautiful moon ...oh, and lazer beams
Delicious.
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
Astronomers seem to think the reflectors are very good proof. So we can believe them, or hoax GED newbs. You be the judge. ;)
Russian landers have evidence for them. Documentation, witnesses, etc. How come you dont have equal evidence for the alleged USA landers? You just cant pull them out of your ass. Even though thats about your only tactic ;)
SpeakerForBoskone 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
would appreciate it if you didn't have to behave like a perverted stalker. cant you find yourself a nice NASA NERD to beg attention from.
YES ...PROUD NEWB!!!
...please go back to your hole... troll
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
"troll" oh my dear little ignorant, I'm afraid your 8th grade reading level has exposed you as a retard yet again ;)
ALREADY been caught bluffing about russian scientists you cant name, radiation you're clueless about, and landers you pull out of your ass, BUT STILL you troll from movie to movie, hoping to find a hole deep enough to avoid any and all inconvenient questions.
Which is when you skulked in here.
You never read the description, did you? LOL
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
Dumbass I'm afraid I'm not going anywhere. See I not only do I have every right to be here, I'm the ONLY ONE who does.
It never penetrated your shit for brains head why I poked in here? Not even once? Next time read the movies description. ;)
This is MINE.
I wrote it. I filmed it. I uploaded it.
Thats me. ;)
And I've been enjoying giving you enough rope to hang yourself with. You flunk every single question ever asked, and know shit.
Playtimes over. You're blocked ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
the robotic units (rovers) were landed on the moon in coordination with the Apollo dates. Pretty simple. The LM could easily be guided unmanned to the moon with rover and land while astros wait in low orbit in return module.
Wouldn't ya like to the be a NEWBY TO!!!!
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
Robotic landers that you pulled out of your ass? With no documentation? No witnesses? You mean you can just make up your story as you go? WOW, no wonder being a hoax spaz is so easy ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
...the dude in the video talks about robotic landers... "THOSE LANDERS" ...got it. Good
PROUD TO BE A NEWB =)
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
We know the russians have landers because of the blueprints and engineers and documentation. Where are the blueprints and engineers and documentation for the american landers? Equal theories require equal evidence.
SOME of us dont have to make up our story as we go. Fail ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
Delighted to see that you abandoned the other thread, the one where I asked you for even ONE factual error and you ran screaming like a little girl. ;)
Its so much easier to gullibly believe retarded hoax theories when you're not asked inconvenient questions to pop your delusional bubble, now isnt it? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
"PROUD" You obviously have no talent in anything else ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
so!!! we built better remote 'robot landers' with better a system of mounts an mirrors than the russians, still doesn't prove manned missions went to the moon. 'GOATS' always love claiming the mirrors as the ultimate proof, more ultimate spoof. not worth much when discussing "living" earthlings been to luna.
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
So why ARENT THEY proof? We built WHAT landers?
Landers built with blueprints you dont have?
Written by engineers you cant name?
Launched on a date you dont know in a rocket no one saw?
THOSE landers? ;)
THANK GOD you have this all figured out. I was worried you were going to get caught making up your story as you went like a newb. LOL
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
I AM PROUD TO BE A NEWB!!!!
godnmyhands 11 months ago
SPEADAMESS ...what the #%&* are you saying? what???
no point or merit to your discussion
godnmyhands 11 months ago
@godnmyhands
I'm saying you are far too bigoted to present an honest opinion. You just want to whine. And since you couldnt name even ONE factual error, its obvious you've nothing to say above the 4th grade level ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
so far ...very weak. can any one provide a lead to some material that has solid footing.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@godnmyhands
"weak" Ten out of ten prejudicially biased hoaxtards agree!
Did you think we actually expected you to admit it? OF COURSE you're going to say "IS NOT!" You cant admit failure of any kind.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
Good but they used probes.. 1st.. they landed before hand.. every one knows that.. LOL.. markers..
masterod1 1 year ago
@masterod1
Were the probes heavy enough to carry reflectors? Did they have robotic arms advanced enough to pick the reflectors up and place them in the ground? Our Mars landers cant even do that today.
SpeakerForBoskone 1 year ago 4
@SpeakerForBoskone Russions too put reflectors on the Moon and they never had send mans on there
DaMatta11 7 months ago
@DaMatta11
They also have a complete chain of evidence proving how the reflectors got there: the engineers who built the probes, the rockets that launched them, witnesses and documents. Thats exactly what we have to prove that our MEN put our reflectors there. You cant believe one and not believe the other. If the USA put our reflectors there with robot probes, we'd have to have identical evidence to what the russians provided for there probes. No such evidence exists.
SpeakerForBoskone 6 months ago
@masterod1, It's pretty easy to just say that NASA used probes to place the retroreflectors, but where's the evidence? What launched them? Such a launch would be detected. What did the probe look like? Do you have designs or drawings? Who manufactured it? Why were the RRs suddenly detected on the day & at the place NASA said the Apollo landings took place?
You have a theory, but that's all. And everyone does NOT "know that."
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner
That and don't forget that at the time, making and using an unmanned probe would be MUCH more costly than sending a manned one (hence the start of the space race). Yes, there could've been manned probes, but they were too costly and impractical.
The US were up in their necks with really costly problems during the Cold War. Wasting even more money to "fake" a moon landing while they already had a space program underway would not only be stupid, but dangerous as well.
