Mythbusters did the moon landing

Quote from: Bi-Polar on August 28, 2008, 12:17:53 PM

Please list proof and sources for this claim.

University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm



That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...

At the Moon's surface, the beam is only about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (two miles) away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye, but under good conditions, one photon will be received every few seconds (they can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic)

OK, the riddle me this.  Why were prisms left on the moon instead of a mirror?

If the Earth was flat, couldn't we simply have shot a laser perpendicular to the spot that the mirrors were left?

The reason a prism was left on the moon was because with the earth being round, we can shoot at an angle and still get a return.

Um, I'm asserting something much simpler. Nothing was left on the moon.

In FET, shooting a laser at the moon will scatter most of the light in the atmosphere, a bunch will be absorbed by the moon, then most of it will scatter, a very small amount will return back to earth, and only about 1 photon will make it back to the origin.

In RET, shooting a laser at a highly reflective retroreflector array will avoid all the loss caused by the moons light absorption and scattering. This means the only factor is atmospheric refraction. There should be phenomenally more light returning than a single photon.


The fact that shooting a laser at the moon will result in 1 photon returning is PROOF of FET, not of RET. Why are you RE'ers even bringing this nonsense up, you are only embarrassing yourselves.

I have to agree with Narcberry here.

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.

Show me proof of 1 movie filmed in Hollywood in 1969 that replicates the lunar landing, and I'll believe you.

aside from the lunar landing itself,m since its validity is being questioned.

better yet show me one movie in 1977 that shows a moon landing environment like what was shown in 1969

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 12:33:36 PM

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.

That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 12:51:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 12:33:36 PM

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.

That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.

so nasa is more that 40 years ahead of the private sector

Better yet, learn that the government is decades ahead of the private sector in terms of technology.

50 years for the private sector to get into space after the government.

So the technology hollywood will have in 2019 is what the government had when they faked the apollo missions.

Quote from: Bi-Polar on August 28, 2008, 12:17:53 PM

Please list proof and sources for this claim.

University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who has been "pinging" these moon mirrors since they were "placed" on the moon.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm

That's right boys and girls, just one solitary photon is enough to prove the mirrors exist. No wonder they don't mention the number of photons they directed at the moon...

Cool.  Thanks Narc.  it was a very interesting article which brought up a lot of points, probably enough to need its own thread.  But yes, 1 photon is correct, for the sake of this thread.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 12:54:56 PM

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 12:51:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 12:33:36 PM

Quote from: Holy crap!?! on August 28, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 08:01:21 AM

You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you do what's actually possible and prove a positive?

It's not our responsibility to prove that ghosts *don't* exist, or that so and so *didn't* invent a time machine.

The burden is entirely on you to prove that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and blast 1000 tons of matter into space at 9 miles per second. I didn't make any of those claims. You did.

The only problem with that is that you refuse to accept and form of proof you're presented with. All documentation is faked. Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies. The man that walked on the moon is a liar. The moon rocks brought back are just old coal.

Other than putting you in a ship and flying you there, what type of proof would you accept?

I mean come on, so far the only response to the "laser proof" is someone calling it lame. Why is it lame? Unless you come up with some real arguement then the debate is no fun.

Now this just isn't fair.  Yes, we say that photographic and video evidence is fake, but given how easy it is to fake something like this I don't see how you could rationally call it "evidence" in the first place.  The same is true about astronauts who have "been to the moon" or "been to space" and moon rocks (ooh, ROCKS, that proves everything!  )

But I really take issue with your statement that "Most scientific knowledge that has been taught are lies/conspiricies".  This is not our position at all.  We feel that this scientific knowledge you speak of is mostly based on a misunderstanding, brought about by a dogmatic belief that the earth is round instilled in the minds of everybody at a very young age.  It's not lies; it's simply misguided.

Sure, I'll agree with you 100% that the technology needed to "fake" the lunar landing existing now...but the technology didnt exist to create those effects back in 1969.

That we know of, but it would be naive to think that we know of all the technology NASA had access to in the 60s.

so nasa is more that 40 years ahead of the private sector

I never said that.  Possibly more like 10-15 years.

But Narc does have a point, of course.

Better yet, learn that the government is decades ahead of the private sector in terms of technology.

50 years for the private sector to get into space after the government.

So the technology hollywood will have in 2019 is what the government had when they faked the apollo missions.

BS.....Nasa had still camera's and movies camera's that where crap compared to Hollywood at the time.

Your forgetting how the government works...everything goes to the lowest bidder.

The government has been creating animated pictures longer than any producer on earth. Their knowledge in this field will be as prime as any other field. I stand by 50 years.

In FET, shooting a laser at the moon will scatter most of the light in the atmosphere, a bunch will be absorbed by the moon, then most of it will scatter, a very small amount will return back to earth, and only about 1 photon will make it back to the origin.

