"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" ~ 'The Laser's Bright Magic', Thomas Meloy. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Dec 1966
Mythbusters experiments were flawed and baseless? Not sure how you came up with that. I thought their experiments and observations were done impeccably. They convinced me.
Make note of the spin off series that followed up Mythbusters but was canceled after a few episodes. The experts were "well educated" with degrees coming from MIT and other legendary schools.
All their experiments and predictions failed miserably!
It's why they were canceled. These NASA caliber geniuses couldn't actually apply their knowledge in real life experiments and situations.
If this turns out to be a hoax , it would mean we re open every major event in u.s history as the creadiblity would be shot to shit =p The american people would realize there nation is built on lies theft deception minipulation misinformation and disinformation . It would shatter millions of americans hearts and cause some serious riots and mass suicides because there are some hard core americans lol for national secuirty lets just all pretend we went there ....okay team?
A sad day when NASA has to rely on these goofy lying propagandists from the silly mythbusters television show to keep the few remaining unquestioning sheep in check lol
you guys are all idiots, seriously. i think there are more creationists than there are moon hoaxers. try to pick up a more productive hobby (like astronomy so you can see your BS for yourself).
@4:40 "I'd love to go to the moon, but I can't; at least, not right now" (Just 40 years ago you could but not right now - maybe by 2020 Nasa reckons. Lols)
For one, we've been measuring since apollo 11. If you're claiming we didn't have the technology to get to the moon we sure as hell didn't have the technology for an automated system to land on the moon and distrubute the mirrors.
Do you realise how much technology it takes to have an automated system to distribute mirrors like that? the entire shuttles systems were less complicated than your pc almost. We didn't have the little robots that went to mars back then. The technology was simply not there. It was there to send humans.
do you see your contradiction here? luna 13 could soft land on the moon no problem BUT how on earth could apollo 11 have done so? anyway luna 13 was not capable of placing mirrors over a large space. It couldn't move. An automated delivery system would need pathfinding software since direct remote control is not possible over such distances.
Whats that? Direct remote control is not possible over such long distances? The Russians would argue they did with radio. Who controlled the "live" cameras on the Apollo missions? Plus, you cant compare a soft landing of a probe, to the soft landing of a machine that weighed over 32 lb with three people on board. But you didnt answer the question, how did they land the LEM? And how do the find the mirrors that are the size of a laptop? What are the coordinates?
I don't understand what you mean, 'how did they land?' It's pretty basic. you go so fast accelerating out of earths atmosphere that you need rockets to slow you down. more rockets are used then to escape the moons orbit. though that doesn't take much. The coordinates of the reflectors are easily found. Apollo 11 mirror is at 0.67337 latitude 23.47293 longitude.
Where did you get these coordinates and who's standard are you using? The landing: Please inform me how many successful attempts the US had landing the LEM prior to Apollo 11. Because Im looking and I cant find it, So maybe you have better luck. As a matter of fact, see if you can find some video using more modern versions. Thats all.
oh good lord, did you read what I wrote? YES they bouced lasers off the moon!, but NO it was not the laser shown in the video! It was a laser with a very wide dispersal, over literally miles of the lunar surface. The new lasers work with the mirrors to shoot a tight beam right at the mirror. That is why they are so accurate. They can't get that accurate without the mirrors.
Accurate what? Accurate measurement of the distance of the moon?
They can't even get up to the space station without shitting their pants and you believe they went to the moon 7 times, 6 times actually walking on it? You're ludicrous. Believe what you want.
Yes an accurate measurement of the distance to the moon, to within inches. The interesting thing that has been found is that the moon is slowly drifting away from us. cool huh? yes people have walked on the moon!
who says they *couldn't* go back for 50 years? more accurately there was no need to go back. Why would you? It costs millions and there's little of interest there. There's better pursuits. It's questionable whether it's even worth going back, It could serve as a nice launching platform further into the solar system but that's about it.
thats pretty weak. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have costed over 2 trillion US dollars and there was no reason to invade them - no interest to the US to do that. thats about 100 moon missions wasted in Iraq.
Here look at the famous Dr Brian Cox and Professor Marchall speaking here about how radiation in space is too dangerous for astronauts until they find a plausible solution using magnetic fields to protect them.
there are huge political and business ramifications for war. There is pretty much zero reason to go to the moon. name one thing they would go there for? Radiation in space can indeed be a problem on occassion, it waxes and wanes but is normally sfe for the short term. On the way to the moon they were only exposed to about as much radiation as say, an xray.
Err... Doesn't Iraq have the 3rd biggest oil reserves on the planet? And wasn't the invasion of Afghanistan something to do with George Bush wanting to play cowboys and indians with al Qaeda? The long-term gains from installing pro-American puppet regimes in these countries seem like pretty good reasons to invest in an invasion!
there are lots of reasons to go back to the moon. scientific knowledge, streamlining designs, military superiority (the moon is the highest ground) and to pioneer space. Your comment is disingenuous. Personally, I doubt men walked on the moon. It is a lot to believe. All you nasa supporters have is opinions. And opinions are not proof.