POLE7645 1 year ago
@masterod1 really?
i hear another moon hoaxers that says there are no reflectors. don't you guys agree with each other?
Forman6 10 months ago
@Forman6
They dont agree with each other on anything. They cant agree if the "set" was outside or inside. They cant agree if the "outside set" was in Nevada or Hawaii or Idaho or etc etc etc. Its all stupid. If after 40 years they cant even agree on a consistent story amongst THEMSELVES, theres zero reason anyone else should agree with them either.
SpeakerForBoskone 10 months ago
@SpeakerForBoskone
Yep.
and for 40 years, no conspirator has actually gone to any observatory to see the retro reflectors in action. none. zip. and why is that?
i have heard the cold war was fake and the russians helped us. i have heard the jews cover it all up. its just all so bloody preposterous.
but i give up on them. I will do what NASA does. Ignore the silly conspirators and move on with their lives.
Forman6 10 months ago
Thanks for the video my Man!
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
I REALLY hate it when people LIE, no matter what side they are on, or WHAT they R arguing about! When they do it just makes their side look DESPERATE. & this guy is a LIAR. The whole thing about the reflectors never being used...LIE
"....the other Soviet reflector, on the Lunokhod 2 rover, to which we ROUTINELY send laser pulses..." T. Murphy,ass.professor of phys. at UCSD, ScienceDaily (apr.27 2010) One of the Russian ones was lost until just recently, & now found..it works shockingly well
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
T. Murphy needs to have a Halloween chat with the deceased soul of Dr. Carl Sagan, who said the Lunokhod reflectors were misplaced and unused in one of his own published works. That was my source when I made this video. The term "lie" is an ignorant cliche used with lazy bigotry, and only exposes your own desperation to start an argument any way you can.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Well since Mr. Tom Murphy actually USES the lunokhod reflectors on a regular basis (as stated in article, which is online) in the course of
"head[ing] a team of scientists engaged in a long-term effort to look for deviations of Einstein's theory of general relativity by measuring the shape of the lunar orbit..." at UCSD where he is an A.P. of Phys., I think T.M. has nothing to fear from Sagan's Ghost! LOL However I concede, your Ignorance may B 2 blame rather than U Int Lying
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
Ill let Mr Murphy discuss it with Dr. Sagan himself. Its the right time of year for that kind of thing.
My "ignorance" consisted of several astronomy texts and teaching the subject at the professional level. You have never claimed this was a widespread use of lunokod and Its not in the professional record in any competent manner. If its so minor that modern astronomy texts dont bother mentioning it, I'm hardly worried. ;)
Diving right to "liar" was juvenile of you.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
Since my information was directly from Dr. Carl Sagans published works, does he earn immature invectives of "liar" as well? And given the choice of believing or not believing the published works of Dr. Sagan, you'd really recommend calling him a liar first before engaging in adult discussion?
You more or less shot your credibility to hell by your first juvenile remark. Act like a screaming troll and you'll be treated like one.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
And I suspect what happened here was the lunohkod reflectors having the advantage of advanced targeting technology that was only recently available. Meaning they were in fact mostly useless until their misplacement could be counteracted by new advancements that they never were have supposed to have needed.
The larger question is:
SO WHAT?
The russian reflectors were only a minor point of this video. Is any of the rest invalid?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Comment removed
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse I am having quite a hard time beliving anything you are saying, since even a quick investigation proves that the Lunakhood 2 reflectors have indeed been used every since they landed. The fact are Luankhod 1 was lost, and only recently found (as stated in the first article I mention) But Lunakhood 's cubes is, and has been used. Its not misplaced, but its large size causes thermal distortions making it 30 [CONTINUED]
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse [CONTINUATION].times weaker in lunar daylight, BUT the larger size makes for a tighter diffraction pattern during lunar night, so during this time period the effective cross pattern is actually larger than Apollo11/14's arrays! Let me tell you what I SUSPECT. Dr. Sagan talking about Lunokhod 1 being misplaced & lost, & U misunderstood. Trying to suggest there's no pro.record of Lunokhod's being used is frankly, bizarre considering how easily such records CAN be found. I must
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
If the lunokhod usage wasnt in the texts and papers I had access to then it wasnt there. Thats its own fault for not being publicized in a professional manner. I'm hardly going to scour around digging for information that I have no reason to suspect exists.
Besides, when did this happen? When did they use Lunokhod? It might postdate the production date of this video, and certainly postdate the professional publications of Dr Sagan that I used as my source material.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
Your first post got eaten. Your thesis statement is unknown.
I'm more interested in my last question:
Does Lunokhod invalidate the point of the video?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse No, my appologies, it didnt get eaten I erased it. It was the same as the 2nd' posting, except that it seemingly just ended mid sentence with no [CONTINUED]. To avoid confusion, I deleted it & added it. As for the subject at hand...Yes Lunokhod 2 has been used since it landed, as can easily be verified by many sources. Also invalidating your video was not my goal, rather I find that ANYONE using sloppy scholarship and/or outright lies 2 prove ANY point promotes only ingorance.
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
"sloppy" implies more scorched earth bias on your part, willful ignorance towards any number of equally valid scenarios why that fact was presented as it was.
My "scholarship" was the complete published works of Dr. Carl Sagan. If he cant be trusted, who then is an Astronomy Instructor supposed to trust?
