since space is nearly pitch black, you measure the AMOUNT of light reflected back the less light the farther the more the closer, god some people are idiots...
Great video Jarrah, the truth out powers a lie anytime. Instead of justifying with a reasonable counterattack, they attack with insults that has nothing to do with videos you killed them with. They can believe NASA or whoever, can point a laser at the moon and send back information to a computer (which can be manipulated or FAKED and patched to a TV audience), but they refuse to use common sense to believe that it is possible that NASA could fake a readout, what a joke, LMAO!! Keep hurting them.
laser imaging was also used by the google earth imagery team to map the globe terrain. technically, optical coherence tomography is the term used to 3d-map the human tissue. the same deployed on a much larger scale translates to what we see on the google earth.
if retroreflectors weren't placed by the apollo missions, or for that matter anyhow, then how come you get a coherent reflection in the receiver oscilloscope here on earth?
Problem: the LRO is at most 216 km from the lunar surface, as compared to the shortest distance of the moon from the earth of over 350,000 km. since light disperses as a function of the inverse square of the distance traveled, the lie turn light of a laser pulse from the LRO would be 2.6 million times greater in amplitude. Perhaps this is why retro reflectors are needed earth-to-moon, but not LRO-to-moon?
@kkerwin1 That's exactly the point! You saved me the trouble of explaining this to Jarrah. Seems he doesn't understand Physics very well... strange coincidence: all those who claim Apollo landings are fake, have the same limted knowlege os Physics... but then, that was expected ;-) Regards!
3:28 The russians put man-made equipment on the moon that reflects back & THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE IN PERSON. lol hahahaha
The MYTH PROMOTERS-Special Effects FAKERS in the movies.Exactly the kind of guys nasa would have used in the first place.Oh by the way Adam-Is your family HEALTHY? hahahahaha Substitute any name please. Aldrin,collins,young.......lol
It's Easy and cheap to put a reflector on moon on a robotic our automated mission. Easy to drop things there, is just a free shot, hard is come back with living beings ALIVE .The mirrors be there reflecting , right or wrong , don't proof that moon landings was real, as they could be dropped even by the sovietic mission that came there a week before apollo. Loyalty and silence has price, governments has prices, people has prices, pay them and they will shut up and do whatever you want.
@skullandbonesband that's exactly what happened on 911-see how fast the government offered BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to surviving family members NOT TO SUE the airlines or the government.BRIBES to shut up.
Do you think a quarter of a million miles and a dirty atmosphere might make a difference?
You need get a life Jarrah. This one seems to be rejecting you, mate. Yet another fail.
Or should we believe a person who spends his life making 'look how obsessed I am' videos is cleverer than an administration you seem to suggest exists merely to continue to hide Apollo?
distance wouldnt change anything. the lazer on earth is thousands and thousands of times more powerful then that tiny little one that orbited the moon. the fact is is the lola bounced lazers off the moon with no retro reflector. this is probobly the best evidence against them, other then the fact that theyve been proven to have faked photos. funny how propagandists dont like taking that one on. they didnt need to fool all of nasa, they just needed to get 3 men off the gound and back, anusheads!!
There is a SLIGHT difference between bouncing a laser beam from an altitude of a few kilometers above the moon's surface --- and trying to do that from the Earth, 380 000 km away. It is SO ODD you did not think of that! :))))))
SO ODD... where is this smell of red herring coming from? :)))))))
dont let the propagandists bother you jarrah, theyve got their heads so far up each others asses its cutting off the oxygen to their heads. fact: americans will swallow anything the president says. this is why they can get away with invading other countries, like iraq and vietnam. they lied about every war theyve ever been involved with or started. why would anyone trust them about something created during wartime.? its all propaganda, anyone can see the holes in the lem for themselves. wake up!
Because reading a laser going to the moon and back to earth, behind atmosphere (going in it twice by the way) at like a quarter of a million of klick is obviously as easy as reading it from 5 klick distance with no atmosphere.
Those reflector were not put there to have a proof. They were they to get exact mesurement on the distance changes of the moon in times.
of course the moment you call NASA on the time of flight issue of the laser they will lie about how and where they aim, after all they are not that stupid.
hey Jarrah, wouldnt they have to aim the laser where the moon will be in 1.5 seconds to allow for the light to get to the right spot to hit the retroreflector. in addition the light they see in the tellescope is already 1.5 seconds behind the target. in 3 seconds just how far off is the targeting of the laser? answer= 3 seconds of moon orbit.
im tired of propagandist claiming NASA cant be so stupid as to make such glaring mistakes in their forgeries, what kind of defence is that? i tell you what kind, a stupid defence.
Can someone please explain to me how being able to get an accurate reading at +/- 5km proves that it's possible to get one at 250000km? I just can't wrap my head around it.
lol a little information can be a dangerous thing.
Keep studying mate you'll get somewhere in the end I'm sure. Humans split and fused atoms before going to the moon and study and research was a huge part of both achievements.
There is a huge difference between a laser orbiting the moon just some km away and an earth-based laser 380 000 km away. I am surprised that you did not see that.
Wow you're an idiot:) There's a difference between LRO's distance to the moon and earth's distance to the moon. THAT'S why the LRO's laser works and the earth laser only gets slight reflections... Please talk to a astrophysicists, you're just an idiot with a tinfoil had on your head...
All these comments are a Ad Hominem bonanza!!!! Don't worry about it as the moon landing is like Religion, no real proof,Contridictions, lots of lies and a crap load of Faith. Ex-Elint/ECM dude promising you all is not as it seems :) HA HA
So you're angle with this video is that its possible to leave a retroreflector on the moon via an unmanned probe? I am biased, I believe the apollo moon landings were real because of the evidence. I know you are biased to believe they are fake, however I dont know your motivation for this belief. Evidence as a whole must influence a decision, not the possibility that an unmanned probe could deliver a retroreflector as the russians did. I find alot of your arguements based on possiblities.
Mr. White, if you believe this hypothesis, invest in any number of lunar laser ranging sites around the world --or create your own--& measure what kind of photon return you get from raw lunar surface compared to retro sites?
I've chatted with lunar laser ranging scientists from Ukraine, Poland & the US & they each call your hypothesis ridiculous. How silly. You're comparing apples (a laser altimeter) to oranges (lunar laser ranging).
How do we know it wasn't an unmanned probe? No evidence!
HELLO! The LRO wasn't 239,000 miles off the surface! The question isn't whether laser light can bounce off of stuff, but whether it's enough to use! There's no natural lunar object that can reflect a laser--BACK TO WHATEVER PLACE ORIGINATED THE LASER--to the degree we can now measure, other than a retro. LRO is within 50 km & it doesn't need much to calculate range.
Both US & USSR astronomers requested retros BECAUSE of the difficulty of laser ranging.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
Seriously? This is your objection? Jerrah White YOU ARE AN IDIOT! If you really don't understand why you are an idiot, and would like a physicist to explain to you exactly how this objection represents a pathetic lack of physical understanding, please feel free to message me and I will provide you with my email.
Odd, given that they are closely related, but that's your call (well, Kaysings)
The info I have on the VLT is that the best resolution possible is 7x too poor to resolve a lander-even the clearest picture I've seen of the moon taken by the VLT has a res 28x too poor for a lander.
Do you have other info?
Otherwise,the VLT is out of t' equation
ALso,as t' pics would be digitally processed,why would you accept that they wouldn't be tampered
@iansuncoast maby NASA didnt lie , but i know they lied about needing retroreflectors so maby they lied about eveything. you see i dont like being lied to any more than i would like being suckered.
who say that we went to the Moon but found that there were aliens there already who warned us off by saying that it was theirs and that we weren't to go there (except for the 5 missions that followed on after Apollo 11 - nobody has convincingly explained that one), and that we even found some ancient alien robot head on the Moon, and that communication has now been made with the robot head - well, you can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.