Bill Gates could afford to go back with some loose change if you consider the cost/technology scale. Materials science, computing, aerospace engineering - these are ten times more advanced than back then. It would look fantastic for a corporation to go to the moon now. Why don't they fund it? because they get told in backrooms, "Ah sorry Bill we thought you already knew this. We didn't go. It was a hoax. Can't get past the radiation"
"Do you know what words "BUDGET" or "MONEY" mean?"
yeh I know. Since the Apollo missions the US have donated three-times what they spent on the Apollo project to Israel. The money spent on Apollo is pennies in current-value terms. All the technology and engineering is 10-100 times cheaper today with the computing engineering software available and the materials sciences. As I said, StarBucks could even spill 10% of their advertising budget to afford a moon landing.
That's why they didn't send moon-buggies to the moon in 40 years...
Say conspiracy! LOL!
Since you are ignorant beyond any level I could appeal to your common sense, why don't you present even one single shread of evidence for that crap you're posting?
All you have are stinking-bad speculations, just like your "guru" whitejarrah here.
Soviet's first successful lunar sample return mission was Luna 16 in 1970, already after Apollo 11 and 12.
Russians were first to reach the Moon, soft land there, and return pictures of the far side with robotic missions.
Why didn't NASA send a rover to the Moon? Other priorities and budget. That's it. Recent interest focused on water, oxygen compounds, radiation environment and mineralogical mapping of the Moon, with future LONG TERM manned exploration of the Moon in mind.
Btw, Soviets also stopped direct exploration of the Moon after Luna program. Why? Again, priorities and BUDGET. Like US, they got more interested with Venus and Mars.
Btw, it is VERY hard, even with today's technology, to beat amount and quality of samples that Apollo astronauts extracted on the Moon, e.g. 6 foot long intact cores.
If you don't believe it, check how much Soviets were able to bring back from the Moon, or how challenging robotic exploration is on Mars, for example.
The fact that there are so few views coupled with all the comments being very much pro conspiracy threory and familiar suggests that you guys are beyond hope. BUT... I urge you to consider it rationally instead of clinging to this group mentality to fester your delusions and feed eachother misinformation. thank you.
well what is your problem with ignoring that in 1963 the Russians bounced laser off the moon and got back signal? And these MythBuster guys don't mention it and present the case that bouncing a laser is proof of man made object retro-reflector? And so what? There ARE man made objects on the moon from the probes sent.
The russians used a different laser, one that shot photons all over the place with a radius of miles, because of this it was innacurate. You couldn't tell exactly where they had bounced from, a hill or a valley. The nasa mirrors are exact and only a few feet across, this laser fires a tight beam directly at it. If it hit the moon there is indeed no way you would get a signal back. We've been measuring the distance accurately ever since apollo 11.
Good lord, mythbusters is just a tv show, the laser they fired at the moon would not get any feed back from hitting the surface. It is designed to function with the mirrors. Previous lasers were far more widespread and it was pot luck bouncing light off several miles of rough terrain.
No spot on the moon is signifigantly flat enough for the percision distance we have today and the calculation we have of how fast the fmoon is receding.
The experiment does prove that these mirrors are on the moon
I think you should still go to the closest observatory to your home and repeat the experiment by the mythbusters for yourself.
That is the crux of science. All experiments are tested and retested over and over again.
If you conduct this experiment for yourself, and show that lasers can bounce off the moon without the aid of retro-reflectors, then you would have unequivocally proven the propagandists wrong. Newspaper clippings are not proof enough.
America is bankrupt and 11 trillion in debt. The politicians in Washington have sold out America and only their cronies in NASA and the entagon still have jobs doing nothing. Its a disgrace what the United States has become because of the liars we elected to congress and the white house. They destroyed America.
NASA and the Pentagon have bankrupted America and caused the once great nation to be sold out to foreigners who now hold much of the USA debt. President Obama should put NASA employees to work doing somethiong worthwhile like producing something that other countries might want to buy, to help reduce the USA's trade deficit. The Pentagon needs to be put on a diet as well. America needs to defend our nation from illegal immigration #1 and put our military on our own borders!
Is it not also very convenient that the lady at the laser observatory conveniently says that Hoax believers are "crazy" with the accompanying musical notes... Viewers then are left with the notion how Hoax believers are all crazy! Isn't this obvious to anyone???? This clearly shows again how television is a great propaganda weapon by the liars to sway opinion in their favor.
I have always said that television was the key to feeding the BS of Apollo to the masses, and having them believe!
What the heck, you guys seem eager to have a "propagandist" stop by...
Sure, lasers can be bounced off the Moon's surface, but the Moon's surface is not perfectly flat, and the laser is more than a mile wide at the Moon. Thus, you get photons from widely varying distances as they are bouncing off hills and craters.
Wikipedia "lunar laser ranging" and examine the graph on the left side. Without the mirror, there would be no black line in the middle.
"So why do the Mythbusters, Red Zero and others claim the exact opposite?"
I don't know who Red Zero is. The Mythbusters are idiots.
"Armstrong claims his landing site was flat terrain."
That was after he reset the landing site downrange because the initial one was too rocky, Jarrah! "Flat terrain" isn't good enough to get sub-meter accuracy when your laser's a mile wide.
"Proof please."
Go back to the post you just quoted from and read the paragraph following the quote.
