The MOON HOAX
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Good digging, thanks for those surreal excerpts.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7341
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: The Moon Hoax
*
There are things I cannot stand. I am human after all - damn' it.
For example, I just can't stand 'young-BBC-funded-space-professors' such as Brian Cox. Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?
This profound allergy to such vapid personages caused me to write a few comments under the YT video linked below - in which the popular TV-personality-cum-space-professor Brian Cox very stupidly states that anyone questioning NASA's alleged moon landings is "a MORON".
Please go to Youtube and participate in this video's comment section - (if you have spare time on your hands, of course!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg ... mBLwbxapwk
There are things I cannot stand. I am human after all - damn' it.
For example, I just can't stand 'young-BBC-funded-space-professors' such as Brian Cox. Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?
This profound allergy to such vapid personages caused me to write a few comments under the YT video linked below - in which the popular TV-personality-cum-space-professor Brian Cox very stupidly states that anyone questioning NASA's alleged moon landings is "a MORON".
Please go to Youtube and participate in this video's comment section - (if you have spare time on your hands, of course!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg ... mBLwbxapwk
Re: The Moon Hoax
When this guy is on t.v. I have to leave the room.Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?
I call it space-rage.
-
- Member
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
All I know of Cryin' Box is that poster...and I hate him
-
- Member
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
- Contact:
Re: The Moon Hoax
Is Cox the passenger ? He stretches his arms out as though he's putting his hands on the steering wheel.
The scenery doesn't look like the UK. If he's the passenger it's a right hand drive car.
Edit : Just read the poster, it must be Australia.
The scenery doesn't look like the UK. If he's the passenger it's a right hand drive car.
Edit : Just read the poster, it must be Australia.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Get rid of the TV, don't be ruled by it!dblitz wrote:When this guy is on t.v. I have to leave the room.Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?
I call it space-rage.
Re: The Moon Hoax
I only use it to play wii or ps3 or watch youtubes off usb.
Re: The Moon Hoax
They supposedly put a retro reflector on the moon, as we are told, so I'd like to know this.
On myth busters, we see Adam and Jamie go to an observatory to watch them fire a LASER at this reflector and the operators say, it's like finding a needle in a haystack or something to that effect.
Anyway, let's assume they point the scope up and fire the LASER and hit the so called moon reflector, first time.
We are told that the so called moon is 240,000 miles away and we are told that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour, give or take. So let's basically work it out.
To fire a laser at the so called moon and have it return, it should return (assuming everything is perfect) back to the observatory in approx, 2.6 seconds, taking 1.3 seconds to hit and the same time, back.
The earth is supposedly spinning at 1000 mph whilst this is happening. So by my reckoning, the people in the observatory should have shifted (approximately) three quarters of a mile away, on the return of that bounced laser, so how in the hell did they manage this?
1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.
On myth busters, we see Adam and Jamie go to an observatory to watch them fire a LASER at this reflector and the operators say, it's like finding a needle in a haystack or something to that effect.
Anyway, let's assume they point the scope up and fire the LASER and hit the so called moon reflector, first time.
We are told that the so called moon is 240,000 miles away and we are told that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour, give or take. So let's basically work it out.
To fire a laser at the so called moon and have it return, it should return (assuming everything is perfect) back to the observatory in approx, 2.6 seconds, taking 1.3 seconds to hit and the same time, back.
The earth is supposedly spinning at 1000 mph whilst this is happening. So by my reckoning, the people in the observatory should have shifted (approximately) three quarters of a mile away, on the return of that bounced laser, so how in the hell did they manage this?
1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.
Re: The Moon Hoax
I like this post.sceppy wrote:They supposedly put a retro reflector on the moon, as we are told, so I'd like to know this.
On myth busters, we see Adam and Jamie go to an observatory to watch them fire a LASER at this reflector and the operators say, it's like finding a needle in a haystack or something to that effect.
Anyway, let's assume they point the scope up and fire the LASER and hit the so called moon reflector, first time.
We are told that the so called moon is 240,000 miles away and we are told that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour, give or take. So let's basically work it out.
To fire a laser at the so called moon and have it return, it should return (assuming everything is perfect) back to the observatory in approx, 2.6 seconds, taking 1.3 seconds to hit and the same time, back.
The earth is supposedly spinning at 1000 mph whilst this is happening. So by my reckoning, the people in the observatory should have shifted (approximately) three quarters of a mile away, on the return of that bounced laser, so how in the hell did they manage this?
1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Get yourself a copy of National Geographic – December, 1966. Available for a few dollars on eBay, etc. You can show it to anyone who brings up the Apollo "laser reflector" nonsense.
An article in this issue called “The Laser's Bright Magic” on page 876 says,
The article also describes laser range-finding systems already in use (in 1966) by the USAF that measured distances of aircraft and could do the same with space objects by reading their reflections.
Obviously, no “reflector” is needed to bounce lasers off the moon so the whole argument is nonsense. The Moon itself is a very good reflector of light and that's all a laser is – light.