This guy is the best... courage, smarts, and tenacity... excellent forensic science..
- All very good, but it still doesn't make him right - there are a lot of smart people around who are still manage to convince themselves that the conspiracies are correct by choosing to only look at the details that suit their particular take on it, and ignore evidence to the contrary. There are 2 different schools of conspricay in connection with the Moon landings - the hoax believers and those ...
3:30 ALL the premises of these asshole Mythbusters are bullshit LIES & bad deduction-rather NO deductive reasoning.Just because a laser is reflected back DOES NOT MEAN THAT MAN HAS WALKED ON THE MOONS ASSHOLES.
The russians left a reflector on the moon & have never been there.AND the moon reflects lasers way before this.all bullshit.
@nekotech Yes, if there had been a major solar flare during an Apollo mission the astronauts might have gotten sick. Fortunately, no such flare happened and the trajectory and shielding were enough to protect them from the normal radiation levels.
@ed11561 why not? we have done in the past, and still do, dock shit with the international space station. We've done it appx thirty times to date. This included shit that had to be propelled by rockets into space. SO HOW THE FUCK CAN IT BE IMPOSSIBLE GENIUS?
@WeWentToTheMoon69 Talk about IGNORANCE-seems to me that u talk the cake win the prize.
Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
See those bulges on the sides? The left one is full of a 50-50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine. The right one contains nitrogen tetroxide. Bring them into contact in the engine and they immediately ignite. Together they were half the mass of the ascent stage. With that much energy, they had no trouble reaching lunar orbit in only 1/6 g.
LOL If u added up all the systems needed in the Ascent module u would need a ship 5x's the size.
Have u even SEEN the ascent engine genius? Of course not.lol It could fit in a size 13 shoe box.Totally insufficient to bring the POD up to 4000MPH to rendez-vous with the CM.And please stop the bullshit about doing thecalculations asshole.You're just another utube dummy.Not a fucking propellant specialist.or PHD.
@ed11561 Ref your reply to ApolloWasReal: Are you a systems engineer? What makes you able to judge the Ascent Module's theoretical mass?
You paradoxically dismiss Apollo as "just another utube dummy", implying that he cannot possibly do the calculations, whilst at the same time implying that everyone should be able to see that the AM cannot possibly accelerate to 4000mph.
Here's a clue: it's a lot easier to accelerate to 4000mph in a vacuum than it is in Earth's atmosphere.
@cadu1995 I respectfully gave you the chance to justify your previous sweeping statements, but you didn't take it. Instead of attempting to address my points rationally, you merely reply with more of the same.
Your debate strategy appears to be one of "if I say we never landed on the moon enough times, it will eventually be made true".
I have to ask: What is your background, in terms of education and experience?
Phoney? In what way? Oh, I forgot - you won't be able to discuss that in any detail, you'll just say: "...anyone can see that it's phoney as......" etc, etc.
There is nothing about it that looks phoney to anyone with at least a knowledge of high school physics. As for the rendezvous "strategy" as you call it, it is just straightforward orbital mechanics.
I get the impression that you are very young (and rather angry at the world).
@cadu1995 Well, many of your kind like to view and comment on the real films from the Apollo archives on YouTube, so it's only polite of me to return the favour! :-) In addition, the conspiracy films often make such amusing little diversions and, who knows, I might even find one of the Conspiracy Cult Acolytes that is still receptive to rational argument (in which case I might even be able to save them from themselves). Alas it is a vain hope, so I must now abandon you to your fate.....
@eventcone Well,many of your kind WEREN'T EVEN BORN UNTIL 20 YEARS AFTER THE APOLLO BULLSHIT. LOL
All lies & bullshit.
Did you know that the world isn't flat? And Columbus never discovered america? And half the shit they teach in school is LIES? Google Lies of History & learn something genius.
@cadu1995 ROFL! You seriously don't believe in the moon landings? omg, thats a hoot, and I WAS alive durring them, and so was my dad, who is also sitting here laughing (I came on youtube to show him real live crazy ppl). Next your going to start chanting "9-11 inside Job!"
@cadu1995 I can see that you have a very simple problem. You haven't the slightest clue how Apollo went to the moon. You just can't bring yourself to admit that all those people who worked on it were a hell of a lot smarter than you are, so you insist that it was all a hoax.
Well, Apollo wasn't a hoax. It actually happened. And you only make yourself look childish by jumping up and down and screaming IN UPPERCASE LETTERS that it didn't.
I haven't looked at all the stuff you've posted - they are only 24 hours in a day after all, but if the Moon landings were faked, then maybe you can explain the telemetry data obtained at such places as the radio telescope at Jodrell bank in England which was clearly from the Moon, not some some place in the Nevada desert, unless of course Bernard Lovell and co were also in on the conspiracy, which, given the scale and range such a conspiracy would need, starts to sound pretty improbable.
who decided to make a video for some youtube hits, and to feed there crackhore momies how sad
ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE 2 weeks ago
A COMMENT LIKE THAT SHOWS WHAT A TOTAL MORONIC ASSHOLE U TRULY AE LOSER. IS YOUR MOTHER A CRACKHEAD & A WHORE? IS THAT WH U HAVE SUCH RESENTMENT ASSHOLE? OR DO U LIKE SWALLOWING GAY CUM BITCHBOY.
The point is that the reflector makes it a hell of a lot easier, so you don't need such ultrasensitive equipment. And from up close, 3,000 times closer to the moon, a laser altimiter has no problems whatsoever.
All your arguments are based on the fact that they map the surface of the moon bouncing a laser to the surface from an orbiter which is a few miles up from the surface. I dunno but there is a hell of a difference betwen bouncing a laser from a 20-30 miles high orbiter vs earth 250,000 miles away.
@Kaynos Exactly - a laser hardly spreads out over a 120 mile round trip, but over a 300,000 km round trip the tightest you can focus a laser is over an area larger than a football stadium. In order to measure it from that far, with such a low albedo, you need a nice reflector that doesn't scatter the light but instead sends it right back.
With 100 km vs 300,000, a reflection off the regolith returns 3,000^2 = 9,000,000 times as much light. A hell of a lot easier to measure.
@personzorz Right. The Apollo laser ranging system is basically an optical radar, and like all radars the return signal varies with 1/r^4: 1/r^2 for the trip out and another 1/r^2 for the trip back. That makes lunar laser ranging a pretty amazing feat, but if you do all the numbers you can see that it just barely works.
The altimeter on LRO has a far easier job. Not only is it much closer to the surface, but without a reflector the return varies as 1/r^2 rather than 1/r^4.
Thank our "lucky stars" (no pun intended) that human ability to analyze and verify so called historical facts improves over time. As a result the tables have turned against nasa/usa government. nasa/usa and their hopeless gullible, supporters, are actually in the "hot seat" now and handcuffed with facts they are simply unable to resolve. FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND SCRUTINY IS PERPETUAL AND americans HAVE PROVEN TO BE LIARS AGAIN. ALL NASA MOON LANDINGS=BUCK ROGERS MOVIES.
In the same Mythbuster the host shows that the lunar surface is reflective and thats why it shines so bright in the night sky. Lazers and sun light both have the same intesity so your right that lazers bounce back.
(cont.) The coherent beam produced by a laser can be collimated into a narrow beam, so it is not difficult to get laser light to the moon. The problem is that the lunar surface is a diffuse reflector, so the light reflected obeys the inverse square law. Hence, assume that we are a thousand times farther from the lunar surface than LRO- The light we would be able to recieve would be a million times dimmer than for the LRO, given the same strength laser.
@93tomb Actually the inverse square law applies to BOTH directions in laser ranging with a reflector, for an overall 1/r^4 effect. The outbound beam still diverges because the telescope aperture is of finite size. Also, the earth's atmosphere distorts it a little.