One of the pro-NASA webmasters, his quote is featured at the end of part 6: "If there was nothing at that point but rock, that would be the last you would see of your laser"
"The Mythbusters are idiots."
And what does that make the lady who fired the laser at an unexplored area?
"Go back to the post you just quoted from and read the paragraph following the quote."
I have. Now where is your proof that this wouldn't happen with the bare lunar soil?
"Now where is your proof that this wouldn't happen with the bare lunar soil?"
Google "basics of lunar ranging", first link. Homepage of Dr. Tom Murphy, creator of the graph. Allow me to quote him about the reflectors: "This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors."
And I don't care about Red Zero or the Mythbusters, frankly.
"Then why were the the astronomers at Crimea and Massettusetts able to measure the distance using nothing but the bare lunar surface to bounce lasers?"
I posted a few minutes ago and removed it. Allow me to put it a different way:
Because they didn't measure it to millimeter precision. Once again -- you can bounce lasers off the Moon's surface, but there are all kinds of hills and craters, so you can't get good precision. This is very simple. No mirror, no accuracy.
Or, if you'd rather take your Massachusetts' buddies' word for it, go to ntrs*nasa*gov, search for 19710008403, click on the only entry and click "View PDF File". They mention that before the retroreflectors were put in, the best accuracy they had was within 200 meters, because of the variations of the lunar surface. Once the retroreflector was laid down, their accuracy got to within one meter. (Since then, we have improved considerably to approximately centimeter-precision.)
"That was after he reset the landing site downrange because the initial one was too rocky, Jarrah! "Flat terrain" isn't good enough to get sub-meter accuracy when your laser's a mile wide."
Do you see any logic in your claim? You would have us believe that the FLAT terrain Armstrong said he landed on isn't enough to reflect the beams back accurately, and yet you want us to believe that a relatively puny dish could make a difference in that case?
The scientists I have quoted would have you believe, yes.
"isn't enough to reflect the beams back accurately"
It's not "reflecting accurately" that's the problem -- the problem is that the reflected photons can bounce off hills or craters, meaning that the distance to the moon will vary widely by more than a hundred meters. Again, the laser is a mile wide at the Moon.
With the reflector, you get lots of photons from a single spot.
Armstrong specifically stated that the landscape he was on was flat and level. There were no hills for miles. And the 'initial rocky landing site' you speak of wasn't surface level btw, it was a deep crater full of boulders.
Now: you seem to think that a crater full of boulders would ruin the affect of Tranquility's flat terrain, so tell us why it would not have the same effect on a tiny reflector?
Again, this is not my opinion, this is the opinion of scientists in this exact field.
"tell us why it would not have the same effect on a tiny reflector?"
This question makes no sense. We still get photons from the boulder-filled crater, but we get many more photons from the reflector.
Again, look at that graph I pointed you at. Some of the random dots are from a boulder or crater. The dark black line is the numerous photons from the reflector.
"but we get many more photons from the reflector. "
... but they cannot be certain they are actually reflecting from the posited reflector,,,, many moon rocks allegedly contain glass, the same glass as comprised the reflector allegedly deployed by A11 at the BOT.
They cannot be sure the extra photons are coming from a reflector. This is a generic point and in no way dependent on so-called expert analyses.
"but they cannot be certain they are actually reflecting from the posited reflector,,,,"
Claiming something does not make it a fact. You have no evidence whatsoever that glass in moon rocks could create the below graph. Meanwhile, I have already quoted two documents written by actual experts who say it is not possible to get highly accurate readings from Lunar surface alone.
"many moon rocks allegedly contain glass, the same glass as comprised the reflector allegedly deployed by A11 at the BOT."
Any experiment in this capacity can be deemed "inconclusive." However, when you support your opinion with the wildly unlikely claim that a tiny fraction of glass angled at exactly the right degree (defying all odds of probability) to reflect the photons back in a highly reliable and substantial way, it's pretty easy to see who's reaching here.
What IS likely is enough glass shards at random angles, as supposedly intrude into many moon rocks, will inevitably comprise some that are angled correctly to reflect laser light back again... as if from an imaginary reflector.
As it turns out, no, that is not likely. At least not nearly likely enough to even make a dent in the kind of evidence given by believers in the moon landing.
I'm sure with all of the collective "skeptics" (I put that in quotes, because an actual skeptic would put faith in the scientific method) to scrape together the money or notability to visit an observatory and have the same experiment performed. Document the whole thing. Choose many places at random. A ton. As many as you possibly can
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"BTW, what's your stance on Lunokhod 2? Your first source says they also get this milimeter accuracy from the unmanned reflector."
My "stance"? What do you mean my "stance"?
And of course they get reflections from Lunokhod 2, why wouldn't they? I never said the retroreflectors proved manned missions, I simply said that your claim that reflectors were not necessary or that they might not be up there is false.
"I never said the retroreflectors proved manned missions"
So why do Windley, Plait, Oberg, Braeunig, Red Zero, Liar Vector, the Mythbusters, Jerry Wiant, etc, etc continue to pedal the Lunar Laser Ranger Experiment as the ultimate proof that men have been there?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"So why do Windley, Plait, Oberg, Braeunig..."
I don't know and I don't care. I am not responsible for what other people say. I am in particular totally uninterested in what Discovery Channel TV shows have to say on any subject. I do not get my facts from the Discovery Channel -- and you shouldn't either.