In RET, shooting a laser at a highly reflective retroreflector array will avoid all the loss caused by the moons light absorption and scattering. This means the only factor is atmospheric refraction. There should be phenomenally more light returning than a single photon.


The fact that shooting a laser at the moon will result in 1 photon returning is PROOF of FET, not of RET. Why are you RE'ers even bringing this nonsense up, you are only embarrassing yourselves.

Please explain precisely how you know how many photons would make it back to earth on both scenarios.  How did you arrive at 1 photon making it back to origin point in FET.  How many photons more than 1 is "phenomenally more"?  Its not a very precise number.

The government has been creating animated pictures longer than any producer on earth. Their knowledge in this field will be as prime as any other field. I stand by 50 years.

Where is your proof of this, aside your obvious answer of "the lunar landing"

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

I'm sigging that bottom part if I have enough space.

Anways I agree with you 100%.

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

How could you possibly make that argument?  We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us.  Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 01:26:03 PM

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

How could you possibly make that argument?  We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us.  Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.

I'm sorry, it can't be proven though, because they did go to the moon. FErs opinions don't change that fact.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 01:30:05 PM

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 01:26:03 PM

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

How could you possibly make that argument?  We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us.  Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.

I'm sorry, it can't be proven though, because they did go to the moon. FErs opinions don't change that fact.

See?  This is exactly what I was talking about.

You would think with all the advanced telescopes that we have today, somebody would just point one at the moon, with a high magnification and resolution, and take a picture of the original landing site.  The flag is still there right?  I'm sure NASA would provide the coordinates of the landing.  That would pretty much prove or disprove whether or not it was a hoax or not.  So lets do it!

Before somebody says it, I'm not talking about the home telescopes that the average Joe can set up on the roof of his house, I'm referring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Binocular_Telescope

People have talked about doing something like this for 40 years.

Interesting we don't have any pictures from the private sector of any of the landing sites.

It might be a good idea to request pictures of the site to be taken through such a telescope. That could end discussion once and for all.

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 01:26:03 PM

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

How could you possibly make that argument?  We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us.  Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.

This is exactly the crap im talking about...your full of fecal matter. Pleas show us, its all were asking.  I showed you mine, now show me yours!

Stir up the pot.

The problem is you have NOTHING! ZILCH! NADA!

yet you make fantastic arguments out of thin air!

My guess to why its never been done is because most people accept that the moon landing was not faked and see no reason to prove that it wasn't faked.  The photos showing the moon walk is enough proof for most of the population.  Therefore they do not feel they need to prove it with further evidence.  The small population that believes it was faked, such as some of the people on this site, obviously are not convinced by the evidence given.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 28, 2008, 01:30:05 PM

Quote from: Farva on August 28, 2008, 01:26:03 PM

Quote from: narcberry on August 28, 2008, 01:10:49 PM

I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't ask such a stupid question.

seriously....when someone says "I believe the lunar landing was real" you say its fake.  When they provide documentation proving that theory, you call them a liar.  When they ask you for your solid evidence, you ignore them.

Ive never met a more pessimistic group of people in my life.

I'm willing to bet, that sending you to the moon, wouldn't sway your thinking in the least bit.  Somehow, someway, you'll still try to prove its fake.

How could you possibly make that argument?  We're the ones who prefer to trust our own senses over the word of what other people tell us.  Really, I think if it were proven that the moon landings were fake, you REers would still try to prove it was real.

This is exactly the crap im talking about...your full of fecal matter. Pleas show us, its all were asking.  I showed you mine, now show me yours!

Stir up the pot.

The problem is you have NOTHING! ZILCH! NADA!

yet you make fantastic arguments out of thin air!

Show you what? 

Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago.  Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.

You'd be surprised what they could find out.

Please forgive me if this has been done before, if it has I am unaware.

They could examine the ink to see if it ever expanded in the presence of a vacuum. That could prove the pictures hadn't even been to space.

Another suggestion: forensic technology today is far more advanced than it was 40 years ago.  Has anybody considered having the photo of the earth from space analyzed to see if it has either been altered, or if the picture is merely of another picture of an artists rendition of the earth from space.

For the non-digital tools available at the time, photo realistic artistry was pretty advanced 40 years ago. Photo realistic artistry was also pretty advanced 400 years ago.

http://www.area51zone.com/gallery/big/236.shtml#

Can you tell that the image above is a painting?

http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/26/photorealistic-painting/

What about that one? Can you tell that the finished photo is a painting?

If the picture was taken from space, it doesn't necessarily mean the film was in a vacuum.  Also I don't think film uses ink, though I'm not an expert.

In order to analyze you would probably need the negative, maybe it's at the national archives.  Also you would need a forensic scientist, possibly a grad student in the field of forensic science specializing in photography.  It shouldn't be too hard to find, money talks too.  

Personally I prefer the telescope method.  The link I gave to that telescope is a joint project involving the University of Arizona, why don't you give their astronomy department a call?