I also havent seen it demonstrated that the russian reflectors have been in continuous use, rather than just being used recently.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Not sure what you mean by me having a "scorched earth bias", but that aside, If your main source of scholarship is from reading Sagan, then that is probably Y U lack knowledge of certain things, such as the history of the Russ. Reflector's Use in astronomy. Mr. Sagan IS a great source...if you are lamen, with a lamen's interest in Science, for this is who his books are aimed at. U need to go a bit deeper if U want 2 know the deeper details of the subjects. [CONTINUED]
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
"scorched earth" is a reference to your unreasonable desire play the "Liar" card first and foremost, only pretending to consider other alternatives after you were chastised for a rush to judgment.
If you think Sagan's stuff is all aimed at the layman, you've never read "Dragon's of Eden, which I based my Masters Thesis on."
But there's nothing complicated about lunokhod. If he says "they were incorrectly used" theres nothing hard about that.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
And I still havent heard the timeframe of lunokhod. Have they been in use continously, or only recently?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse [CONTINUATION] ......details of the subjects. Another thing to consider, is that Carl Sagan is not beyond reproach...on the contrary, he has demonstradedly been wrong many times. For example, at the outset of the Gulf War, Sagan warned that if Saddam set fire to Kuwait's oil wells, that a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur. Hussein followed through with his threat, but the fires had little effect beyond the Gulf region and virtually no ill effects globally.
frankensteinmoneymac 1 year ago
@frankensteinmoneymac
Everyone's wrong about something at times, but concerning details of the space program in the 60's and 70's, had I done any double checking into other sources (which in fact I did), any other article discussing lunokhod would likely have also have been written by Sagan, or used him as a reference.
And he wasnt wrong about the oils wells. A "variation" DID occur with a minuscule drop in world temperature. He never said the drop would be 50-100 degrees.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Funniest thing about the hoax believers is that for years they complained that no probe has spotted the equipment left behind on the moon.
And now the the LRO probe has done just that, they still came fakery!
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
How do I explain my friend, that the reflectors were put there by Apollo astronauts, not probes?
ParaglidingManiac 1 year ago
@ParaglidingManiac
Equal Theories require equal evidence.
I made a full post on this on that other thread. Come back if you cant find it and Ill repeat it.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
haha all you were brainwashed into think we actually landed on the moon.
ipulltigga 1 year ago
@ipulltigga
Facts and evidence can do that.
If you had facts to say we DIDNT go, then you would have posted them instead of acting like a immature 8th grader.
We went, and anyone who doesnt understand witnesses or moonrocks or reflectors is a retard who'll beleive any retarded thing he reads on a dufus webpage.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@ipulltigga
Do you evidence to suggest otherwise?
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
Sorry but the SpreadingtheMuse is so full of himself. I don't care if he makes good money and got a degree because the end of the day it's your personality what makes people like you and I seriously don't like you sir have a good day.
borofalcon101 1 year ago
@borofalcon101
Truth vs Fiction isnt about "like" or dislike. As a teacher I learned that if you are "liked" then chances are you're doing something wrong.
I'm here to correct rampant error and stupidity of hoax pushers who bluff and get caught. I dont expect them to "like" me for exposing how stupid they are.
All the Apollo defenders like me just fine. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Is that because you have nothing else better to do with you're life? Never mind I don't really care as I am not that much into fiction I search all types of categories and give my opinion.
borofalcon101 1 year ago
@borofalcon101
Correcting ignorance and stupidity is a GREAT way to spend a life.
I'm a former teacher, remember? What do you suppose they do all day anyway?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
hahaha, what a load of old codswallop, any one of over 2000 satalites surrounding Earth will reflect back a laser!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
It might interest you to know, that any idiot with a calculator can deduce the total travel time for a laser to see that bouncing off of a "satellite" took only a fraction of a sec whereas going to the moon and back would take as much as 20 times as long.
Any idiot that is, except you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Hahaha, and all NASA has to do is dlay the return reflection by 20 times as long then SpreadingtheMuse, hahahahaa! Go tot he Moon with NASA, get Nucked before you arrive, PLEASE, hahahahah
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Goody! PLEASE tell us the physics behind "delaying" a reflection. Tell us how the mirror magically holds it, tell us how it magically releases it exactly 20 times later. ;)
Or could it be, you got caught making an idiot out of yourself, so now its the ole "I'm going to invent ANOTHER retarded conspiracy to hide my incompetence in explaining the first retarded conspiracy!"
Works every time. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
And please tell us at what point making a satellite that can magically "delay" reflections-
-a technology that doesnt exist BTW ;) -
is LESS complicated than just putting a reflector on the moon in the first place?
The mirror on the moon, after all, doesnt have to make-up its tech as it goes along, like you do. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Have you actually measured the real distence between the Earth and the Moon, or do you just rely on what Nazi's at NASA tell you SpreadingtheMuse, cause I'ed say everything that come's out of NASA is Nazi propaganda, and unless you've been tot he moon and back yourself, you have you proof whatsover that NASA's movies, movie still's, or reflectors prove anything!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Hello Einstein, the Earth/Moon distance has been known for a couple hundred years. We'd like to thank you for being a total tard in your jr high science classes.
But this is getting dumber and dumber: The Earth/Moon distance is a conspiracy!
MY GOD! Why stop there? Even the MOON ITSELF IS A CONSPIRACY!
heheheh You cannot honestly be this stupid. Just admit you were wrong and stop making up your story as you go.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse how many Jews polished pineal galnd diamonds does it take NASA to build a satalite?
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
The reflectors prove it to people smart enough to know what they mean. REAL physicists, REAL astronomers all over the world, in foreign countries who hate us, use the reflectors with their own equipment and own lasers.
THEY say its real.
They ought to know, they actually have experience in astronomy, instead of retards like you who cut and paste "propoganda" inbetween shifts at McDs and pretend that makes you an expert.
Leave science to the scientists, not Mcjobs. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Comment removed
KaOssis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse how many Jews polished pineal galnd diamonds does it take NASA to build a satalite?
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Thanks for removing that comment ( I can still read it over mail). I would have raked you over the coals. ;)
If you dont know anything about satellites, astronomy, or how smart astronomers know all the smart things that they know, the adult thing to do is to keep your mouth shut.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Actually SpreadingtheMuse, after I posted it it disn't sound esay enough for you to understand, and when I tried to repost it in easier reading for you YT wouldn't post it, so I'll repeoat the post for you now:
SpreadingtheMuse, how many dead Jews diamond pineal gands dose it take to make a NASA satalite? Or don't you have a pineal gland of our own to know how to think about the answer!
KaOssis 1 year ago
It's pretty easy to send a signal to a satalite and make out that it's a laserand delay the retrun signal, ccause all your looking at is data on a computer screen, you don't see no laser whatsoever SpreadingtheMuse, so your extremely easy to lie to arn't you!
KaOssis 1 year ago
And don't tell me to keep mu mouth shut you little wanka SpreadingtheMuse, I have my right to my opinion and there's fuck all you can do about it, ya wanka!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Your "opinion" has done nothing so far but exposed you as an ignorant 8th grader.
So in MY "opinion," it would be best for you not to mouth off and whine about anything else you're a retard in. You obviously dont know shit about astronomy.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse, if NASA was really to put anyone on the Moon, they'ed have to be dead first dear!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
"dead first?" The technical analysis of a youtard illiterate? Well that sure convinces me! ;)
Why dont we let you make an idiot out of yourself, again. Please explain exactly why people would be "dead." And we expect you to use all the technical brilliance that made you say that satellites can "delay reflections." Your science brilliance is no doubt stupendous. ;)
Bring it on. We're waiting.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
2 Kings 18:18, 'Sennachrib' means "Dust", 'Hezekiah' means "Returns", you know fuck all about Neutrinos and the Van Allen, cause only Dust Returns to Earth!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
"Van Allen" is a word hoax newbs cut and paste, pretending it makes them sound clever. But lets exposed how moronic your knowledge is:
- What kinds of radiation are in the belts?
- How do you block those kinds?
- How much radiation is fatal?
EVERY SINGLE hoaxtard who has tried a retarded bluff about radiation has been asked those questions has bombed. Failed. Crashed and burned. And you'll be no different.
See, I AM A radialogist.
And you're a ignorant newb. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse, Nazi NASA went down the shit pan decades ago, only yor still holding onto their shit for comfort!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
So I guess you fumbled and bombed on my challenge to explain "dead first?"
You mean all I have to do to expose your bluffing and faking is to ask even the simplest follow-up question? LOL. I had no idea your credentials were quite so extensive. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse, better get an eye examination to see if your colour blind, cause so is every Nazi NASA scientist, and with that ammount of psychology missing from your visual spectrum, no wonder your heading for Parkinsons brain degrade when you believe any Nazi NASA shit!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
So like a tard, you got caught bluffing on radiation.
I told you so. ;)
HINT: Big words dont make you sound smarter, they make you sound like a little boy trying to use big words. ;)
ANY attempt to fake or pretend you're something you're not will be caught. Why is faking the only tactic you have? What are you going to pretend to be tomorrow? A rocket engineer? We're all just dying to read what moronic bluff you try next. ;)
SOME of us dont have to bluff. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
The thing about NASA is, though-
-THEY dont have to lie about their education.
YOU, however, have been caught repeatedly (Satellites, "Dead," Radiation, etc etc)
So tell us all again why you're so gosh-darn trustworthy ;)
We're going to believe experts who actually work for a living before we believe an attention begging dufus Mcjob. Like you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Arrh diddums SpreadingtheMuse, didn't anyone ever tell you a feather on the moon at daylight temperate of 250C would be burnt to a crisp in seconds and render a hammer and feather test impossible to perform, or did you just do as much guess work as NASA not to know that!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Uh oh! You've found more hoax talking points to cut and paste! ;)
Having sounded retarded about satellites, Earth/Moon distance, and radiation, NOW its temp, which we both know is a direct regurgitation from a hoax site.
So:
BUT you mean its 250 C everywhere? Even on the dark side where sunlight never hits? Could you explain how that works? ;)
OR MAYBE its only 250 at high noon, NOT on the day/night border, where guess what, thats where Apollo landed.
Einstein strikes again. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
We appreciate your cut and paste abilities, but you're obviously a newb in any science above the 3rd grade. Since you've already been caught sounding like an idiot in satellites, radiation, and now temp, there's zero reason to trust you in anything. You're a helpless idiot.
Stop acting like a clueless hoax retard and you'll stop being treated like one.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse, go and tell that to the Eagle's feather!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
A feather cant be "burnt" without oxygen either. So way to go genius. ;)
If the feather scene was filmed closer the day/night border (it was), then the temp wasnt 250 anyway. You still havent explained how the dark side can be 250 when the sun never hits there.