The retroreflectors do certainly prove that we landed SOMETHING on the Moon, at least. In that sense they are important.
"You would have us believe that the FLAT terrain Armstrong said he landed on... and yet you want us to believe that a relatively puny dish"
Also, I would like to reiterate -- this is not my opinion. I have quoted two documents now, both written by professors actively engaged in lunar laser ranging research, saying that you can measure to the surface but you can't get the ranging accuracy you can with a reflector, because of the unevenness of the lunar surface. Please address that evidence.
"Hmmm... I also notice that our favorite propagandist Zakabug has not been in here yet to put in his 2 cents worth....."
That's because he's been busting my chops by playing his silly little "one up" game on Parts 1,2 5,& 8.. I wasn't gonna waste anymore of my time arguing with the troll, but he's so easy to refute, I counld't help myself.
I really do feel sorry for the lady at the radio observatory firing off the laser... I bet deep down inside she knows the truth, but because Discovery Channel and the "Mythbusters" is funded heavily by NASA, as well as her own job.... It makes sense for her to go along with the lie....And the emphasis on having her say that CT's are "crazy" shows her bias...
Those two clowns at Mythbusters are sickening... Paid to say exactly what criminals want them to say!
I have had many people approach me and state that I am a fool because they have bounced lasers off of reflectors on the moon... Now I will use this video series as ammunition in our favor, to explain the obvious...You can bounce a strong enough laser off ANYWHERE on the lunar surface and have a clear signal detected on earth....
Thanks Jarrah.... Mythbusters again busted as nothing more than NASA shills...
Oh my freaking .... Plait and Windley, the leading Apollo defenders, as advisors! The neutrality of the Mythbusters is so utterly and completely destroyed!
Manned lunar landing believers have a serious problem with basic logic.
"There is only one way this could happen... if there was a man-made retroreflector on the moon."
Not only having man-made objects on the moon does not mean that men walked on there, it appears that you don't even need a retroreflector to get a useful reflection from our radionucleide-covered satellite.
"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" ~ 'The Laser's Bright Magic', Thomas Meloy. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Dec 1966
mujaku 1 month ago
Mythbusters experiments were flawed and baseless? Not sure how you came up with that. I thought their experiments and observations were done impeccably. They convinced me.
ElGatoLoco698 8 months ago
Make note of the spin off series that followed up Mythbusters but was canceled after a few episodes. The experts were "well educated" with degrees coming from MIT and other legendary schools.
All their experiments and predictions failed miserably!
It's why they were canceled. These NASA caliber geniuses couldn't actually apply their knowledge in real life experiments and situations.
Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach,
How many teachers preach what is then disproved?
ALL OF THEM!
JonDeth 1 year ago
If this turns out to be a hoax , it would mean we re open every major event in u.s history as the creadiblity would be shot to shit =p The american people would realize there nation is built on lies theft deception minipulation misinformation and disinformation . It would shatter millions of americans hearts and cause some serious riots and mass suicides because there are some hard core americans lol for national secuirty lets just all pretend we went there ....okay team?
yourboycal 1 year ago
A sad day when NASA has to rely on these goofy lying propagandists from the silly mythbusters television show to keep the few remaining unquestioning sheep in check lol
Jarrah is going for the TKO!
AlienshateU 1 year ago 2
Of course Mythbusters saved you the trouble. They did it specially for you. Oh, you're so important...
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Maybe they will find the WMD on the moon since they are not in IRAQ
777jonah888 2 years ago
you guys are all idiots, seriously. i think there are more creationists than there are moon hoaxers. try to pick up a more productive hobby (like astronomy so you can see your BS for yourself).
frustratedlogician 2 years ago
@4:40 "I'd love to go to the moon, but I can't; at least, not right now" (Just 40 years ago you could but not right now - maybe by 2020 Nasa reckons. Lols)
Focoist911 2 years ago 3
My question is, how do scientists exactly know where to point their lasers to hit those reflectors? How did they originally get the coordinates?
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
Also, why can't a retro-reflector have been placed by a probe? How is it proof that man physically placed it there?
Focoist911 2 years ago
For one, we've been measuring since apollo 11. If you're claiming we didn't have the technology to get to the moon we sure as hell didn't have the technology for an automated system to land on the moon and distrubute the mirrors.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Well lets put it this way, if NASA couldnt send a probe to distribute mirrors on the moon, how could they send three men?
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
Do you realise how much technology it takes to have an automated system to distribute mirrors like that? the entire shuttles systems were less complicated than your pc almost. We didn't have the little robots that went to mars back then. The technology was simply not there. It was there to send humans.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Yet Russians could send those robots but not humans?
Dec. 21, 1966
Luna-13
Soft-landed and studied the Moon
And they had many failed missions just trying to get to the moon- look up russian space web.
Now tell me, how in the world did the US soft land Astronauts on the moon with no incident when they had to crash.. sorry, splash on Earth?