An article in this issue called “The Laser's Bright Magic” on page 876 says,
So, laser's have been bounced off the moon and their reflections measured since at least 1962 – that's 7 years before Apollo 11.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 article also describes laser range-finding systems already in use (in 1966) by the USAF that measured distances of aircraft and could do the same with space objects by reading their reflections.
Obviously, no “reflector” is needed to bounce lasers off the moon so the whole argument is nonsense. The Moon itself is a very good reflector of light and that's all a laser is – light.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Then this must obviously be true for the "bouncing lasers off the moon's surface" claim, as well.sceppy wrote:1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.
Could they (claim to) be picking up the signal/laser etc when it hits the ionosphere or whatever, rather that in a ground-based dish?
Re: The Moon Hoax
"In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2½ seconds is affected by the relative motion of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects.[5] Nonetheless, the Earth-Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lase ... experiment
How?
Is the returning signal picked up by an array of receivers spread over a wide area? No. At least not at the Apache Point site:
"The laser pulse is reflected from the retroreflectors on the Moon (see below) and returned to the telescope. The round-trip time tells the distance to the Moon to great accuracy." ~ From the top side-bar pic here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Poi ... _Operation
On the same Apache Point page they mention a whole host of difficulties regarding Lunar Ranging - the moon's libration, crustal tides etc etc- and include the problem of the Earth's rotation, yet fob us off with:
"... and the Earth's rotation is measured by the IERS and can be accounted for"
Of course, they don't mention how.
I'm loathe to continue looking at this due to my lack of any relevant expertise, but my interest has definitely been piqued. I also remember a previous poster, can't remember who, saying that we won't be able to beat the Space Fraudsters at the math. And I'm guessing that when you have a cash-cow as big as NASA et al, you'll have a seemingly rational explanation for everything.
How?
Is the returning signal picked up by an array of receivers spread over a wide area? No. At least not at the Apache Point site:
"The laser pulse is reflected from the retroreflectors on the Moon (see below) and returned to the telescope. The round-trip time tells the distance to the Moon to great accuracy." ~ From the top side-bar pic here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Poi ... _Operation
On the same Apache Point page they mention a whole host of difficulties regarding Lunar Ranging - the moon's libration, crustal tides etc etc- and include the problem of the Earth's rotation, yet fob us off with:
"... and the Earth's rotation is measured by the IERS and can be accounted for"
Of course, they don't mention how.
I'm loathe to continue looking at this due to my lack of any relevant expertise, but my interest has definitely been piqued. I also remember a previous poster, can't remember who, saying that we won't be able to beat the Space Fraudsters at the math. And I'm guessing that when you have a cash-cow as big as NASA et al, you'll have a seemingly rational explanation for everything.
-
- Member
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
My experience with a laser measuring tape has been that there is a fairly narrow margin of error for having the beam bounce back into the laser receptor with enough accuracy to get a reading. It seems that the reflective surface must be near perpendicular to the transmitter and receiver for the beam to align.
Granted, I am sure this is rudimentary, narrowly calibrated gadgetry in comparison to the equipment being used to analyze heavenly bodies, but it makes one wonder.
Not to mention, that at those distances, the slightest variation in in the tangential angle of contact would cause the beam to careen dramatically.
Granted, I am sure this is rudimentary, narrowly calibrated gadgetry in comparison to the equipment being used to analyze heavenly bodies, but it makes one wonder.
Not to mention, that at those distances, the slightest variation in in the tangential angle of contact would cause the beam to careen dramatically.
Re: The Moon Hoax
What we see as the moon, is a bright glowing image. We can all accept this, yet with this being the case, we can all logically conclude that... if anyone was stood on that, they would be at best, lit up like a beacon and blinded by the light and at worst, they would be burned to a crisp.
The pictures and video that we all get to see, depict a mere small spotlight on a small area of this apparent grey cement type substance.
It's so ridiculous and so easy to see it for what it all is, (fake) that I regularly sit and scratch my head wondering how people who have viewed all this stuff can honestly sit with a straight face and say it was legit. It baffles the hell out of me to be brutally honest.
Those who go along with it without having viewed anything about it, I can accept their belief in it because they don't know any better. The rest have no excuse whatsoever.
The pictures and video that we all get to see, depict a mere small spotlight on a small area of this apparent grey cement type substance.
It's so ridiculous and so easy to see it for what it all is, (fake) that I regularly sit and scratch my head wondering how people who have viewed all this stuff can honestly sit with a straight face and say it was legit. It baffles the hell out of me to be brutally honest.
Those who go along with it without having viewed anything about it, I can accept their belief in it because they don't know any better. The rest have no excuse whatsoever.
Re: The Moon Hoax
http://gizmodo.com/5309453/nasa-to-take ... y-theoriesSuck it up, conspiracy theorists, because soon your cuckoo stories about the US simulating the Moon landings will be over forever.
so, that's it. we will get brand new (faked) photographs. game over conspiracy theorists!