I find your central argument in this video extremely weak. While the laser light from LRO is detectable by LRO without a retroreflector, LRO is very close to the moons surface. I don't know the exact figures, but whatever they are, lunar orbit is a lot closer than 240, 000 miles.
Yeah. I mean it's already obvious that Jarrah has no scientific training. But did it never even occur to him that LRO's 50 km altitude above the moon just MIGHT improve LOLA's ability to function?
I mean, if it's just as easy to hit the moon with a laser from 400,000 km away, then why did they go to all the expense and trouble to fly it to the moon?
In case it wasn't obvious, the only contradictions here are those inside Jarrah's own mind between the various straw men he has set up. If he can't accept that a laser altimeter can operate 50 km up without a reflector while an earthbound laser 380,000-400,000 km away needs a little more help, then he's going to need some real help sorting things out.
So if Apollo was reall why is it NASA has so many excuses to not go back to prove once and for all it was real? Because they don't have the technology to go through the radiation belt. If we had that technology we could be able to go to an atomic bomb site after it went off.
Where did your information about the "radiation belt" come from? Did you measure it yourself? Or are you taking the evil NASA's word for it?
The fact is that scientists around the world have been collecting and openly publishing radiation data for many years. Engineers all around the world use that data to design their own satellites. If it were wrong, we'd know.
But it's not wrong. And Apollo astronauts survived their trips to the moon just fine.
@ApolloWasReal Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
@cadu1995 Simple orbital mechanics. The speed of an orbit is related to its altitude. The higher you are the slower your orbital period. To catch up the LM need only drop into a slightly lower orbit, then raise its altitude to meet the CSM. Once they are a within a few feet they can close the gap by making minor adjustments to their speed with a RCS thrusters.
Remember that orbital rendezvous is done regularly in Earth orbit, where the orbiting objects are doing about 17,500mph.
@dragnet53 As for going back to "prove it once and for all", I'd love to do that but manned lunar flights are extremely expensive. Besides, if the mountains of data that already exist aren't enough to convince the hoaxheads that Apollo was real, then nothing will. You could take them there in person and they'd still insist it was all fake. They'll probably claim their visit was implanted in their brains as in the movie "Total Recall".
Also, LOLA and the various earth moon ranging lasers serve very different purposes. LOLA is constructing a topographic map of the moon while Apache Point and other earth lasers measure the moon's orbit, the earth's orientation in space and related parameters. And the earth lasers are conducting rigid tests of general relativity and other scientific theories.
Jarrah-3 comments have gone missing from here-one asking you what you'd take as prrof, your response saying BillKaysing said earth based observations and suggesting Gemini or Chile's VLT and my post asking why you'd accept the VLT when it is run by the ESO, who you've already said is not to be trusted,I also noted the problem with the CCDs used by the VLT
Youdon't normally censor posts-is this a YT glitch, or have you deleted them?
I received the notification but didn't have time to respond. My inbox is flooded with emails on a daily basis and I rarely find the time to respond to them all.
I think you are confused. It was ESA I said couldn't be trusted, as they are directly working together with NASA on joint space missions.
@WhiteJarrah OK, so you would accept ESO but not ESA.
Odd, given that they are closely related, but that's your call (well, Kaysings)
The info I have on the VLT is that the best resolution possible is 7x too poor to resolve a lander-even the clearest picture I've seen of the moon taken by the VLT has a res 28x too poor for a lander.
Do you have other info?
Otherwise,the VLT is out of t' equation
ALso,as t' pics would be digitally processed,why would you accept that they wouldn't be tampered
Keep fighting the good fight Jarrah. You know you are winning when people like spacecraft films tries to suspend your account for posting copyrighted protection, but that copyright protection videos are free to the public. People make me laugh.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
Well one thing I do know is ego will hurt anybody when it is hurt and I can see this so called film company do such a dirty deed. Also no I don't always believe what JW states. I do However lost all faith in what my government says.
Easy audience? LOL talk to the people who believe we went to the moon and yet no other country hasn't been able to do this feat. I find that very suspicious.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
yeah, My logic is quite well thank you very much. You see this is how I view it. USA invented the car and the Japanese and Germans made the vehicle better. USA invented the cell phone and the Japanese made it better. logic states that if one country can do it then another country can. This has been like this for centuries in any feat whatsoever.
pft humanity makes me laugh especially when it comes to people like you.
No jarrah it is not ILLEGALl for hams to RECEIVE frequencies that are outside the ham bands! Also they are called antennas not telescopes! And lastly they probably would not have to touch their antennas at all- just tune their receiver
"Although it is illegal there is nothing stopping a ham from making a few adjustments and tweaking his telescope (sic) to the frequency used by Apollo."
The problem with JW is that he either has very little understanding about what he is talking about or is a liar. As there are a number of comments about amateur radio operators in this stream,referring to an earlier JW masterpiece "Hamsandwich". I would like to point out a typical JWism. from "hamsandwich" more
This might be a naive question but, why can I see my car parked outside my home with google earth and I cannot see a clearer image of the lunar module with this sofisticated equipment?
It's all about angular resolution. How small you can see depends on how far away the telescope is, the size of its objective lens, and the wavelength of the light. The closer you are, the bigger the objective, and the shorter the optical wavelength, the smaller the object you can see. For LRO, that's about 1 meter.
The atmosphere isn't the issue. It's the extreme distance. Geometry also plays a factor; even with a big scope, the earth laser beam is still several km in diameter when it reaches the moon, so the reflection would be spread out in time by the moon's curvature and rough surface, and it's this time that gives you your distance measurement. LOLA is much closer so it can focus a much smaller spot on the surface even with small optics and get a precise distance reading without a reflector.
As usual, Jarrah belies his utter ignorance of math and physics. There's a very simple reason the LRO laser altimeter sees the surface without a reflector. It's only 50 km away! The earth is about 400,000 km from the moon. For an active laser ranger, the radar equation applies and the return weakens by the FOURTH POWER of the distance. So LRO has an advantage of 8000^4 or 4,096,000,000,000,000:1 over the earth scopes. Is there any wonder it can see the surface directly?
Do you really think it's impossible for a satellite orbiting the Moon to bounce a laser off the surface? Come on Jarrah, even you should know that's a stupid argument...
Come on Jarrah, this is a complete straw man and you know it. In this video the "propagandists" do not allege that it is "impossible" to bounce a laser beam off of the moon's bare surface. However, 1960's lasers - fired from Earth - had an echo so weak that ultrasensitive equipment was required to even detect it. The reflectors simply made precise measurements from earth-based lasers more practical. The LRO laser - fired from Lunar orbit - is more precise and needs no reflector.
Uh, no it isn't. Each reflector is packed with dozens of precision polished corner-cube reflectors. The rear corner cubes are polished to 1/8 wave accuracy and are perpendicular to each other to within 1 to 2 arc seconds. Each glass corner-cube was very expensive to manufacture.
Very weak argument - just because Jarrah highlights some great points and questions raised by Ralph doesn't mean he is his clone and subscribes to everything the man ever said
Jarrah has the propagandists dancing and spinning..way to go Jarrah!
Yes, I watched the show. As you mention, both the slow motion video experiment and the tether experiment to simulate 1/6 g don't produce realistic results. But not performing a further experiment combining these two experiments is not a proof of any sort. There simply was no point in going further.
It's obvious xyzLLLzyx and his friends know no math or physics at all. The wire rig and the slow motion each crudely simulated 1/6g. If the Mythbusters had combined slow motion and the wire rig, then the vertical motion would be too slow for 1/6 g. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Some of you are forgetting that Nasa and other countries including the USSR joined efforts in space. so all this talk about them calling the Hoax out is wrong. They were in bed together since the early 70's.