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
do you see your contradiction here? luna 13 could soft land on the moon no problem BUT how on earth could apollo 11 have done so? anyway luna 13 was not capable of placing mirrors over a large space. It couldn't move. An automated delivery system would need pathfinding software since direct remote control is not possible over such distances.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Whats that? Direct remote control is not possible over such long distances? The Russians would argue they did with radio. Who controlled the "live" cameras on the Apollo missions? Plus, you cant compare a soft landing of a probe, to the soft landing of a machine that weighed over 32 lb with three people on board. But you didnt answer the question, how did they land the LEM? And how do the find the mirrors that are the size of a laptop? What are the coordinates?
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
I don't understand what you mean, 'how did they land?' It's pretty basic. you go so fast accelerating out of earths atmosphere that you need rockets to slow you down. more rockets are used then to escape the moons orbit. though that doesn't take much. The coordinates of the reflectors are easily found. Apollo 11 mirror is at 0.67337 latitude 23.47293 longitude.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Where did you get these coordinates and who's standard are you using? The landing: Please inform me how many successful attempts the US had landing the LEM prior to Apollo 11. Because Im looking and I cant find it, So maybe you have better luck. As a matter of fact, see if you can find some video using more modern versions. Thats all.
FoosMasoos 2 years ago
they bounced lasers off the moon before Apollo.
Focoist911 2 years ago
oh good lord, did you read what I wrote? YES they bouced lasers off the moon!, but NO it was not the laser shown in the video! It was a laser with a very wide dispersal, over literally miles of the lunar surface. The new lasers work with the mirrors to shoot a tight beam right at the mirror. That is why they are so accurate. They can't get that accurate without the mirrors.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Accurate what? Accurate measurement of the distance of the moon?
They can't even get up to the space station without shitting their pants and you believe they went to the moon 7 times, 6 times actually walking on it? You're ludicrous. Believe what you want.
Focoist911 2 years ago
Yes an accurate measurement of the distance to the moon, to within inches. The interesting thing that has been found is that the moon is slowly drifting away from us. cool huh? yes people have walked on the moon!
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Yes it was so easy they did it 6 times with not one fatality. But then suddenly they couldn't go back for the next 50 years.
Focoist911 2 years ago 2
who says they *couldn't* go back for 50 years? more accurately there was no need to go back. Why would you? It costs millions and there's little of interest there. There's better pursuits. It's questionable whether it's even worth going back, It could serve as a nice launching platform further into the solar system but that's about it.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
thats pretty weak. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have costed over 2 trillion US dollars and there was no reason to invade them - no interest to the US to do that. thats about 100 moon missions wasted in Iraq.
Here look at the famous Dr Brian Cox and Professor Marchall speaking here about how radiation in space is too dangerous for astronauts until they find a plausible solution using magnetic fields to protect them.
watch?v=bIh-XdEU1HU&feature=fvw
Focoist911 2 years ago 2
there are huge political and business ramifications for war. There is pretty much zero reason to go to the moon. name one thing they would go there for? Radiation in space can indeed be a problem on occassion, it waxes and wanes but is normally sfe for the short term. On the way to the moon they were only exposed to about as much radiation as say, an xray.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
"there are huge political and business ramifications for war. There is pretty much zero reason to go to the moon."
There was absolutely nothing to gain geopolitically or economically for US citizens by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
Focoist911 2 years ago 3
Not directly for us citizens but it's good for the arms industry. Anyway, anymore questions about the moon?
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Err... Doesn't Iraq have the 3rd biggest oil reserves on the planet? And wasn't the invasion of Afghanistan something to do with George Bush wanting to play cowboys and indians with al Qaeda? The long-term gains from installing pro-American puppet regimes in these countries seem like pretty good reasons to invest in an invasion!
38dragoon38 2 years ago
there are lots of reasons to go back to the moon. scientific knowledge, streamlining designs, military superiority (the moon is the highest ground) and to pioneer space. Your comment is disingenuous. Personally, I doubt men walked on the moon. It is a lot to believe. All you nasa supporters have is opinions. And opinions are not proof.
toastedhippy 2 years ago
They couldn't go back for the next 50 years...
Focoist911,
Pay for it, and we will go back...
Do you know what words "BUDGET" or "MONEY" mean?
NASA does not set the budget. US Congress does.
How many more ignorants like you will be asking the same stupid question?
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
"Pay for it, and we will go back..."
Bill Gates could afford to go back with some loose change if you consider the cost/technology scale. Materials science, computing, aerospace engineering - these are ten times more advanced than back then. It would look fantastic for a corporation to go to the moon now. Why don't they fund it? because they get told in backrooms, "Ah sorry Bill we thought you already knew this. We didn't go. It was a hoax. Can't get past the radiation"
Focoist911 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"Do you know what words "BUDGET" or "MONEY" mean?"
yeh I know. Since the Apollo missions the US have donated three-times what they spent on the Apollo project to Israel. The money spent on Apollo is pennies in current-value terms. All the technology and engineering is 10-100 times cheaper today with the computing engineering software available and the materials sciences. As I said, StarBucks could even spill 10% of their advertising budget to afford a moon landing.
Focoist911 2 years ago
You know why they havn't put robotic moon-buggies on the moon in the last 40 years which we can pilot from earth and drive around?
Because then people will want to see the buggies visit the Apollo landings.
Focoist911 2 years ago
@Focoist911
That's why they didn't send moon-buggies to the moon in 40 years...
Say conspiracy! LOL!