Then again, you've never explained much of anything. Just a dumb cut and paste machine.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
1, the apollo mission was filmed in sunlight, not the dark side of the moon, as the sun can be seen on the astonauts visers!
2, get a heat gun fro melting paint off wood, and see if a feather dosn't shrvel up on you at 200 degrees C, with or without oxygen the heat still does the same damage!
3, this is not cut and paste, and if you find this anywhere else other than here, you've copied and pasted it from here, dumbass!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
1) Apollo was on the day/night terminator. I never said it was filmed on the dark side. If you cant read my own simple facts, we're certainly not going to trust you know anything about NASA.
2) It is NOT 200 C everywhere on the moon. Only on the high noon daylight side. On the day/night terminator its LESS. Make me explain that for the FOURTH time, and that'll make you look real smart. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
OF COURSE this is a cut and paste! You're dumb enough to think all these retarded points arent random?
You expect us to believe you PERSONALLY measured the moon temp?
You PERSONALLY took radiation readings?
You PERSONALLY saw "delayed reflection" satellites?
I laugh in your face. ;)
Every time you get exposed as an idiot on a point you switch right to the next one right off the dork webpage you're spoonfed your facts from. Its pathetically obvious.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Now dumbass, stop me when this goes over your retarded head:
High noon on moon: 200 C
MIDNIGHT on moon -200 C
Therefore SOMEWHERE on the moon it has to be INBETWEEN those two values.
With me? Or am I using too many big words? ;)
Apollo landed on the day/night border. Any idiot can look up their landing coordinates and see for themselves.
Any idiot that is, except you. ;)
PROVE that they landed at absolute high noon or drop it.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Hahaha, it don't matter what you say what time of fucking day or night they landed on th emoon SpreadingtheMuse, the fact remains that an eagles feather would shrivel up in heat over 150C, so your completely fucked NASA never sent any man to the moon you fucking Freemason liar, so put that kid down and put your dick away paedo!
KaOssis 1 year ago
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
1) Feathers cant burn without air. So thanks for failing the 3rd grade. ;)
2) All Apollos landed on the day/night border 0 C. I told you that you could prove that by looking up the coordinates yourself. But you were too stupid to do it, werent you?
Nah, you dont say. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse, your talking about flames deario, cause whether of not there was oxygen, that feather would have been burned up to a crispy lump of carbon, so why don't you get yourself an electric overn, heat it up to 200C, then stick a feather in it, then stick the oven in a sealed unit with no oxygen for 10 minutes, then you'll have no feather left to take out of the oven!
Oh, by the way, your learning German-English psyicss, half the truth which does not include the Indigo spectrum!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Errr, are you trying to be this dumb on purpose? ;)
Here's 8th grade science:
Fire is the combination of oxygen in the atmosphere with an item, the OX combines to form Carbon dioxide (smoke) and leaving debris behind (ash).
No Oxygen, no smoke, no ash. No fire.
So thank you very much for admitting in front of everyone that you belly-flopped and bombed jr high science. ;)
You're talking to a SCIENCE TEACHER dumbass. You picked the wrong board to come unprepared to. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
WHERE the hell have YOU ever had an "oven with no air?" I bet you've got one right there in your parents basement, right? Hell everyone has one! ;)
Dont make me call ANOTHER retarded bluff.
You bluffed about Earth/moon distance, looked stupid
Bluffed about radiation, looked stupid
Bluffed about "delayed reflection," looked stupid
Bluffed about 200 C, looked stupid
But oh no, NOW you've got an airless oven, just ready to go.
You are a wannabe moron. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
@KaOssis
So you have utterly failed to prove that Apollo landed exactly at high noon.
Predictable. ;)
You failed to prove that the day/night border is 200 C
Predictable. ;)
Why are you obsessed with cut and pasting what you dont know? With pretending to use big words you've never seen in your life? Are you an engineer or scientist with even a days experience?
Or just another walmart clerk? Begging for attention? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
hahaha, it's you that's the cut & paste expert here SpreadingtheMuse, your even using the none personal box at the top of this page to throw your replys into instead of posting them in my reply box, cause you hate having me reply to your infetile Nazi shite directly don't you, haahahah!
NASA has not landed anyman on the moon, all they've done is landed their Nazi shit into your pathetic little brain cell, another episode in the War of the Worlds movie!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
"Nazi"
Cut cut
Paste paste. ;)
Thank god you know all these big scary words you hear on TV. I was worried you were just another juvenile newb. ;)
I'm calling your bluff (again). ;)
I want you to explain EXACTLY what "nazi" has to do with anything. Cause from over here, all it looks like is a dorky word you're copying pretending it makes you sound smarter than you are.
Go ahead, I dare you to explain it. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
I've put MOST of my replies into your reply box. Who the hell cares? Jeez what a spaz. ;)
I can and will insult you directly whenever you have the time. And since you always charge in here mere MINUTES after I respond (like a newb with no life), its obvious you have all the time in the world. ;)
DIRECTLY:
You're an ignorant spaz.;)
You've said moronic things about satellites, radiation, etc and I'll directly claim you're a retard in everything scientific.
There. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
NASA HAS landed on the moon.
But THANK GOD we have retarded newbs like to say they didnt. Newbs without a days science experience, newbs who work at walmart, newbs who cut and paste dork webpages pretending to sound smart.
And, Newbs who've been exposed as retards in EVERY SINGLE dumb point you've made. ;)
THANK GOD you're here, I almost listened to a professional engineer who actually works for a living.
Go back to your McJob. Newbie. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Time to make you look stupider than you've already made yourself look. ;)
PLEASE give us retarded newb explainations to all this evidence:
(beware, I've already heard the cut and paste dumb answers, so if you give them I can and will rake you over the coals)
- Moonrocks Never been refuted
- Eye witnessed Never been refuted
- Other countries have taken pics of the landing sites with THEIR OWN satellites.
But of course, you were too stupid to know any of that, werent you? ;)
Newb.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
SpreadingtheMuse, hahaha, when are you going to stop using pathetic immature reverse psychology over your obsessions with cut & Paste, cause your the one that's getting off on movies and fake studio photos of moon missions that never happend, and think a laser has been tot he moon and back when all you see is a computer program on a pc screen, which is no evidence that NASA put a man anywhere but in a movie studio, hahahaha. Are you still into kiddie cartoons as well, hahahaha!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
You'll stop being treated like an ignorant when you stop acting like one.
YOU bluffed about "delayed reflections"
YOU bluffed about "VAB"
YOU bluffed about "200 C"
And you havent denied a word of it, now have you? ;)
You just move on to the next cliche, hoping we all forget your embarrassing failure with the others. ;)
NEXT FAILURE:
Laser reflectors PRE-DATE PCs dumbass. The reflectors were put there in the late 60's. You have no dumb idea what goes on in an observatory, do you?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Every dumb bluff about a science topic you're clueless about will be exposed.
Its your own fault for coming here with an 8th grade education, and thinking a cut and paste of a dork webpage made you an expert. ;)
Missions happened. Engineers say yes. Youtards janitors like you say no. Choose which one is more believable. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
SpreadingtheMuse, your fucking colour blind, and that prove's your still a fantesy land with Buzz Lightyear! Fucking grow up half brain, your embarressing yourself believing in movies and computer programs that don't prove fuck all!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Congratulations for charging in here like a little boy begging for attention within mere minutes of my post. Again. ;) I'm so glad its easy to get you to jump thru my hoops.
And thank you for admitting your utter incompetence in anything scientific:
- Satellites? Idiot
- Radiation? Idiot
- Moon distance? Idiot
- Moon Temp? Idiot
Just a continuous stream of whines.
Thank god you're here. SOMEONE needs to mop the floors at walmart. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Your still colour blind and have less than 20% of oly half of your brain active SpreadingtheMuse, so go and find a good sunny day and blow yourself up with a nuke, cause your a waste of human tissue!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Hmmm, professional engineers, experienced astronomers, and real physicists all say the landing was real.
But illiterate youtard janitors like you say its fake.
MY GOD! I bet NASA's really scared now. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
"professional egineers" - Freemasons
"experienced astromomers" - Freemasons
"real physicists" - Freemasons
All fucking reverse psychology left hemisphere super penis Id's, and just as colour blind as you are..... yea, NASA is scared of God, hahahaha!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
"Freemasons"
OH MY GOD! THE FREEMASONS! They're coming for you! They're going to burn your house and steal your dog! RUN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
;)
Please dont tell me you're that big of a paranoid yutz. We're going to believe any respectful hard-working Freemason before we EVER believe the rambles of an ignorant youtard who whines with fear-mongering. Like you. ;)
But good news. Your whines are over. See next post.
SpeakerForBoskone 1 year ago
@KaOssis
NOW, you never got around to reading this movies description.
I am SpreadingtheMuse. ;)
You are a 8th grade janitor who's made an idiot of himself by getting caught bluffing and faking. REPEATEDLY.
So now we're in the brilliant "YOU SUCK!" phase. Its not very mature/smart, buts its all you got. ;)
I'm sparing you any more embarrassment. You're blocked.
Go find some page where dumb bluffs are never caught, and your ignorant paranoia is coddled. Its not here any more. ;)
SpeakerForBoskone 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I just knew that you would still be haunting the same channels trying to shut everyone down with your state college degree. Doesn't mean jack shit. you weren't there, you are only forcing your feeble minded opinion on people who don't know that you are a poser. So what is it now, lab tech, radiation tech, college special needs teacher, balloon seller at walt disney. You've proven me right, you're a shill, you spend all of your time on these channels, and you are a fraud!
vertigofindings 1 year ago
@vertigofindings
And I knew you'd come barging in begging for an argument, still sputtering the same predictable jealous whines about my superior education and experience. I just LOVE how you go out of your way to bring them up. It proves what I always told you it did:
YOU are a janitor. ;)
And you're obsessed with begging for attention from educated men as you're horrified to admit you're a janitor.
You whine about my accomplishments and achievements and still-
-never one of your own. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@vertigofindings
Now vertigo, in your pathetic quest to scour every last page of the net to find me wherever I am, to prove your retarded contention that every single page that proves I'm every bit as experienced and educated as I say is fake (snicker), you made one newb mistake.
You never read this movies description.
Hi, I'm SpreadingtheMuse. ;)
This is MY movie. I made it. Therefore "trolling" is a dumb thing to say, now isnt it?
Way to go Einstein. ;)
SpeakerForBoskone 1 year ago
@vertigofindings
As much as we love watching you make a jealous idiot out of yourself, I just cant resist the newb trap you've fallen into.
Dumb complaints, immature personal attacks, those are all well and good on dork pages. But they wont be tolerated here at all.
This is MY movie, and I get to make the rules.