They were not in bed together since the early 70's. NASA and the soviet space agency didn't get "in bed together" until after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
Jarrah is the one who compared LOLA to earth-based lasers, not me. To get the same strength of signal return, the earth laser would have to be 144 million times more powerful. So his attempt to make a comparison is invalid.
Yes, the early lasers made a two mile wide spot, which is useless in research. So a reflector was needed. By the time he got to the end of the video, he had gotten completely off of his original intent and the whole LRO part ends up being toally irrelevant.
No, not 144 million times but 4 thousand million million times! The round trip path loss for a radar or lidar (optical radar) increases with the FOURTH POWER of the distance, and earth is 8000 times farther from the moon than LRO.
Not performing an experiment is hardly a proof. Let me see...You are one of those idiots who doesn't understand that 180 earth pounds of space suit and PLSS plus 160 pounds of astronaut is 154 kg of mass and is 57 pounds of total weight on the moon. On earth, how high could you jump straight up if you weighed 57 pounds? How high could you jump while wearing a thick and restrictive space suit?
Comment removed
MrMaginl 1 week ago
Great job Jarrah
scout663 2 weeks ago
since space is nearly pitch black, you measure the AMOUNT of light reflected back the less light the farther the more the closer, god some people are idiots...
UltraDrago2000 1 month ago
Lunatics believe the following: Lasers cannot be bounced off the moon's natural surface. What is needed is a RETROREFLECTOR!
Oops! Lasers were bounced off the moon in 1966 without a RETROREFLECTOR.
mujaku 1 month ago
Great video Jarrah, the truth out powers a lie anytime. Instead of justifying with a reasonable counterattack, they attack with insults that has nothing to do with videos you killed them with. They can believe NASA or whoever, can point a laser at the moon and send back information to a computer (which can be manipulated or FAKED and patched to a TV audience), but they refuse to use common sense to believe that it is possible that NASA could fake a readout, what a joke, LMAO!! Keep hurting them.
GUARDIANtrooper 2 months ago
An eleven-minute video based entirely upon a single misconception that can be disproved by a 30-second experiment:
1. Stand in front of a wall and shine a flashlight at it; notice the spotlight that appears on the wall.
2. Walk 10 meters a way and shine it at the same wall again; notice lack of spotlight.
So much effort put into such a failure... almost as tragic as a box-office bomb.
TazG2000 2 months ago
@TazG2000 Actually the video is based on solid evidence. Keeping taking the blue pill.
mujaku 1 month ago
@mujaku Did you try my experiment?
TazG2000 1 month ago
Everyone knows bouncing lasers off the Moon's surface from 28 miles will be the same as bouncing them off at 228,000 miles.....
staIkervisions 3 months ago
laser imaging was also used by the google earth imagery team to map the globe terrain. technically, optical coherence tomography is the term used to 3d-map the human tissue. the same deployed on a much larger scale translates to what we see on the google earth.
if retroreflectors weren't placed by the apollo missions, or for that matter anyhow, then how come you get a coherent reflection in the receiver oscilloscope here on earth?
zambi007i 3 months ago
I have watched all of your videos a few times now and enjoy your approach to proving your points. The propatrolls make me smile to....
soupofdefish 3 months ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
Problem: the LRO is at most 216 km from the lunar surface, as compared to the shortest distance of the moon from the earth of over 350,000 km. since light disperses as a function of the inverse square of the distance traveled, the lie turn light of a laser pulse from the LRO would be 2.6 million times greater in amplitude. Perhaps this is why retro reflectors are needed earth-to-moon, but not LRO-to-moon?
kkerwin1 4 months ago
@kkerwin1 That's exactly the point! You saved me the trouble of explaining this to Jarrah. Seems he doesn't understand Physics very well... strange coincidence: all those who claim Apollo landings are fake, have the same limted knowlege os Physics... but then, that was expected ;-) Regards!
cervantesphantom 2 months ago
brillant analysis of LRO, cant believe them pics supposed to be the site of apollo...keep up your excellent videos
jamilessdodger1 6 months ago
3:28 The russians put man-made equipment on the moon that reflects back & THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE IN PERSON. lol hahahaha
The MYTH PROMOTERS-Special Effects FAKERS in the movies.Exactly the kind of guys nasa would have used in the first place.Oh by the way Adam-Is your family HEALTHY? hahahahaha Substitute any name please. Aldrin,collins,young.......lol
ed11561 6 months ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
It's Easy and cheap to put a reflector on moon on a robotic our automated mission. Easy to drop things there, is just a free shot, hard is come back with living beings ALIVE .The mirrors be there reflecting , right or wrong , don't proof that moon landings was real, as they could be dropped even by the sovietic mission that came there a week before apollo. Loyalty and silence has price, governments has prices, people has prices, pay them and they will shut up and do whatever you want.
skullandbonesband 6 months ago
@skullandbonesband that's exactly what happened on 911-see how fast the government offered BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to surviving family members NOT TO SUE the airlines or the government.BRIBES to shut up.
ed11561 6 months ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
obviously you never played portal 2. the science is solid.
oducayen 6 months ago
These videos get funnier and funnier every time I watch em'. I wish I could get thru' just one without laughing my ass off.
Tweekerhead 6 months ago
Do you think a quarter of a million miles and a dirty atmosphere might make a difference?
You need get a life Jarrah. This one seems to be rejecting you, mate. Yet another fail.
Or should we believe a person who spends his life making 'look how obsessed I am' videos is cleverer than an administration you seem to suggest exists merely to continue to hide Apollo?
timpovikings 6 months ago
distance wouldnt change anything. the lazer on earth is thousands and thousands of times more powerful then that tiny little one that orbited the moon. the fact is is the lola bounced lazers off the moon with no retro reflector. this is probobly the best evidence against them, other then the fact that theyve been proven to have faked photos. funny how propagandists dont like taking that one on. they didnt need to fool all of nasa, they just needed to get 3 men off the gound and back, anusheads!!
MrToiletface 7 months ago
.orkut.br/Main#Community?cmm=187209
ya9azab 8 months ago
There is a SLIGHT difference between bouncing a laser beam from an altitude of a few kilometers above the moon's surface --- and trying to do that from the Earth, 380 000 km away. It is SO ODD you did not think of that! :))))))
SO ODD... where is this smell of red herring coming from? :)))))))
BjornPalmen 8 months ago
8% =/= 0% reflectivity
JPO1618 9 months ago in playlist MoonFaker: LRO series
dont let the propagandists bother you jarrah, theyve got their heads so far up each others asses its cutting off the oxygen to their heads. fact: americans will swallow anything the president says. this is why they can get away with invading other countries, like iraq and vietnam. they lied about every war theyve ever been involved with or started. why would anyone trust them about something created during wartime.? its all propaganda, anyone can see the holes in the lem for themselves. wake up!
MrToiletface 10 months ago
Because reading a laser going to the moon and back to earth, behind atmosphere (going in it twice by the way) at like a quarter of a million of klick is obviously as easy as reading it from 5 klick distance with no atmosphere.
Those reflector were not put there to have a proof. They were they to get exact mesurement on the distance changes of the moon in times.
Lightstriker 10 months ago
LOLA is a dude!!!!
LtModigliani 10 months ago
National Geographic article: “three billon readings by the LOLA reveal a landscape more rugged than previously thought” !!!