Since you are ignorant beyond any level I could appeal to your common sense, why don't you present even one single shread of evidence for that crap you're posting?
All you have are stinking-bad speculations, just like your "guru" whitejarrah here.
Learn something useful, if you can at all.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Before the Apollo missions Russia had already sent a probe, collected moon rocks, and sent it back to earth.
Those were ancient days in the realm of materials, rocket, communications, and computing engineering and infrastructure.
Why doesn't anyone send a remote moon buggy? You answer the question mate.
Focoist911 2 years ago
Wrong!
Soviet's first successful lunar sample return mission was Luna 16 in 1970, already after Apollo 11 and 12.
Russians were first to reach the Moon, soft land there, and return pictures of the far side with robotic missions.
Why didn't NASA send a rover to the Moon? Other priorities and budget. That's it. Recent interest focused on water, oxygen compounds, radiation environment and mineralogical mapping of the Moon, with future LONG TERM manned exploration of the Moon in mind.
>
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
>
Btw, Soviets also stopped direct exploration of the Moon after Luna program. Why? Again, priorities and BUDGET. Like US, they got more interested with Venus and Mars.
Btw, it is VERY hard, even with today's technology, to beat amount and quality of samples that Apollo astronauts extracted on the Moon, e.g. 6 foot long intact cores.
If you don't believe it, check how much Soviets were able to bring back from the Moon, or how challenging robotic exploration is on Mars, for example.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
The fact that there are so few views coupled with all the comments being very much pro conspiracy threory and familiar suggests that you guys are beyond hope. BUT... I urge you to consider it rationally instead of clinging to this group mentality to fester your delusions and feed eachother misinformation. thank you.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
well what is your problem with ignoring that in 1963 the Russians bounced laser off the moon and got back signal? And these MythBuster guys don't mention it and present the case that bouncing a laser is proof of man made object retro-reflector? And so what? There ARE man made objects on the moon from the probes sent.
Focoist911 2 years ago
The russians used a different laser, one that shot photons all over the place with a radius of miles, because of this it was innacurate. You couldn't tell exactly where they had bounced from, a hill or a valley. The nasa mirrors are exact and only a few feet across, this laser fires a tight beam directly at it. If it hit the moon there is indeed no way you would get a signal back. We've been measuring the distance accurately ever since apollo 11.
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
Good lord, mythbusters is just a tv show, the laser they fired at the moon would not get any feed back from hitting the surface. It is designed to function with the mirrors. Previous lasers were far more widespread and it was pot luck bouncing light off several miles of rough terrain.
No spot on the moon is signifigantly flat enough for the percision distance we have today and the calculation we have of how fast the fmoon is receding.
The experiment does prove that these mirrors are on the moon
alexkidd3d 2 years ago
I think you should still go to the closest observatory to your home and repeat the experiment by the mythbusters for yourself.
That is the crux of science. All experiments are tested and retested over and over again.
If you conduct this experiment for yourself, and show that lasers can bounce off the moon without the aid of retro-reflectors, then you would have unequivocally proven the propagandists wrong. Newspaper clippings are not proof enough.
rm06c 2 years ago
And please, don't take a laser pen and point it at the moon for your experiment.
That would be very bad ;P
rm06c 2 years ago
America is bankrupt and 11 trillion in debt. The politicians in Washington have sold out America and only their cronies in NASA and the entagon still have jobs doing nothing. Its a disgrace what the United States has become because of the liars we elected to congress and the white house. They destroyed America.
NewDirection4us 2 years ago
NASA and the Pentagon have bankrupted America and caused the once great nation to be sold out to foreigners who now hold much of the USA debt. President Obama should put NASA employees to work doing somethiong worthwhile like producing something that other countries might want to buy, to help reduce the USA's trade deficit. The Pentagon needs to be put on a diet as well. America needs to defend our nation from illegal immigration #1 and put our military on our own borders!
NewDirection4us 2 years ago
ha ha, the myth busters have been busted.
ManFromMelbourne 3 years ago
They are saying it's impossible to reflect a narrow beam of photons back not light (else the moon would've been black)
jxvwp 3 years ago
Is it not also very convenient that the lady at the laser observatory conveniently says that Hoax believers are "crazy" with the accompanying musical notes... Viewers then are left with the notion how Hoax believers are all crazy! Isn't this obvious to anyone???? This clearly shows again how television is a great propaganda weapon by the liars to sway opinion in their favor.
I have always said that television was the key to feeding the BS of Apollo to the masses, and having them believe!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 2
This is quite silly.
Of course you can reflect a laser off the surface of the moon. But the surface scatters the light in all directions.
Having a special reflector that reflects light back to the origin means that far more photons get back to the detector.
Quick calculation - a million times easier with a reflector.
And before you ask the question - Mythbusters didn't detect any returned photons because they didn't fire their laser a million times, that's all.
apollotls 3 years ago
What the heck, you guys seem eager to have a "propagandist" stop by...
Sure, lasers can be bounced off the Moon's surface, but the Moon's surface is not perfectly flat, and the laser is more than a mile wide at the Moon. Thus, you get photons from widely varying distances as they are bouncing off hills and craters.
Wikipedia "lunar laser ranging" and examine the graph on the left side. Without the mirror, there would be no black line in the middle.