So my dear obsessed little boy-
-You're blocked. ;)
Thats what happens when janitors like you go against Radiologists like me.
hehehe That felt good. ;)
See ya loser.
SpeakerForBoskone 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I see the glorified high school teacher turned college ged teacher is still haunting every moon hoax channel after all this time. tell me did you get a .25 cent raise yet for doing your fulltime part . what credentials do you have to prove everyone else wrong other than being a boy man that still likes to dress up in star wars costumes and rate kid movies. I think I'll send a link to everyone interested to your precious lil star wars costume that you sport, DOUCHEBAG! LOL!
vertigofindings 1 year ago
@vertigofindings
Your cry-baby whines prove you're still mad as hell that I make you look stupid. ;)
Yes we love hoax dorks who work at walmart and beg for attention online to make themselves feel important. We love how they cut and paste big words they dont understand and then get humiliated by real professionals.
You? You're the most pathetic. ;)
I'm the one with 3 degrees and who works at a Nuclear lab. All you can do is pretend. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
all you've got in your education, is half the truth, half the story, and half the intelligence, the rest Nazi's made up out of infertile bullshite SpreadingtheMuse!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
OH NO! You cut and pasted "Nazi!"
That makes you sound like a big boy. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@KaOssis I guess we can add "heat transfer in vacuum" to the long list of topics you know absolutely nothing about, huh?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@KaOssis Wait, let me get this straight. You use both "Jew" and "Nazi" as epithets? Nazis? I mean, is there anyone you like?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@KaOssis You do indeed have a right to your opinion.
But you don't have a right to your own facts. And the Apollo missions to the moon are thoroughly documented historical facts.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse how many Jews polished pineal galnd diamonds does it take NASA to build a satatlite?
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis I guess no one has told you that anyone with the necessary equipment can use the Apollo reflectors and get their own data -- you don't have to work for NASA or even be affiliated with it.
And guess what? Scientists around the world do exactly that. And they get the same data that NASA gets.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
In closing, you guys should understand that the earth's rotation is completed in a 24 hour period (circumference being 24,880.685 average miles). This means that any particular spot on the surface of the earth paired to a single spot on the moon is flashing by at a surface speed of 1036.695 mph plus the moon's opposite direction of 35.75 mph, which is 1,072.445 mph over the earth's surface. If you still believe that a "blind" stationary observatory is proof then no amount of logic will suffice.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
All movements of the Earth and Moon are irrelevant. As once again, you're using willful ignorance as an excuse to argue.
All modern observatories are built to track the motions of the sky, to move with them. The rotation and moon movement are both linear and predictable, meaning the motion needed to compensate is predictable.
This is decades old tech. Just because you're ignorant of it doesnt mean the rest of us are.
Willful ignorance is not a debate tactic.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Now your total avoidance of explaining the observatory operators motivations in "pretending" to see lasers when they "really dont" is proof positive of your ignorance of this entire topic. You are grabbing at only minor facts you are neither experienced in nor competent in. You're clueless about all the available tech and relevant science.
If you cant answer a simple question about why observatories are faking it, then even you admit you're just making this up as you go.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Comment removed
imnazhole 1 year ago
The 24 hour period of the moon's orbit is a combination of the earth's rotation and the moon's concentric orbit around the earth in the opposite direction in which the moon will have traveled further in it's orbit around the earth's circumference. If the laser was trained to maintain movement to match the fleeting location of the reflector on the lunar surface, I would agree that it is a better argument.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Well good news, the laser IS trained to match the location. Its no different than matching a camera to the relative movement of a star across the sky to get a prolonged exposure. Astronomers have a little camera stand with an electric motor tuned to rotate the camera at the precise speed of the Earth's rotation. Thats 40's tech if even that. I've seen the device used. It would be no different to apply to a laser observatory.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
@imnazhole
There's a whole science about two moving objects trying to hit each other. Navies in over-the-horizon bombardment fights have had to deal with that since WWI. Thats the origin of the term "firing solution."
With astronomy its even easier. You yourself admitted that we know all the speeds involved, we know all the directions and vectors. And unlike an ocean, everything is going in a straight line. I.E. the positions are PREDICTABLE on any given second. Easy.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
All information was referenced at 'about dot com' and of course Wikipedia. My argument is that there are two heavenly bodies moving in opposite directions like two trains converging on separate tracks but this laser technology claims that at any time a stationary observatory can pinpoint a shoe-box sized object at a distance of 240,000 miles away and hit this object that no one can see, photograph, or even observe from the very observatory claiming to locate the reflectors. Just not good enough.
imnazhole 1 year ago
The moon, in its concentric orbit around the earth, takes 29 days to complete. Our earth’s circumference is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers) at the equators and 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km) from pole to pole which averages to 24,880.685 miles.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Now I want this hit on the head:
If the reflectors DONT reflect, then what exactly are you suggesting?
That every single person whose ever bounced a laser of them is crazy? Imagining it?
Or worse, bought off? Are they ALL bought off? Every astronomer in the 70's when the reflectors were put there? Given a wad of money with "For the next 40 years, everytime someone asks you to bounce a laser, only pretend to do it."
What exactly is your conspiracy?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Having no evidence of the knowledge, beliefs or intentions of operators of observatories anywhere, I can attest to the information that stems from the 50's where lasers were bounced off of the moon's highly reflective surface. The lunar surface is intensely reflective enough to brighten the night sky here on earth as it reflects the sun's light. The moon (with the naked eye or even binoculars) is intensely bright. Much brighter than what is shown on videos of the moon landings.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
It is true that lasers bounced off the surface in the 50's.