TheGrotesqueReality 1 year ago
of course the moment you call NASA on the time of flight issue of the laser they will lie about how and where they aim, after all they are not that stupid.
datzfast 1 year ago
hey Jarrah, wouldnt they have to aim the laser where the moon will be in 1.5 seconds to allow for the light to get to the right spot to hit the retroreflector. in addition the light they see in the tellescope is already 1.5 seconds behind the target. in 3 seconds just how far off is the targeting of the laser? answer= 3 seconds of moon orbit.
datzfast 1 year ago
im tired of propagandist claiming NASA cant be so stupid as to make such glaring mistakes in their forgeries, what kind of defence is that? i tell you what kind, a stupid defence.
datzfast 1 year ago
im tired of propagandist claiming NASA cant be so stupid as to make such glaring mistakes in their forgeries, what kind of defence is that?
datzfast 1 year ago
Can someone please explain to me how being able to get an accurate reading at +/- 5km proves that it's possible to get one at 250000km? I just can't wrap my head around it.
captainpudding 1 year ago
lol a little information can be a dangerous thing.
Keep studying mate you'll get somewhere in the end I'm sure. Humans split and fused atoms before going to the moon and study and research was a huge part of both achievements.
stramster1 1 year ago
How can anyone be "unknowingly dishonest"?
olga2415 1 year ago
@olga2415 ask a christian, they are good at it!
LtModigliani 10 months ago
@LtModigliani LOL You're so right!
olga2415 10 months ago
There is a huge difference between a laser orbiting the moon just some km away and an earth-based laser 380 000 km away. I am surprised that you did not see that.
BjornPalmen 1 year ago
Wow you're an idiot:) There's a difference between LRO's distance to the moon and earth's distance to the moon. THAT'S why the LRO's laser works and the earth laser only gets slight reflections... Please talk to a astrophysicists, you're just an idiot with a tinfoil had on your head...
MKL0L 1 year ago
Very entertaining! Que bueno!
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
All these comments are a Ad Hominem bonanza!!!! Don't worry about it as the moon landing is like Religion, no real proof,Contridictions, lots of lies and a crap load of Faith. Ex-Elint/ECM dude promising you all is not as it seems :) HA HA
Cougar139tweak 1 year ago
I love these assholes who say that anyone can see the simple truth of Jarrah White's films HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS. lol assholes.
They have no understanding of REALITY. LOL
cadu1995 1 year ago
Great work WhiteJarrah- Keep spreading the light of truth brother....
garhwalijoshi 1 year ago
So you're angle with this video is that its possible to leave a retroreflector on the moon via an unmanned probe? I am biased, I believe the apollo moon landings were real because of the evidence. I know you are biased to believe they are fake, however I dont know your motivation for this belief. Evidence as a whole must influence a decision, not the possibility that an unmanned probe could deliver a retroreflector as the russians did. I find alot of your arguements based on possiblities.
llTungstenII 1 year ago
Mr. White, if you believe this hypothesis, invest in any number of lunar laser ranging sites around the world --or create your own--& measure what kind of photon return you get from raw lunar surface compared to retro sites?
I've chatted with lunar laser ranging scientists from Ukraine, Poland & the US & they each call your hypothesis ridiculous. How silly. You're comparing apples (a laser altimeter) to oranges (lunar laser ranging).
How do we know it wasn't an unmanned probe? No evidence!
LunarTuner 1 year ago
HELLO! The LRO wasn't 239,000 miles off the surface! The question isn't whether laser light can bounce off of stuff, but whether it's enough to use! There's no natural lunar object that can reflect a laser--BACK TO WHATEVER PLACE ORIGINATED THE LASER--to the degree we can now measure, other than a retro. LRO is within 50 km & it doesn't need much to calculate range.
Both US & USSR astronomers requested retros BECAUSE of the difficulty of laser ranging.
Mr. White, you're embarrassing yourself.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
What is your view on the cost implications of an ongoing space program?
And your opinion on the Chinese program?
Do you know what lunar aspirations the Chinese have?
Go away and educate yourself about the topic before you make yourself look even more foolish.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
No, your logic is hopeless.
Your argument is solely "if they did it why has no one else?"
If you knew ANYTHING about the space race, you'd know it was a race. Americas closest rival was the USSR who gave up when they lost.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@datzfast
Source of this from NASA?
Perhaps you could also provide the ratio of returned photons from the lunar surface:the LRR
I can't wait.....
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dragnet53 Educate me.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
In your own time....
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
Seriously? This is your objection? Jerrah White YOU ARE AN IDIOT! If you really don't understand why you are an idiot, and would like a physicist to explain to you exactly how this objection represents a pathetic lack of physical understanding, please feel free to message me and I will provide you with my email.
goobergel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, so you would accept ESO but not ESA.
Odd, given that they are closely related, but that's your call (well, Kaysings)
The info I have on the VLT is that the best resolution possible is 7x too poor to resolve a lander-even the clearest picture I've seen of the moon taken by the VLT has a res 28x too poor for a lander.
Do you have other info?
Otherwise,the VLT is out of t' equation
ALso,as t' pics would be digitally processed,why would you accept that they wouldn't be tampered
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
one will, even with today's best lasers, not be able to hit a small reflector on the moon: the beam will be km's wide when it gets there.
Google divergence and laser and make up your own mind.
Without lasers and only using the moonsurface it can be done. And has been done since 1963
losability 1 year ago
mythbusters busted again. i stopped watching them anyway.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast
mythbusters is nothing more than for ratings. But they did it the wrong way since there are more people who say we didn't go to the moon.
dragnet53 1 year ago
@dragnet53 " they did it the wrong way since there are more people who say we didn't go to the moon"
Absolute made-up crap.
Even the hardest hoaxer says the figure is only 20% (and that is another lie), so unless you think 80 is less than 20, you are dead in the water
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@ apollo was real, you have been sucked in hook line and sinker, ha ha ha
iansuncoast 1 year ago
@iansuncoast maby NASA didnt lie , but i know they lied about needing retroreflectors so maby they lied about eveything. you see i dont like being lied to any more than i would like being suckered.
datzfast 1 year ago
who say that we went to the Moon but found that there were aliens there already who warned us off by saying that it was theirs and that we weren't to go there (except for the 5 missions that followed on after Apollo 11 - nobody has convincingly explained that one), and that we even found some ancient alien robot head on the Moon, and that communication has now been made with the robot head - well, you can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.
BassplayerPaul 1 year ago
This guy is the best... courage, smarts, and tenacity... excellent forensic science..
- All very good, but it still doesn't make him right - there are a lot of smart people around who are still manage to convince themselves that the conspiracies are correct by choosing to only look at the details that suit their particular take on it, and ignore evidence to the contrary. There are 2 different schools of conspricay in connection with the Moon landings - the hoax believers and those ...
BassplayerPaul 1 year ago
Fake journalism! Ironic, isn't it? LOL!
DJStuCrew 1 year ago
This guy is the best... courage, smarts, and tenacity... excellent forensic science..
RClark886988 1 year ago
3:30 ALL the premises of these asshole Mythbusters are bullshit LIES & bad deduction-rather NO deductive reasoning.Just because a laser is reflected back DOES NOT MEAN THAT MAN HAS WALKED ON THE MOONS ASSHOLES.
The russians left a reflector on the moon & have never been there.AND the moon reflects lasers way before this.all bullshit.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@nekotech Yes, if there had been a major solar flare during an Apollo mission the astronauts might have gotten sick. Fortunately, no such flare happened and the trajectory and shielding were enough to protect them from the normal radiation levels.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@nekotech LOL You're an asshole.Because there are smarter people in Nasa than I doesn't mean they went to the moon u dumb fuck.LOL
Explain how the ASCENT POD shot off the moon &was able to rendez-vous with the CM that was dong 4000MPH? THINK DUMMY. TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
No fucking way in the world would the AP be able to meet up with any CM in any way.
ed11561 1 year ago
@ed11561 Like I said, just because YOU think it's impossible doesn't mean it was impossible for the rocket scientists who did it.
Take your head out of your ass and admit that there are people smarter than you. In fact, there are a LOT of people a LOT smarter than you are.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ed11561 why not? we have done in the past, and still do, dock shit with the international space station. We've done it appx thirty times to date. This included shit that had to be propelled by rockets into space. SO HOW THE FUCK CAN IT BE IMPOSSIBLE GENIUS?
jbirm420 1 year ago
@jbirm420 ALL IN LOW EARTH ORBIT ASSHOLE.