Debunked. Really too easy, guys. Next?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Sure, lasers can be bounced off the Moon's surface"
So why do the Mythbusters, Red Zero and others claim the exact opposite?
"but the Moon's surface is not perfectly flat"
Armstrong claims his landing site was flat terrain.
"Thus, you get photons from widely varying distances"
Proof please.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"So why do the Mythbusters, Red Zero and others claim the exact opposite?"
I don't know who Red Zero is. The Mythbusters are idiots.
"Armstrong claims his landing site was flat terrain."
That was after he reset the landing site downrange because the initial one was too rocky, Jarrah! "Flat terrain" isn't good enough to get sub-meter accuracy when your laser's a mile wide.
"Proof please."
Go back to the post you just quoted from and read the paragraph following the quote.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"I don't know who Red Zero is."
One of the pro-NASA webmasters, his quote is featured at the end of part 6: "If there was nothing at that point but rock, that would be the last you would see of your laser"
"The Mythbusters are idiots."
And what does that make the lady who fired the laser at an unexplored area?
"Go back to the post you just quoted from and read the paragraph following the quote."
I have. Now where is your proof that this wouldn't happen with the bare lunar soil?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Now where is your proof that this wouldn't happen with the bare lunar soil?"
Google "basics of lunar ranging", first link. Homepage of Dr. Tom Murphy, creator of the graph. Allow me to quote him about the reflectors: "This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors."
And I don't care about Red Zero or the Mythbusters, frankly.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors."
Then why were the the astronomers at Crimea and Massettusetts able to measure the distance using nothing but the bare lunar surface to bounce lasers?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Comment removed
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Then why were the the astronomers at Crimea and Massettusetts able to measure the distance using nothing but the bare lunar surface to bounce lasers?"
I posted a few minutes ago and removed it. Allow me to put it a different way:
Because they didn't measure it to millimeter precision. Once again -- you can bounce lasers off the Moon's surface, but there are all kinds of hills and craters, so you can't get good precision. This is very simple. No mirror, no accuracy.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Because they didn't measure it to millimeter precision."
Proof?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Proof?"
"We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors."
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Or, if you'd rather take your Massachusetts' buddies' word for it, go to ntrs*nasa*gov, search for 19710008403, click on the only entry and click "View PDF File". They mention that before the retroreflectors were put in, the best accuracy they had was within 200 meters, because of the variations of the lunar surface. Once the retroreflector was laid down, their accuracy got to within one meter. (Since then, we have improved considerably to approximately centimeter-precision.)
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"That was after he reset the landing site downrange because the initial one was too rocky, Jarrah! "Flat terrain" isn't good enough to get sub-meter accuracy when your laser's a mile wide."
Do you see any logic in your claim? You would have us believe that the FLAT terrain Armstrong said he landed on isn't enough to reflect the beams back accurately, and yet you want us to believe that a relatively puny dish could make a difference in that case?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
He's got a point, as it were, ITSS.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"You would have us believe"
The scientists I have quoted would have you believe, yes.
"isn't enough to reflect the beams back accurately"
It's not "reflecting accurately" that's the problem -- the problem is that the reflected photons can bounce off hills or craters, meaning that the distance to the moon will vary widely by more than a hundred meters. Again, the laser is a mile wide at the Moon.
With the reflector, you get lots of photons from a single spot.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Armstrong specifically stated that the landscape he was on was flat and level. There were no hills for miles. And the 'initial rocky landing site' you speak of wasn't surface level btw, it was a deep crater full of boulders.
Now: you seem to think that a crater full of boulders would ruin the affect of Tranquility's flat terrain, so tell us why it would not have the same effect on a tiny reflector?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"you seem to think that..."
Again, this is not my opinion, this is the opinion of scientists in this exact field.
"tell us why it would not have the same effect on a tiny reflector?"
This question makes no sense. We still get photons from the boulder-filled crater, but we get many more photons from the reflector.
Again, look at that graph I pointed you at. Some of the random dots are from a boulder or crater. The dark black line is the numerous photons from the reflector.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"but we get many more photons from the reflector. "
... but they cannot be certain they are actually reflecting from the posited reflector,,,, many moon rocks allegedly contain glass, the same glass as comprised the reflector allegedly deployed by A11 at the BOT.
They cannot be sure the extra photons are coming from a reflector. This is a generic point and in no way dependent on so-called expert analyses.
Your "science" is therefore inconclusive ITSS.
michaelstmark 3 years ago 2
"but they cannot be certain they are actually reflecting from the posited reflector,,,,"
Claiming something does not make it a fact. You have no evidence whatsoever that glass in moon rocks could create the below graph. Meanwhile, I have already quoted two documents written by actual experts who say it is not possible to get highly accurate readings from Lunar surface alone.
"the same glass as comprised the reflector"
Claiming something does not make it a fact.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"many moon rocks allegedly contain glass, the same glass as comprised the reflector allegedly deployed by A11 at the BOT."
Any experiment in this capacity can be deemed "inconclusive." However, when you support your opinion with the wildly unlikely claim that a tiny fraction of glass angled at exactly the right degree (defying all odds of probability) to reflect the photons back in a highly reliable and substantial way, it's pretty easy to see who's reaching here.
Do your research.
Spo8 3 years ago
What IS likely is enough glass shards at random angles, as supposedly intrude into many moon rocks, will inevitably comprise some that are angled correctly to reflect laser light back again... as if from an imaginary reflector.
Do your common sense.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
As it turns out, no, that is not likely. At least not nearly likely enough to even make a dent in the kind of evidence given by believers in the moon landing.
I'm sure with all of the collective "skeptics" (I put that in quotes, because an actual skeptic would put faith in the scientific method) to scrape together the money or notability to visit an observatory and have the same experiment performed. Document the whole thing. Choose many places at random. A ton. As many as you possibly can
Spo8 3 years ago
THEN point the laser toward several of the reflector sites. Post the raw, unaltered footage.
I doubt you will, but an appeal to logic is always worth a shot. Perhaps not with this crowd.
Spo8 3 years ago
BTW, what's your stance on Lunokhod 2? Your first source says they also get this milimeter accuracy from the unmanned reflector.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"BTW, what's your stance on Lunokhod 2? Your first source says they also get this milimeter accuracy from the unmanned reflector."
My "stance"? What do you mean my "stance"?
And of course they get reflections from Lunokhod 2, why wouldn't they? I never said the retroreflectors proved manned missions, I simply said that your claim that reflectors were not necessary or that they might not be up there is false.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"I never said the retroreflectors proved manned missions"
So why do Windley, Plait, Oberg, Braeunig, Red Zero, Liar Vector, the Mythbusters, Jerry Wiant, etc, etc continue to pedal the Lunar Laser Ranger Experiment as the ultimate proof that men have been there?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"So why do Windley, Plait, Oberg, Braeunig..."
I don't know and I don't care. I am not responsible for what other people say. I am in particular totally uninterested in what Discovery Channel TV shows have to say on any subject. I do not get my facts from the Discovery Channel -- and you shouldn't either.
The retroreflectors do certainly prove that we landed SOMETHING on the Moon, at least. In that sense they are important.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"I don't know and I don't care."
You oughta when they present themselves as an authority on the subject.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"You oughta when they present themselves as an authority on the subject."
Duly noted. Do you have any response to the qualified experts that I have quoted?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"You would have us believe that the FLAT terrain Armstrong said he landed on... and yet you want us to believe that a relatively puny dish"
Also, I would like to reiterate -- this is not my opinion. I have quoted two documents now, both written by professors actively engaged in lunar laser ranging research, saying that you can measure to the surface but you can't get the ranging accuracy you can with a reflector, because of the unevenness of the lunar surface. Please address that evidence.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Do they specify the reason for "not getting the same ranging accuracy"?
And furthermore how do they differentiate between laser light that reflects from the lunar surface and that which returns from the "reflector" ?
And please give us the link to your reply evidence ITSS.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Do they specify the reason for "not getting the same ranging accuracy"?"
They SPECIFICALLY say it's because of the unevenness of the lunar surface, in both cases.
"how do they differentiate between laser light that reflects from the lunar surface and that which returns from the "reflector" ?"
Check the graph I talked about in my first post.
"And please give us the link to your reply evidence"
I have already said how to get to both documents -- simply follow the directions.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Hmmm... I also notice that our favorite propagandist Zakabug has not been in here yet to put in his 2 cents worth.....
I guess like in the radioactive anomaly series, he cannot look at any video series past parts 4, or 5!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago
"Hmmm... I also notice that our favorite propagandist Zakabug has not been in here yet to put in his 2 cents worth....."
That's because he's been busting my chops by playing his silly little "one up" game on Parts 1,2 5,& 8.. I wasn't gonna waste anymore of my time arguing with the troll, but he's so easy to refute, I counld't help myself.
straydog02 3 years ago
I really do feel sorry for the lady at the radio observatory firing off the laser... I bet deep down inside she knows the truth, but because Discovery Channel and the "Mythbusters" is funded heavily by NASA, as well as her own job.... It makes sense for her to go along with the lie....And the emphasis on having her say that CT's are "crazy" shows her bias...
Those two clowns at Mythbusters are sickening... Paid to say exactly what criminals want them to say!
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 2
excellent
horror11 3 years ago
I have had many people approach me and state that I am a fool because they have bounced lasers off of reflectors on the moon... Now I will use this video series as ammunition in our favor, to explain the obvious...You can bounce a strong enough laser off ANYWHERE on the lunar surface and have a clear signal detected on earth....
Thanks Jarrah.... Mythbusters again busted as nothing more than NASA shills...
northerntruthseeker 3 years ago 3
Oh my freaking .... Plait and Windley, the leading Apollo defenders, as advisors! The neutrality of the Mythbusters is so utterly and completely destroyed!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago 3
Hullo? Any people from NASA watching these videos?
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Manned lunar landing believers have a serious problem with basic logic.
"There is only one way this could happen... if there was a man-made retroreflector on the moon."
Not only having man-made objects on the moon does not mean that men walked on there, it appears that you don't even need a retroreflector to get a useful reflection from our radionucleide-covered satellite.
guillaumedock 3 years ago 4
The "Mythbusters" clowns are so busted!
straydog02 3 years ago 10
Mythproppers nail is now squarely planted in their propaganda spewing arses!
Thanks Jarrah!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago 11