Mythbusters did the moon landing

Quote from: KingMan on January 13, 2009, 06:56:42 AM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on January 12, 2009, 08:53:12 PM

Quote from: BabyGirlLove on January 12, 2009, 08:42:38 PM

Exactly

There could very well be people inside in either of the theories...

1) If it landed elsewhere on earth in secret, it would need pilots.

2) If it was destroyed before landing, they could very well evacuate or, if not, it would only confirm that NASA does not view the lives of its pawns worthy of preservation past the point of usefulness (which should come as no surprise to anyone).

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. If there is even a chance that they are killed, wouldn't they never be seen again?

Presumably. How is that a problem?

You make it sound like its not a problem. Is it?

No, why would it be? Do you think we have some bullshit theory about androids or something?

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Don't be dumb and stop bumping old threads.

Don't be dumb and stop bumping old threads.

Don't tell me how to be so good at what I do

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.

Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.

Quote from: Mainframes on December 21, 2017, 09:21:08 AM

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.

Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.

And there you go lying again.
You are completely unable to justify your claim, so you just deflect.

Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.

Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.

Quote from: Nightsky on December 22, 2017, 09:32:55 AM

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.

Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.

Is there? Possibly in your own mind, but that’s missing the main point regarding the false statment you made. What you said is just not true, and I’m afraid that’s a fact.

Quote from: narcberry on December 22, 2017, 09:33:47 AM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 22, 2017, 09:32:55 AM

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Why all the exclamation marks? One not enough? Plus your statment is false.

Tradition!!! There are always 3 exclamation points.

Is there? Possibly in your own mind, but that’s missing the main point regarding the false statment you made. What you said is just not true, and I’m afraid that’s a fact.

Please demonstrate that, or you're just making stuff up.

Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.

Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?

Quote from: narcberry on December 22, 2017, 07:52:07 AM

Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.

Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?

Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 12:08:29 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 22, 2017, 07:52:07 AM

Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.

Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?

Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.

I have checked. Your sig links to mountains of crap.
There are no studies to determine the shape of Earth and no proofs.

Nowhere in it do I see any link to any claim about the number of photons you would expect if shone a laser at the moon.

Now provide it here or shut up.

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 07:40:49 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 12:08:29 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 22, 2017, 07:52:07 AM

Anyone can replicate this through study in math. I don't desire to handhold you in every thread.

Really? And what math do you use to come to your number?

Check my sig for links to all my studies and proofs.

I have checked. Your sig links to mountains of crap.
There are no studies to determine the shape of Earth and no proofs.

Nowhere in it do I see any link to any claim about the number of photons you would expect if shone a laser at the moon.

Now provide it here or shut up.

You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.

You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.

And what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Here, let me remind you what you need to back up:

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:34:07 PM

You didn't look very hard, you can easily measure the shape of the earth with a level and a laser sight.

And what the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Here, let me remind you what you need to back up:

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?

I do - it is what is measured.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 26, 2017, 12:49:35 PM

Do you have any proof this is the "EXACT AMOUNT" you would measure under FET?

I do - it is what is measured.

So that is a no, you have no proof, even though when asked for calculations you claimed you explain it fully in your sig:

Quote from: Mainframes on December 21, 2017, 09:21:08 AM

Quote from: narcberry on December 20, 2017, 12:37:20 PM

They bounced a laser off the moon and recorded 1-4 photons return back - THE EXACT AMOUNT you'd measure if the moon were closer, like in FET.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Please provide your calculations showing the expectation of 1-4 photons.

Read the links in my sig, I explain it fully.

So there you go lying yet again.

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.
In other words you are saying there's some sort of predictive device, calculation that you would use before the experiment to give you such an expectation.
What is that device?

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:13:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

So what is the calculation you used?
What would be expected if the moon was farther away?
Numbers please.

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 01:20:44 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:13:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

What would be expected if the moon was farther away?

Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:26:10 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 01:20:44 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:13:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

What would be expected if the moon was farther away?

Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.

Why is that?

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:26:10 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 01:20:44 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on December 26, 2017, 01:13:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:59:18 PM

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That isn't the question.  The question is why is that what you would EXPECT on a flat earth.

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

What would be expected if the moon was farther away?

Fewer returning photons. The amount would of course vary with how far away.

So you have present nothing to support your statement that the number returning is what would be expected on a flat earth.
Just another troll.  Too bad really.

Many amateurs have performed this test and found 1-4 photons reflected. You could attempt it yourself.

That is not the issue.
The issue is your claim that it is the exact amount you would expect in FET with a close moon.

Can you show that this is the case, and it is not in fact the amount you would expect in RET with a distant moon?

Because the moon is closer, so more photons would be reflected than in RET.

So you would expect more than 4 returning.

You claimed 4 was the exact amount you would expect under FET. PROVE IT or admit you were lying.

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

It has been several years and that is all you have managed to come up with in response?
I take it that means you still don't have the math to back up your claims.