NOT on the way to the moon u dumb fuck.250,000 miles away asswipe. in 1969-lol
fuck u -u braindead asshole.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@WeWentToTheMoon69 Talk about IGNORANCE-seems to me that u talk the cake win the prize.
Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 I've done the calculations. Have you?
See those bulges on the sides? The left one is full of a 50-50 mix of hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine. The right one contains nitrogen tetroxide. Bring them into contact in the engine and they immediately ignite. Together they were half the mass of the ascent stage. With that much energy, they had no trouble reaching lunar orbit in only 1/6 g.
Where are your calculations saying they couldn't?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal yOUR CALCULATIONS???OR NASA'S BULLSHIT?
LOL If u added up all the systems needed in the Ascent module u would need a ship 5x's the size.
Have u even SEEN the ascent engine genius? Of course not.lol It could fit in a size 13 shoe box.Totally insufficient to bring the POD up to 4000MPH to rendez-vous with the CM.And please stop the bullshit about doing thecalculations asshole.You're just another utube dummy.Not a fucking propellant specialist.or PHD.
ed11561 1 year ago
@ed11561 My calculations. They're actually not that complicated if you know what you're doing.
You seem quite sure of yourself, and you're giving some specific numbers. So let's see *your* calculations, Einstein.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ed11561 Ref your reply to ApolloWasReal: Are you a systems engineer? What makes you able to judge the Ascent Module's theoretical mass?
You paradoxically dismiss Apollo as "just another utube dummy", implying that he cannot possibly do the calculations, whilst at the same time implying that everyone should be able to see that the AM cannot possibly accelerate to 4000mph.
Here's a clue: it's a lot easier to accelerate to 4000mph in a vacuum than it is in Earth's atmosphere.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Sure it is genius. lol Whatever you say genius.
Anyone who watches a "Blast off from the moon can see that it's phoney as shit.
Here was the rendez-vous strategy- READY? Get set! The CM coming around the horizon folks. GO GO GO BL;AST OFF- LOL LMFAO ROTFLMFAO.
we never landed on any fucking moon at any time.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 I respectfully gave you the chance to justify your previous sweeping statements, but you didn't take it. Instead of attempting to address my points rationally, you merely reply with more of the same.
Your debate strategy appears to be one of "if I say we never landed on the moon enough times, it will eventually be made true".
I have to ask: What is your background, in terms of education and experience?
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Anyone who watches a "Blast off from the moon can see that it's phoney as shit.
Here was the rendez-vous strategy- READY? Get set! The CM coming around the horizon folks. GO GO GO BL;AST OFF- LOL LMFAO ROTFLMFAO.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 Copy and paste?
Phoney? In what way? Oh, I forgot - you won't be able to discuss that in any detail, you'll just say: "...anyone can see that it's phoney as......" etc, etc.
There is nothing about it that looks phoney to anyone with at least a knowledge of high school physics. As for the rendezvous "strategy" as you call it, it is just straightforward orbital mechanics.
I get the impression that you are very young (and rather angry at the world).
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Why are all you Moontards & Astro-nots on films that show nasa never went to the moon. LOL
fuck you & your high school physics statements- Is that the number 1 response of MOONTARDS? I thing so.
BTW who the fuck cares what impression you have moron.THAT'S WRONG also loser.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 Well, many of your kind like to view and comment on the real films from the Apollo archives on YouTube, so it's only polite of me to return the favour! :-) In addition, the conspiracy films often make such amusing little diversions and, who knows, I might even find one of the Conspiracy Cult Acolytes that is still receptive to rational argument (in which case I might even be able to save them from themselves). Alas it is a vain hope, so I must now abandon you to your fate.....
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Well,many of your kind WEREN'T EVEN BORN UNTIL 20 YEARS AFTER THE APOLLO BULLSHIT. LOL
All lies & bullshit.
Did you know that the world isn't flat? And Columbus never discovered america? And half the shit they teach in school is LIES? Google Lies of History & learn something genius.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 ROFL! You seriously don't believe in the moon landings? omg, thats a hoot, and I WAS alive durring them, and so was my dad, who is also sitting here laughing (I came on youtube to show him real live crazy ppl). Next your going to start chanting "9-11 inside Job!"
to funny!
BadBunnyRides 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadBunnyRides What an asshole. So you were alive so fucking what moron? You are 1 of the sheep that believe everything you are told. LOL MORON.
BTW WHO did 911? 19 arabs directed by a guy in a cave with a computer?&were able to shut down ALL OF AMERICA;S DEFENSES? lol Boy U R 1 DUMB FUCK.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 I can see that you have a very simple problem. You haven't the slightest clue how Apollo went to the moon. You just can't bring yourself to admit that all those people who worked on it were a hell of a lot smarter than you are, so you insist that it was all a hoax.
Well, Apollo wasn't a hoax. It actually happened. And you only make yourself look childish by jumping up and down and screaming IN UPPERCASE LETTERS that it didn't.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
I haven't looked at all the stuff you've posted - they are only 24 hours in a day after all, but if the Moon landings were faked, then maybe you can explain the telemetry data obtained at such places as the radio telescope at Jodrell bank in England which was clearly from the Moon, not some some place in the Nevada desert, unless of course Bernard Lovell and co were also in on the conspiracy, which, given the scale and range such a conspiracy would need, starts to sound pretty improbable.
BassplayerPaul 1 year ago
THIS GUY LOOKS LIKE gaywad cum swalowing fag
who decided to make a video for some youtube hits, and to feed there crackhore momies how sad
ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE THIS GUY LOOKS LIKE gaywad cum swalowing fag
who decided to make a video for some youtube hits, and to feed there crackhore momies how sad
ABOSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE 2 weeks ago
A COMMENT LIKE THAT SHOWS WHAT A TOTAL MORONIC ASSHOLE U TRULY AE LOSER. IS YOUR MOTHER A CRACKHEAD & A WHORE? IS THAT WH U HAVE SUCH RESENTMENT ASSHOLE? OR DO U LIKE SWALLOWING GAY CUM BITCHBOY.
cadu1995 1 year ago
The point is that the reflector makes it a hell of a lot easier, so you don't need such ultrasensitive equipment. And from up close, 3,000 times closer to the moon, a laser altimiter has no problems whatsoever.
personzorz 1 year ago
All your arguments are based on the fact that they map the surface of the moon bouncing a laser to the surface from an orbiter which is a few miles up from the surface. I dunno but there is a hell of a difference betwen bouncing a laser from a 20-30 miles high orbiter vs earth 250,000 miles away.
Kaynos 1 year ago
@Kaynos Exactly - a laser hardly spreads out over a 120 mile round trip, but over a 300,000 km round trip the tightest you can focus a laser is over an area larger than a football stadium. In order to measure it from that far, with such a low albedo, you need a nice reflector that doesn't scatter the light but instead sends it right back.
With 100 km vs 300,000, a reflection off the regolith returns 3,000^2 = 9,000,000 times as much light. A hell of a lot easier to measure.
personzorz 1 year ago
@personzorz yeah and on earth we got this crazy thing called an atmosphere that distorts light.
Bocephus027 1 year ago
@personzorz Right. The Apollo laser ranging system is basically an optical radar, and like all radars the return signal varies with 1/r^4: 1/r^2 for the trip out and another 1/r^2 for the trip back. That makes lunar laser ranging a pretty amazing feat, but if you do all the numbers you can see that it just barely works.
