Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?

What this mainly proves is that some people try to prove that man didn't go on the Moon. They've failed. So we did land on the Moon and the countless photos, rocks and data brought back are to be considered as valid.

If really you have proofs that the Moon landings were fake, be our guests and show them. Otherwise, what we have can be considered as proofs (films, testimony from astronauts, scientists, reflector on the Moon, data from satellites showing objects left on the Moon, etc).

Quote from: ClockTower on December 18, 2011, 11:40:06 PM

Quote from: http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
      CONFIRMED
The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

How does this prove that man landed on the Moon?

Very well, thank you for asking.

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment at particular locations. The MythBusters confirmed this for one location. That's a whole lot better proof about anything FE has. For example, FET can't even argue for bendy light without make a special pleading fallacy.

In RET the same people would have you believe that sunlight bounces off the surface of the moon towards earth. Why would a laser not bounce off the surface? The moon is shiny. Just because one location bounced it off somewhere else and they have found another location that they know sends the laser right back at you, doesn't prove there is a reflector there. It only proves a laser bounced back from the moon.

In RET the same people would have you believe that sunlight bounces off the surface of the moon towards earth. Why would a laser not bounce off the surface? The moon is shiny. Just because one location bounced it off somewhere else and they have found another location that they know sends the laser right back at you, doesn't prove there is a reflector there. It only proves a laser bounced back from the moon.

Obviously you didn't read that post or watch that segment.

When off-center from the reflector, the laser does not reflect back. The reflector is where the Apollo program documented they left it. The reflector returns a beam of such quality and strength that we can rule out a natural source. Oh, and the delay in return signal matches RET's 240,000 miles as the shortest distance to the Moon.

Hey, if the MythBusters confirmed it, then I'm convinced.

Oh come on ClockTower, you know Thork is a troll.

Quote from: Mizuki on December 18, 2011, 01:47:13 AM

Quote from: zarg on December 17, 2011, 06:02:57 PM

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2713238

This is a fair rebuttal of that picture. Kudos to the fellas on that site.

Mizuki x

Now read this:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html

or this :

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/

Thank you EmperorZhark for those links.

But please believe me when i say that i have read many of the debunking of the moon hoax sites.

As a big fan of Charles Fort, i really think this quote of his is very fitting for this whole subject: 'For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.'

Mizuki x

Quote from: Thork on December 19, 2011, 08:26:50 AM

In RET the same people would have you believe that sunlight bounces off the surface of the moon towards earth. Why would a laser not bounce off the surface? The moon is shiny. Just because one location bounced it off somewhere else and they have found another location that they know sends the laser right back at you, doesn't prove there is a reflector there. It only proves a laser bounced back from the moon.

Obviously you didn't read that post or watch that segment.

When off-center from the reflector, the laser does not reflect back. The reflector is where the Apollo program documented they left it. The reflector returns a beam of such quality and strength that we can rule out a natural source. Oh, and the delay in return signal matches RET's 240,000 miles as the shortest distance to the Moon.

Hey, if the MythBusters confirmed it, then I'm convinced.

Google "Mythbusters mistakes". There are over 1,000,000 results. Hardly a reliable source ... a TV show for kids. Subrena the Teenage Witch is a TV show for kids, but it doesn't mean that girl can do magic ... maybe in the bedroom, but I digress.

And your other source is NASA. You have been here long enough to know anything those men say is purely spin to embellish the round earth fairy tale.

I don't believe their laser story any more than I believe that they brought back moon rock.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
NASA are not a reliable source of information. They lie!

Oh come on ClockTower, you know Thork is a troll.

Why do you think you know more about this site than ClockTower? He has 10 times as many posts as you. He's had a lot longer to figure things out. He's still confused about earth's shape, but it doesn't mean your conclusions are any better. A troll is someone who adds nothing to debate. Someone who tries to drag the debate off topic. Someone who makes low content posts. Someone who only posts to flame or insult another user. These are the things you are doing.
Trolls do not make 6000 posts, become part of a community, allow people to find out their identity, study the subject of the site, provide references, content and points to a discussion. A troll is not someone you happen to disagree with.
When you post like that, you should be careful who you label a troll because you look so hypocritical.

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.

NASA mysteriously modifies its equipment "just enough" yet again! I'm sure the administrator himself did it, too!

NASA mysteriously modifies its equipment "just enough" yet again! I'm sure the administrator himself did it, too!

It's a NASA project. If we don't trust them with the first Apollo, why should we trust them with this 'APOLLO'?

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

NASA could have easily modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.