It is also irrelevant.
As I stated before, and will repeat as you ignored it, there's such a thing as a "Light reflection pattern." There's a whole science based on it used by astronomers called "Spectrography." A laser reflected off of gravel WILL NOT BE IDENTICAL to laser reflected off of a mirror in any way.
I DO have knowledge and belief and intentions of that science.
Do you say that that science does not exist?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Its very important that we discuss the reality of Spectography. Light reflection patterns are a science that goes back to Newton. These days its used in everything from Astronomy to Chemical processing. Just because you're personally ignorant of it doesnt mean the rest of us are. I've even taught it personally, and bring it up in one of my movies.
You cant use willful ignorance of a topic as a debate tactic.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
This would mean that the resulting laser return reflection will be travelling across the earth's surface at a rate of 35 mph and would not be stationary for more than a fraction of a second within an area the size of a shoebox as it moves along the earth's surface. This is all hypothetical because why would the reflection return exactly towards the observatory? That would require the proper angle to reflect the beam back exactly to the observatory. Someone is trying to bullshit the public here.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
If there's any trouble with a "proper" angle, then I would expect someone who actually operates a laser observatory to bring it up, not someone whose never even set foot in one in his life. Can you name any professional astronomers who've said "I've tried it and it doenst work?" Lasers are shot from all over the world. Surely there's someone somewhere who thinks so.
Unless, since these are "RETROFLECTORS," they dont work with angles. Look them up.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse 24901.55 + 24859.82 = 49761.37 / 2 = 24880.685 miles average circumference.
(/ = Division).
This means that these reflectors are moving across the earth’s surface at a rate of 857.95 miles in a 24 hour period (one day).
24880.685 / 29 = 857.95
This means that the moon travels across the surface of the earth at a constant speed of 35.75 miles per hour (averaging both circumference measurements).
857.95 / 24 = 35.75 mph. but the earth is spinning in the opposite direction!
imnazhole 1 year ago
In true concept, an observatory can indeed (with the appropriate technology to what I have no knowledge of what that could be) locate a shoebox sized reflector (but can not locate the lunar modules or other objects alledgedly left behind) and shoot a laser beam on the surface. Since the moon is traveling across the earth's surface at a rate of 35 mph, the resulting reflection, if the beam is kept on the location, will return traveling across the earth at a rate of 35 mph. does anyone agree?
imnazhole 1 year ago
We could just solve this whole moon landing business by simply finding all of the scientific telemetry tapes so that engineers around the world can compare the information and determine if (Van Allen Radiation belts argument aside) anyone actually landed on the moon. = )
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
There's nothing to "solve." The international scientific community already has access to everything it asked for, and already pronounced the landings real. There's no debate, no argument amongst anyone who counts. The "hoax" is entirely limited to the uneducated and inexperienced who flout about big words they have no idea how to use, totally ignorant of the science already available.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Besides, lasers have been bounced off of the surface of the moon (yes, bare naked moon surface) since the fifties and sixties.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Lasers bounced of of sand and gravel would have totally different reflection patterns than a laser bounced off a professionally polished mirror. There's a whole branch of optical science based on that principal called "Spectrography."
And guess what, not ONE hoax pusher who barges in with the dumb "50's!" has EVER heard of it. Its what happens when they cut and paste "laser" pretending it makes them sound smart. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
NOTE: Correction, where I used the term diameter is a mistake. That is incorrect. Circumference is the only term that applies to the outside area of the earth. I use diameter because I usually refer to the diametric distance of the earth's interior. Force of habit folks XD
imnazhole 1 year ago
35 miles per hour is not very fast, under astronomic considerations, but it seems to be faster than any of these telescope lenses are moving in order to keep track of an object that is 240,000 miles away about the size of a shoe box and moving, at least on earth's diameter circumference, at a constant rate of 35 miles per hour. Note that also the moon, having to cover a greater diameter around the earth at a distance of 240,000 miles away, is moving incredibly much faster than 35 mph.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
If you're worried about the speed of lunar targets, wouldnt the proper response be to ask an actual astronomer who runs an actual observatory? Ask him how hard it is? Ask him how it all works? Ask him if its all fake?
Have you even EVER been in an observatory? Or is it easier to make flying guesses about a topic you have zero experience in?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
That means that the moon travels across the surface of the earth at a constant speed of 35.75 miles per hour (averaging both diameters).
imnazhole 1 year ago
To hell with being a physicist, any construction workers or masons here? You should know what plaster of paris looks like when you see it. One thing I want to know, the moon takes 29 days to orbit the earth. That means that these reflectors are moving across the earth whose circumference is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers) at the equators and 24,859.82 miles (40,008 km) from pole to pole (About,com/ Geography) which averages to 24880.685 miles, at a rate of 857.95 miles in a 24 hour period
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Those "reflectors" are moving across the sky SLOWER than the turn of the Earth, which takes only a day to circumnavigate the entire sky. And yet, astronomers seemingly have no trouble locking onto tiny stars to take extended long-exposure photographers. See, there are specifically made astronomical cameras and devices just for that purpose. I've actually used them.
Since you had no idea they existed, you pretty much just made an idiot out of yourself. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
I think SpeakerForBoskone might have been to the moon, he is lunar
Moissenjeff 1 year ago