The altimeter on LRO has a far easier job. Not only is it much closer to the surface, but without a reflector the return varies as 1/r^2 rather than 1/r^4.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
BTW at 0:04 seconds I can tell you right off that this scene is 3D created. It is so fucking obvious.
dragnet53 1 year ago
Thank our "lucky stars" (no pun intended) that human ability to analyze and verify so called historical facts improves over time. As a result the tables have turned against nasa/usa government. nasa/usa and their hopeless gullible, supporters, are actually in the "hot seat" now and handcuffed with facts they are simply unable to resolve. FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND SCRUTINY IS PERPETUAL AND americans HAVE PROVEN TO BE LIARS AGAIN. ALL NASA MOON LANDINGS=BUCK ROGERS MOVIES.
Ironoff 1 year ago
In the same Mythbuster the host shows that the lunar surface is reflective and thats why it shines so bright in the night sky. Lazers and sun light both have the same intesity so your right that lazers bounce back.
nitojo7 1 year ago
Comment removed
93tomb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont.) The coherent beam produced by a laser can be collimated into a narrow beam, so it is not difficult to get laser light to the moon. The problem is that the lunar surface is a diffuse reflector, so the light reflected obeys the inverse square law. Hence, assume that we are a thousand times farther from the lunar surface than LRO- The light we would be able to recieve would be a million times dimmer than for the LRO, given the same strength laser.
93tomb 1 year ago
@93tomb Actually the inverse square law applies to BOTH directions in laser ranging with a reflector, for an overall 1/r^4 effect. The outbound beam still diverges because the telescope aperture is of finite size. Also, the earth's atmosphere distorts it a little.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Thanks for the correction. That means, whitejarrah, its even more implausible. You clearly lack a basic understanding of physics.
93tomb 1 year ago
Comment removed
93tomb 1 year ago
I find your central argument in this video extremely weak. While the laser light from LRO is detectable by LRO without a retroreflector, LRO is very close to the moons surface. I don't know the exact figures, but whatever they are, lunar orbit is a lot closer than 240, 000 miles.
93tomb 1 year ago
Yeah. I mean it's already obvious that Jarrah has no scientific training. But did it never even occur to him that LRO's 50 km altitude above the moon just MIGHT improve LOLA's ability to function?
I mean, if it's just as easy to hit the moon with a laser from 400,000 km away, then why did they go to all the expense and trouble to fly it to the moon?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
In case it wasn't obvious, the only contradictions here are those inside Jarrah's own mind between the various straw men he has set up. If he can't accept that a laser altimeter can operate 50 km up without a reflector while an earthbound laser 380,000-400,000 km away needs a little more help, then he's going to need some real help sorting things out.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal
So if Apollo was reall why is it NASA has so many excuses to not go back to prove once and for all it was real? Because they don't have the technology to go through the radiation belt. If we had that technology we could be able to go to an atomic bomb site after it went off.
dragnet53 1 year ago
Where did your information about the "radiation belt" come from? Did you measure it yourself? Or are you taking the evil NASA's word for it?
The fact is that scientists around the world have been collecting and openly publishing radiation data for many years. Engineers all around the world use that data to design their own satellites. If it were wrong, we'd know.
But it's not wrong. And Apollo astronauts survived their trips to the moon just fine.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@ApolloWasReal Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@cadu1995 Simple orbital mechanics. The speed of an orbit is related to its altitude. The higher you are the slower your orbital period. To catch up the LM need only drop into a slightly lower orbit, then raise its altitude to meet the CSM. Once they are a within a few feet they can close the gap by making minor adjustments to their speed with a RCS thrusters.
Remember that orbital rendezvous is done regularly in Earth orbit, where the orbiting objects are doing about 17,500mph.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@Synthetrix lol horseshit.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@dragnet53 As for going back to "prove it once and for all", I'd love to do that but manned lunar flights are extremely expensive. Besides, if the mountains of data that already exist aren't enough to convince the hoaxheads that Apollo was real, then nothing will. You could take them there in person and they'd still insist it was all fake. They'll probably claim their visit was implanted in their brains as in the movie "Total Recall".
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Also, LOLA and the various earth moon ranging lasers serve very different purposes. LOLA is constructing a topographic map of the moon while Apache Point and other earth lasers measure the moon's orbit, the earth's orientation in space and related parameters. And the earth lasers are conducting rigid tests of general relativity and other scientific theories.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Pitiful video to say the least.
thehoaxbuster 2 years ago
Jarrah-3 comments have gone missing from here-one asking you what you'd take as prrof, your response saying BillKaysing said earth based observations and suggesting Gemini or Chile's VLT and my post asking why you'd accept the VLT when it is run by the ESO, who you've already said is not to be trusted,I also noted the problem with the CCDs used by the VLT
Youdon't normally censor posts-is this a YT glitch, or have you deleted them?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
I haven' deleted any messages.
I received the notification but didn't have time to respond. My inbox is flooded with emails on a daily basis and I rarely find the time to respond to them all.
I think you are confused. It was ESA I said couldn't be trusted, as they are directly working together with NASA on joint space missions.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah OK, so you would accept ESO but not ESA.
Odd, given that they are closely related, but that's your call (well, Kaysings)
The info I have on the VLT is that the best resolution possible is 7x too poor to resolve a lander-even the clearest picture I've seen of the moon taken by the VLT has a res 28x too poor for a lander.
Do you have other info?
Otherwise,the VLT is out of t' equation
ALso,as t' pics would be digitally processed,why would you accept that they wouldn't be tampered
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah
Keep fighting the good fight Jarrah. You know you are winning when people like spacecraft films tries to suspend your account for posting copyrighted protection, but that copyright protection videos are free to the public. People make me laugh.
dragnet53 1 year ago
@dragnet53 Educate me.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
In your own time....
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
Well one thing I do know is ego will hurt anybody when it is hurt and I can see this so called film company do such a dirty deed. Also no I don't always believe what JW states. I do However lost all faith in what my government says.
dragnet53 1 year ago
@dragnet53 So you freely admit you have no idea of the facts of the (C) infringement claim, but are quite prepared to make a judgement on it?
And by ignoring the opera question, it is obvious that even if you had the facts, you wouldn't know how to apply them either.
No wonder JW finds such an easy audience.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
Easy audience? LOL talk to the people who believe we went to the moon and yet no other country hasn't been able to do this feat. I find that very suspicious.
dragnet53 1 year ago
@dragnet53 So presumably you also find it suspicious that only the French and English have built a supersonic jetliner then?
Clearly, Concorde must have been fake too, and all those gullible fools who thought they flew on it must be kicking themselves.
That is the extent of your logic.
Brilliant.
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@dragnet53 @dragnet53 Educate me.
What part of the Spacecraft films were used by JW?
Was it the Apollo footage, or was it the copyrighted material made by SC FIlms?
I bet you don't know, and instead just accept whatever JW spoon feeds you eh?
Perhaps you'd also care to let me know who'd own the copyright in the filmscript of a film reproducing a play adapted from a novel based on a 15th Century opera recorded by a Choir consisiting of members of the USAF?