Of course, every time you have to invoke the Conspiracy, RET wins. I thank you for the concession.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2011, 10:35:02 AM

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

NASA could have easily modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.

Of course, every time you have to invoke the Conspiracy, RET wins. I thank you for the concession.

The Mythbusters went to NASA and looked at a figure on a NASA computer and concluded that NASA was honest about everything.

That's what you guys are saying happened here.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 10:52:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2011, 10:35:02 AM

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

NASA could have easily modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.

Of course, every time you have to invoke the Conspiracy, RET wins. I thank you for the concession.

The Mythbusters went to NASA and looked at a figure on a NASA computer and concluded that NASA was honest about everything.

That's what you guys are saying happened here.

You seem to be repeating yourself. We do appreciate when you concede, but you need do it only once.

In RET the same people would have you believe that sunlight bounces off the surface of the moon towards earth. Why would a laser not bounce off the surface? The moon is shiny. Just because one location bounced it off somewhere else and they have found another location that they know sends the laser right back at you, doesn't prove there is a reflector there. It only proves a laser bounced back from the moon.

Today I learned Thork believes light only reflects off of shiny things.

I wonder what kind of glasses he wears.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 10:52:17 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2011, 10:35:02 AM

The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

NASA could have easily modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.

Of course, every time you have to invoke the Conspiracy, RET wins. I thank you for the concession.

The Mythbusters went to NASA and looked at a figure on a NASA computer and concluded that NASA was honest about everything.

That's what you guys are saying happened here.

That's never what we said. How can you be so dishonest?

Anyway most of the explainations given by the debunkers of the Moon conspiracy seem to convince everyone. You've better come with something better than 2 photos.

NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted

Here Tom, go back to this page and scroll down to "published information". Could you please look these over and point out where and how NASA could have managed to inject its false-data-generator?

Right now I'm looking at the first PDF listed there. It's quite extensive in describing how the various parts of the equipment were built and who built them. However, there isn't any mention of NASA except for a short thanks at the bottom; it seems they were responsible for absolutely nothing but funding.

But I'm clearly not as gifted a researcher as you. You said NASA could have done this easily, so I'm sure you readily have some additional information on their influence. Care to enlighten?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 19, 2011, 10:35:02 AM

NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted

Here Tom, go back to this page and scroll down to "published information". Could you please look these over and point out where and how NASA could have managed to inject its false-data-generator?

Right now I'm looking at the first PDF listed there. It's quite extensive in describing how the various parts of the equipment were built and who built them. However, there isn't any mention of NASA except for a short thanks at the bottom; it seems they were responsible for absolutely nothing but funding.

But I'm clearly not as gifted a researcher as you. You said NASA could have done this easily, so I'm sure you readily have some additional information on their influence. Care to enlighten?

Why would you expect to find a document with anything like "software modified to produce false data by NASA Conspirator #702"?

It's a project funded by NASA, and therefore cannot be used in support of NASA's honesty.

It's a project funded by NASA, and therefore cannot be used in support of NASA's honesty.

Would you care to fund your own independent lunar laser range finding experiment to refute the results of the NASA funded experiments?

NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves.

So the software for faking this was written by one of the four NASA top men themselves? Because you love to claim that they're the only ones who know about the conspiracy, and you couldn't fake software like that without knowing you were making a duff program.

Why would you expect to find a document with anything like "software modified to produce false data by NASA Conspirator #702"?

No, I expect you to point out which phase of development could have conceivably been influenced by NASA. If you'll look through the documents, it tells you how everything works and which organizations were actually physically in charge of putting it together. None of those organizations are part of NASA.

It's a project funded by NASA, and therefore cannot be used in support of NASA's honesty.

Okay, I'll be honest. I stared at this sentence for a full minute or two trying to comprehend the thought process behind it and came up empty. I literally don't understand why you think this. I'm speechless.

NASA Conspirator #702

Oh, is that how many of them there are now?

Foiled at last Tom.

No, I expect you to point out which phase of development could have conceivably been influenced by NASA. If you'll look through the documents, it tells you how everything works and which organizations were actually physically in charge of putting it together. None of those organizations are part of NASA.

All of the phases were influenced by NASA. NASA is the customer and can easily say "we want the software to be developed by our external team" or "we want NASA employee John Smith to head this program".

When the government funds projects they don't just say "here's several million dollars, go wild", they go into it with clear rules and structure.

Some of the people on this project even freely identify themselves as working for NASA. From the press releases on the APOLLO website (second one down in the list of press releases):

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/06may_lunarranging/

"Lunar laser ranging is one of the most important tools we have for searching for flaws in Einstein's general theory of relativity," says Slava Turyshev, a research scientist at JPL who works with Jim Williams and others on the project.

Jim Williams is also a JPL employee --

"Jim Williams, a physicist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)"

In the same article it's also admitted that the lunar ranging software was developed by NASA's JPL facility:

"Williams and Turyshev have recently received a grant from NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research to improve JPL's lunar laser ranging analysis software by an order of magnitude to match the capability of the New Mexico site. "It will be necessary to deal with many small effects at the millimeter level," notes Turyshev."

Okay, I'll be honest. I stared at this sentence for a full minute or two trying to comprehend the thought process behind it and came up empty. I literally don't understand why you think this. I'm speechless.

It's really quite simple.

- The project is funded by NASA
- The project is controlled by NASA, by virtue of being funded by them
- NASA scientists are working on the project
- The software for the project is admitted to come from NASA

According to this press release, James Williams, the aforementioned JPL stoogie, is directing the research ---

''Finding out what's inside the Moon isn't simple,'' said Dr. James G. Williams, who directs the research.

Seems that NASA is not only providing the software, they're directing the research as well.

Foiled at last Tom.

Who was I kidding?

All of the phases were influenced by NASA. NASA is the customer and can easily say "we want the software to be developed by our external team" or "we want NASA employee John Smith to head this program".

Except that isn't what happened. Stop making shit up.

NASA was not "the customer". They, among others, were supporters. It isn't the same thing.

Did you even read the document? Here is a direct link this time: http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/0710.0890v2.pdf

Some of the people on this project even freely identify themselves as working for NASA.

They're researchers working with the equipment. They didn't build it. There's a difference. Stay focused. Read the document.

In the same article it's also admitted that the lunar ranging software was developed by NASA's JPL facility:

"Williams and Turyshev have recently received a grant from NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research to improve JPL's lunar laser ranging analysis software by an order of magnitude to match the capability of the New Mexico site. "It will be necessary to deal with many small effects at the millimeter level," notes Turyshev."

Read that back to yourself again Tom. They are talking about improving their OWN system to MATCH the one at Apache Point. It isn't the same thing. Perhaps you should read the document.

- The project is funded by NASA

Correct.

- The project is controlled by NASA, by virtue of being funded by them

Incorrect.

- NASA scientists are working on the project

Correct. But they didn't design it.

- The software for the project is admitted to come from NASA

Incorrect. The software was written by a man named Russel Owen:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/

The source code is freely available for download here:

http://www.apo.nmsu.edu/35m_operations/TUI-images/


Stop making shit up.

Except that isn't what happened. Stop making shit up.

NASA was not "the customer". They, among others, were supporters. It isn't the same thing.

If NASA is funding the project that makes them the customer. The website clearly says that NASA is funding the project. The text at the bottom of the from page says that NASA is both funding and supporting the project.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/

"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."

Did you even read the document? Here is a direct link this time: http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/0710.0890v2.pdf

What am I supposed to be looking for in this document? Jim Williams, Slava Turyshev, Dale Boggs and Jean Dickey, are JPL employees. They're even listed on the APOLLO homepage as being JPL employees.

They're researchers working with the equipment. They didn't build it. There's a difference. Stay focused. Read the document.

The APOLLO homepage lists only JPL people as working on the LLR modeling and analysis. They were in a position to manipulate the results.

Quote

In the same article it's also admitted that the lunar ranging software was developed by NASA's JPL facility:

"Williams and Turyshev have recently received a grant from NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research to improve JPL's lunar laser ranging analysis software by an order of magnitude to match the capability of the New Mexico site. "It will be necessary to deal with many small effects at the millimeter level," notes Turyshev."

Read that back to yourself again Tom. They are talking about improving their OWN system to MATCH the one at Apache Point. It isn't the same thing. Perhaps you should read the document.

At the time of the article there was no Apache Point Lunar Laser. They're talking about improving the software to match the new capabilities of the new laser.

From the article ---

"Current lunar laser ranging can measure the distance to the Moon--roughly 385,000 km--with an error of about 1.7 cm. Beginning this fall, a new facility funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation will boost this accuracy 10-fold to within only 1 to 2 mm."

Later on in the article --

"Williams and Turyshev have recently received a grant from NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research to improve JPL's lunar laser ranging analysis software by an order of magnitude to match the capability of the New Mexico site."

It's clearly talking about improving the JPL software for the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.

Why would they be improving the software for an old inferior laser which can't match the new capabilities? 

Quote

- The project is controlled by NASA, by virtue of being funded by them

Incorrect.

Neither NASA or any government entity would fund a project without rules and expectations. Is that how you think funding works? A government agency comes along and hands you a check and says go wild?

Quote

- NASA scientists are working on the project

Correct. But they didn't design it.

They claim it's a consumer laser. They admit the software was provided by JPL, improving on old LLR software.

Incorrect. The software was written by a man named Russel Owen:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/rowen/

The source code is freely available for download here:

http://www.apo.nmsu.edu/35m_operations/TUI-images/

That's not the Lunar Ranging software. That's the software for the optical telescopes at the Apache Point Observatory. The project we're talking about here is the lunar laser experiment.

If you download the program you can see an interface for camera exposure settings, etc.

TUI and STUI are the optical guidance programs for the 3.5 and 2.5 inch telescopes. Nothing about "lasers" is mentioned in any of those links. The APOLLO laser is an attachment for the 3.5 inch telescope, but this isn't the interface. Nothing about lasers or lunar ranging is mentioned on the sites you provided.

What am I supposed to be looking for in this document? Jim Williams, Slava Turyshev, Dale Boggs and jean Dickey, all referenced in the document, are from JPL. They're even listed on the APOLLO homepage as being JPL employees.

I know this is difficult for you Tom, but what I'm asking you to do is actually read it, as opposed to pushing Ctrl+F and typing in NASA-related words and pretending you've learned something. NASA did not oversee the design or construction of any of the equipment.

The paper goes into detail about how everything works and who built it. I'm asking you to point out which part was sabotaged by NASA and explain who did it and how.

Quote

They're researchers working with the equipment. They didn't build it. There's a difference. Stay focused. Read the document.

The APOLLO homepage lists the JPL people, and the JPL people only, as working on the LLR modeling and analysis. They were clearly in a position to manipulate the results.

Okay, so all the people who designed and built the equipment never realized it was actually a useless hunk of metal. They just built it and left it alone collecting dust until they finally handed it off to these four guys who pretend it works.

Sounds reasonable. 

Do you even know what "LLR modeling and analysis" entails? How and when do they manipulate results without anyone noticing? Do you seriously believe that because these four people are listed on the site, they are the only people who have ever tested the equipment?

I hate to break it to you, but the worker who performed the test for Mythbusters was Russet McMillan, who is not any of those four from JPL.

That's not the Lunar Ranging software. That's the software for the optical telescopes at the Apache Point Observatory. The project we're talking about here is APOLLO.

Hey Tom, would it kill you to read the document? The project it's talking about is APOLLO too.

Here's the bit about the software that controls APOLLO:

7. Software Control
The overall control scheme consists of a hardware control computer (HCC), an instrument
control computer (ICC), and a telescope-user interface (TUI: Owen 2007).

I apologize for not being thorough. There are actually two software components working in tandem here. There's TUI, by Russell Owen, which is what I just gave you the source code to, and then there's the ICC software. So let's find out who wrote the ICC software. How might we do that? Oh, I know. We could read the document. Here's part of the acknowledgements section, on page 34:

... Other APO staff, especially Jon Brinkmann, Jon Davis, Craig Loomis, Fritz Stauffer,
and Dave Woods have been helpful in getting APOLLO off the ground. Russell Owen wrote the ICC software, for which we are entirely grateful. Russet McMillan has performed many of the APOLLO observations ...

Oh.

Stop making shit up.

The ICC isn't coordinating ranging activity. According to the document the HCC coordinates the ranging activity. The ICC moderates communication between the TUI guidance program and the HCC.

See the bolded below ---

SOFTWARE CONTROL

The overall control scheme consists of a hardware control computer (HCC), an instrument control computer (ICC), and a telescope-user interface (TUI).9 The TUI is a highly capable and versatile platform developed for the operation and control of telescopes at APO. The TUI was specifically engineered to be augmented for control of various observatory instruments, and APOLLO utilized this framework for its interface. The TUI expects to communicate with an ICC, but we did not want to burden the actual HCC with the ICC communications tasks, so placed a separate ICC machine between the TUI and the HCC. The ICC is then free to perform additional tasks including web service and video streaming without compromising the near real-time performance of the HCC.

7.1. Hardware Control

The HCC is implemented as a Pentium III machine running the Redhat 7.2 distribution of Linux. This machine hosts CAMAC, GPIB, and RS-232 serial interfaces, and incorporates a National Instruments 6031E 64-channel 16-bit analog-to-digital converter and 8-channel digital I/O card. The CAMAC interface is responsible for communication with the TDC and the ACM. The GPIB interface communicates with the XL-DC GPS-disciplined clock and the New Focus 8731 optics actuation controller. Serial interfaces are used to command the laser electronics rack, control the T/R optic drive motor, read the laser power meter, and interface to the SBIG STV CCD controller. Analog inputs are used to read the RTD temperatures, flow meters and flow alarms, laser pulse energy, and telescope tilt-meter. The eight digital outputs are used to activate a configurable set of power relays for turning equipment on and off. A terminal server provides additional RS-232 interfaces to the chillers, a few programmable resistors for remote actuation of potentiometer “knobs,” and also provides control of additional power relays for device activation.

Because the HCC has access to all temperature and flow data, as well as command of the power states of the various APOLLO devices, the HCC controls the temperature of the system. This allows a “smart” approach to thermal control: upper and lower set points; programmable hysteresis, and anticipatory action when powering up for a run. Also running in the background is a check on the XL-DC oscillator statistics—updated every 10 s. Tracking this information allows a reconstruction of the discrete steps in frequency introduced to keep the average oscillator rate in agreement with the GPS time reference. All such background data appends a log that is archived and renewed daily.

The primary function of the HCC is to coordinate ranging activity. Various operational states are defined in the HCC control software. For example, in the RUN state, the HCC commands the T/R mirror to spin-up, performs the TDC calibration, then configures the ACM to flash the laser according to the T/R motor’s encoder/index pulses. Once the laser is firing, CAMAC interrupts alert the HCC that new data is available, at which point the TDC and ACM counter values are read, the pulse energy is read, and the gate time for the associated lunar return is queued. On a CAMAC interrupt associated with a lunar event, the TDC and ACM values are recorded, and the next queued gate time is deployed to the ACM. The primary timing events thus are read at a 40 Hz rate. Slower and less time-critical activities—such as serial and GPIB communications to devices—are threaded so that they do not block the primary activity. At the end of the RUN sequence—usually a fixed number of laser shots—the HCC performs a final TDC calibration.

Other states are defined, including those to warm up or cool down the apparatus, perform in-dome ranging simulations, stare at a star with the APD, obtain dark or flat fields from the APD, calibrate the TDC both with and without the laser firing, and measure the average laser power. Each state creates a data file containing a summary of the device configuration and all associated data, including background environmental data that also populate the log file.

Did Russel Owen program the HCC as well? I think not. The Lunar Ranging Software came from JPL, just as it says in the press release article.

It's the hardware software which needed to be modified to account for the new sensitivity and capability of the new laser, as which is what was described in the press release.

I know this is difficult for you Tom, but what I'm asking you to do is actually read it, as opposed to pushing Ctrl+F and typing in NASA-related words and pretending you've learned something. NASA did not oversee the design or construction of any of the equipment.

The paper goes into detail about how everything works and who built it. I'm asking you to point out which part was sabotaged by NASA and explain who did it and how.

The paper goes into how the parts are laid out, but does not go into who built what or who programed the HCC software.

The press release I linked says that JPL provided the hardware software. I'm inclined to agree.

Okay, so all the people who designed and built the equipment never realized it was actually a useless hunk of metal. They just built it and left it alone collecting dust until they finally handed it off to these four guys who pretend it works.

I wouldn't be surprised if JPL was involved in the construction. They provided the hardware control software after all. And as such they would need to know something on how it's constructed, needing to be extremely close to the builders if not building it themselves.

Do you even know what "LLR modeling and analysis" entails? How and when do they manipulate results without anyone noticing? Do you seriously believe that because these four people are listed on the site, they are the only people who have ever tested the equipment?

Well, since a NASA employee directed the research, I don't think they'd have a problem with "anyone noticing."

It also says right there at the end --

"Jim Williams and Dale Boggs of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory performed frequent verification of our prediction quality."

They were there, making sure the predictions met up with "observations".

I hate to break it to you, but the worker who performed the test for Mythbusters was Russet McMillan, who is not any of those four from JPL.

According to the site she's just an operator who runs the tests from the GUI.

She is mentioned only once from the document you supplied --

"Russet McMillan has performed many of the APOLLO observations."

That's probably what all of these students who intern on NASA projects do - some trivial task of no great importance, so they could add the word "NASA" into their resume and NASA can advertise that they're "reaching out" to universities in order to continue the charade of being a scientific organization. Students have the honor of writing concept papers for how a real space ship/space station/space probe/laser ranging device might work, making concept art, and pressing buttons from a user interface for the press, but likely nothing beyond that. It's basically free labor for NASA to perpetuate their scam.