MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #11B: LLR After Reflectors

This video examines four claims Jarrah makes concerning Lunar Laser Ranging:

Claim #16. Reflectors are not needed to bounce lasers off the moon.

Seven years before the first retro-reflector was placed on the moon, scientists at MIT and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory were able to shoot laser light at the moon and count the number of photons that hit a photocell during their 500us exposure window -- Geiger mode. Using this method, they were more than 90% confident that more than 40% of the photons they were detecting during their test trials were not random. With retro-reflectors on the moon, scientists are now able to measure the time-of-flight for the first photon received during their 20ns exposure window. Using this method, a larger number of photons return from the reflector and cluster around a small group of 100ps (3cm) bins. The only similarity between the two methods, is that they both use photons.

Claim #15. Reflectors could have been placed by unmanned craft.

This is a base assertion fallacy. There is no evidence to support this claim. Contrary to this claim, however, LRO images show the astronauts footpaths from the descent stage out to the location of the LRRR.

Claim #14. LLR does not prove astronauts walked on the moon.

LLR does not disprove that man walked on the moon either. In fact, it is consistent with the larger body of evidence that supports the historical record.

Claim #17. The MythBusters cheated when they did their LLR demonstration.

The only way the MythBusters cheated is if you consider using a reflector on the moon as cheating. The MythBusters showed that by pointing the APO laser at the Apollo 15 retro-reflector, they were able to get a tight grouping of photons from a narrow distance range. Pointing the laser off target only picked up random photons. The concept is so simple; even a cave dweller could understand it.

Videos:

MoonFaker: Exhibit D Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rvmBEsTcoU

MoonFaker: Exhibit D Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCD4lY13D1E

Sources:

A Radical in Tweeds: Robert H. Dicke and the General Theory of Relativity
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/9404/dicke.html

Retroreflector Wikipedia Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retroreflector&oldid=355298365

Lunar Retroreflectors
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

History of Laser Ranging
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/history.html

Lunokhod 1 retroreflector found
Astronomy Magazine, April 27, 2010
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=9804

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

Laser Ranging to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
http://lrolr.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/LRO-LR-McGarry-Canberra2006_v4.pdf

LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) + LCROSS
http://directory.eoportal.org/presentations/129/13466.html

Optical system design and integration of the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter
http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/lola/images/LOLA-Optics-Paper.pdf

The LRO Laser Altimeter (LOLA); Capabilities and Early Observations
http://lunarscience2009.arc.nasa.gov/node/111/

The Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) Laser Transmitter
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080032845_2008031435.pdf

Technical Concept of a European Laser Altimeter for Planetary Exploration
http://cddis.nasa.gov/lw14/docs/papers/new4_usm.pdf

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Critique
• Debunk MoonFaker
• Exhibit D
• JW Studios
• Jarrah White
• Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory
• Space Program
• Moon Landings
• Apollo
• NASA
• Laser
• Lunar Laser Ranging
• Robert Dicke
• Retro-Reflector
• APO
• Apache Point Observatory
• MIT
• Geiger Mode
• Single-shot Mode
• Time-of-flight
• Bins
• Apollo 11
• Apollo 14
• Apollo 15
• LRO
• LOLA
• MythBusters
• Noise Floor
• Lick Observatory
• McDonald Observatory
• Soviets
• Lunokhod 1
• Lunokhod 2

[datzfast]

reading these comments , i just feel like they were verbally masturbating off each others words.

[ClydeSha212]

In a couple of years the Chinese will land a few guys on the moon, while the US is pouring all it's money into fighting a bunch of old zealots and young rebellious types out in the desert.

That is, unless we flip out and assume the moon-bound rocket is secretly an ICBM, and shoot it down.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE Yep, I should have said "photographs and TV broadcasts." There's a bunch more stuff, of course, but I ran out of characters. Speaking of Apollo footage, BlisterHiker has a new video, watch?v=hc7jIg7j544, that pretty well seals the deal on where the NASA footage was shot. I should have added that to my list as well.

The most convincing evidence to me, however, I'll keep quite on for a while. In about 10 or 15 years, we should have enough data to draw a statistically valid conclusion.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE The rocks are good evidence. They clearly came from someplace other than earth and the robotics required to bring them back without humans did not exist at the time, except on Johnny Quest. The photographs and eye witness accounts. The fact that the science we used to get there was rather straight forward -- the throttleable LMDE was the only thing new. The fact that there is no evidence that we didn't go. The fact that you cannot prove it didn't happen.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE So, NASA and the CIA had the power in the sixties to make the Soviets falsify top secret government documents that the rest of the world would have never seen if communism had remained a way of life. Records that we would have never known about of Gorbachev had never brought down the wall. Interesting "theory" there, although very unlikely. Especially considering that these records also concern the hardware that they built to go to the moon. Hardware that exists today. Try again.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE "Usually, the second set of books are accurate." Let's see, Pete. When a CFO decides to "cook the books" and embezzle money from his company, they present one set of books to the auditors, etc., and keep another set that's accurate so they can figure out how much money is actually left that they can steal without getting caught.That's one example. No one would lie, cheat, steal and keep a second set of books that are in error. At least not knowingly or they might get caught.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE Flares? Not the flares again. Ask your friend Jarrah; he just lives up the road from you. Sometimes I think you're a Jarrah sock puppet. You seem to come up with the same ridiculous claims. There's a night and day difference between x-rays and solar energetic particles. Look it up and rephrase your question.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE Yes Pete, I certainly know more than you do. The questions were for you.

The official record would be the official government documents and eye witness accounts. I understand that that kind of thing doesn't interest you in the least because it could all be faked as well, but I consider it rather bizarre that the Soviets would release their usual propaganda to the world, then keep secret records with different lies about the same events. Usually, the second set of books are accurate.

[philwebb59]

@NASAvsPETE You have a hard time following the conversation, Pete. Are you sure English is your first language? If Zond 6 was a success, then the monkey lived and we're done here, right? In the 1960's, they claimed the mission was successful. 20 years later, we got to see the official record which was as I described. Are you suggesting they lied back then, and wrote lies into the official record because they knew the USSR would fall and we would eventually see those records? Is that your story?

[krisdevalle]

@NASAvsPETE I blocked you because you had zero evidence, said you did, and when pressed to provide it, you avoided the issue.