In your own time....
snakehipsohoolihan 1 year ago
@snakehipsohoolihan
yeah, My logic is quite well thank you very much. You see this is how I view it. USA invented the car and the Japanese and Germans made the vehicle better. USA invented the cell phone and the Japanese made it better. logic states that if one country can do it then another country can. This has been like this for centuries in any feat whatsoever.
pft humanity makes me laugh especially when it comes to people like you.
dragnet53 1 year ago
No jarrah it is not ILLEGALl for hams to RECEIVE frequencies that are outside the ham bands! Also they are called antennas not telescopes! And lastly they probably would not have to touch their antennas at all- just tune their receiver
delahaye100 2 years ago
"Although it is illegal there is nothing stopping a ham from making a few adjustments and tweaking his telescope (sic) to the frequency used by Apollo."
delahaye100 2 years ago
The problem with JW is that he either has very little understanding about what he is talking about or is a liar. As there are a number of comments about amateur radio operators in this stream,referring to an earlier JW masterpiece "Hamsandwich". I would like to point out a typical JWism. from "hamsandwich" more
delahaye100 2 years ago
This might be a naive question but, why can I see my car parked outside my home with google earth and I cannot see a clearer image of the lunar module with this sofisticated equipment?
compadriux123 2 years ago
It's all about angular resolution. How small you can see depends on how far away the telescope is, the size of its objective lens, and the wavelength of the light. The closer you are, the bigger the objective, and the shorter the optical wavelength, the smaller the object you can see. For LRO, that's about 1 meter.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
Jarrah fail
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Yet another conspiracy rooted in ignorance. I won't repeat what the others said except that you failed and you're a retard.
johnaroach 2 years ago
Fail
wrongserver 2 years ago
The atmosphere isn't the issue. It's the extreme distance. Geometry also plays a factor; even with a big scope, the earth laser beam is still several km in diameter when it reaches the moon, so the reflection would be spread out in time by the moon's curvature and rough surface, and it's this time that gives you your distance measurement. LOLA is much closer so it can focus a much smaller spot on the surface even with small optics and get a precise distance reading without a reflector.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
As usual, Jarrah belies his utter ignorance of math and physics. There's a very simple reason the LRO laser altimeter sees the surface without a reflector. It's only 50 km away! The earth is about 400,000 km from the moon. For an active laser ranger, the radar equation applies and the return weakens by the FOURTH POWER of the distance. So LRO has an advantage of 8000^4 or 4,096,000,000,000,000:1 over the earth scopes. Is there any wonder it can see the surface directly?
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
with mounting proof of the hoax nasa is now faking lro pictures to ensure the truth stays hidden and the funding continues.wake up sheepel
bigfist255 2 years ago
JW says: It is important to note that this craft bounces lasers off the moon - without the aid of retroreflectors...
It is also improtant to note that LRO is not in excess of 200,000 miles distant from the lunar surface.
gen57b 2 years ago
Do you really think it's impossible for a satellite orbiting the Moon to bounce a laser off the surface? Come on Jarrah, even you should know that's a stupid argument...
AdamGuy17 2 years ago
To see what rubbish this video is I suggest that people do some research and look up the acronyms LIDAR and ALSM with respect to laser altimetry.
It's been around a long time and is a sound in principle and application.
markjh2005 2 years ago
Stakker, these two are very confronting too. So do not watch them please.
watch?v=lZIY2wY93hI
and
watch?v=9K7evPzRFxs
Witness the controlled total demolition of a hoax.
Rob260259 2 years ago
The biggest improvement for YouTube would be the disappearing of the 36 hoaxtards and conspiracy theorists Stakker.
Have you tried Stakker?
watch?v=wVNzvLS7ikE
or
watch?v=Ih7ebtZgk-Q
or
watch?v=PfFJb-41-w4
and more. Jarrah sinking in the swamp. In his own swamp that is. And taking you and the other hoaxers with him.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Stakker, did I mention I was leaving? Ofcourse not, it's far to funny here. Amusing, you and your pathetic moonhoax conspiracy crap believers.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Come on Jarrah, this is a complete straw man and you know it. In this video the "propagandists" do not allege that it is "impossible" to bounce a laser beam off of the moon's bare surface. However, 1960's lasers - fired from Earth - had an echo so weak that ultrasensitive equipment was required to even detect it. The reflectors simply made precise measurements from earth-based lasers more practical. The LRO laser - fired from Lunar orbit - is more precise and needs no reflector.
jamesbooty 2 years ago
Stakker &Co, I'm going to try something very different.
"Life is short. Don't waste your time on Jarrah White and his cohorts".
(c) tkw251070
Bye.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Comment removed
Rob260259 2 years ago
Roberta Kid ,
you sent this video link to me and JARRAH,
watch?v=6jb6BimOIjg&NR=1
BUT there is nothing!
PLEASE Do not waste my time with your fraud troll things you do to us here.
hadiway 2 years ago
Hadi, the link works fine. Try a real computer or find out how copy/paste works.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Have you watched Hadi? I did. I did watch it again. The linke is perfect. The only 'nothing' here is Stalkervision.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Guys,
Did you watch the nasa reflector??
it is exactly like our pan cake we used in oven!!
hadiway 2 years ago
Hadi, please do not trouble us with your third-world home-experiences. This is about hi-tech.
Thank you.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Uh, no it isn't. Each reflector is packed with dozens of precision polished corner-cube reflectors. The rear corner cubes are polished to 1/8 wave accuracy and are perpendicular to each other to within 1 to 2 arc seconds. Each glass corner-cube was very expensive to manufacture.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
watch?v=6jb6BimOIjg&NR=1
??? Ropberta ?!!
your link also fraud and faked just like nasa??
hahaa. the link does not working.
do you smoke ? LOL
la la lalolaa ,la la lalola.....
hadiway 2 years ago
why the one's in Jarrah's videos of course
;-)
sunkatgator 2 years ago
Very weak argument - how about those infamous wires? Do you support the idea that astronauts were tethered to wires?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Nasa.nazi believers forgotten,that Nasa buy rockets engine Every year from Russian ! lol
you want russian tell the world Nasa faked moon landing?
kids, go sleep,wake up morning for school.
rusian and usa lovers behind closed doors!!
hadiway 2 years ago
Hadi, some questions for Jarrah and you:
watch?v=6jb6BimOIjg&NR=1
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
Rob260259 2 years ago
simple yes or no won't do
Very weak argument - just because Jarrah highlights some great points and questions raised by Ralph doesn't mean he is his clone and subscribes to everything the man ever said
Jarrah has the propagandists dancing and spinning..way to go Jarrah!
sunkatgator 2 years ago
And which 'great points' might that be?
Rob260259 2 years ago
He he. I have never seen one "great point" raised by Ralph Rene.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I figured right.
EGMAG 2 years ago
Yes, I watched the show. As you mention, both the slow motion video experiment and the tether experiment to simulate 1/6 g don't produce realistic results. But not performing a further experiment combining these two experiments is not a proof of any sort. There simply was no point in going further.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
It's obvious xyzLLLzyx and his friends know no math or physics at all. The wire rig and the slow motion each crudely simulated 1/6g. If the Mythbusters had combined slow motion and the wire rig, then the vertical motion would be too slow for 1/6 g. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Some of you are forgetting that Nasa and other countries including the USSR joined efforts in space. so all this talk about them calling the Hoax out is wrong. They were in bed together since the early 70's.
harooni22 2 years ago
LOL
Try writing a book about it Harun. May be Un4 (Rick) has a publisher already....
Rob260259 2 years ago
They were not in bed together since the early 70's. NASA and the soviet space agency didn't get "in bed together" until after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
harooni22
You funny
EGMAG 2 years ago
Jarrah is the one who compared LOLA to earth-based lasers, not me. To get the same strength of signal return, the earth laser would have to be 144 million times more powerful. So his attempt to make a comparison is invalid.
Yes, the early lasers made a two mile wide spot, which is useless in research. So a reflector was needed. By the time he got to the end of the video, he had gotten completely off of his original intent and the whole LRO part ends up being toally irrelevant.
DeBunx 2 years ago
No, not 144 million times but 4 thousand million million times! The round trip path loss for a radar or lidar (optical radar) increases with the FOURTH POWER of the distance, and earth is 8000 times farther from the moon than LRO.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Not performing an experiment is hardly a proof. Let me see...You are one of those idiots who doesn't understand that 180 earth pounds of space suit and PLSS plus 160 pounds of astronaut is 154 kg of mass and is 57 pounds of total weight on the moon. On earth, how high could you jump straight up if you weighed 57 pounds? How high could you jump while wearing a thick and restrictive space suit?
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago