I hate to say it, but PROOF that the moon landing was real

Hello all... yes, I went and did it. I used the word PROOF in a thread title. I am usually on board with those that speak ill of using the "P" word, but in this case I think that it is justified. I have always found the arguments supporting the moon landing as a hoax to be interesting and fascinating, especially the most recent one posted here on ATS regarding the space suit, found HERE

To my point... I was watching the science channel last night, as I often do, and the show I was watching was about the moon and what Earth would be like if there were no moon. The show explained the various theories as to how the moon came to be, and what effect the moon actually has on the Earth. The show went on to explain how the moon is ever so slowly moving away from the Earth, and how one day that will have a catastrophic effect on the Earth.

During their first moonwalk in July 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts placed a retroreflector package, a complex mirror system, on the moon’s surface. A laser beam directed from Earth at the retroreflector would bounce off of it and back to Earth. The 240,000-mile round trip takes about 2.5 seconds.

These mirrors didn't get up there by themselves, and the fact that the University of Texas has been using them in their research further proves that the mirrors actually do exist on the moon. One way that UT uses them is to measure how fast and how far the moon is moving away from the Earth.

• the moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters a year because of the Earth’s ocean tides.

• the moon probably has a liquid core.

• the universal force of gravity is very stable. Newton’s gravitational constant G has changed less than one part in 100-billion since the laser experiments began. Just because the Moon will no longer be a target, it doesn’t mean that the Laser Ranging Station is shutting down.

The UT research program has been ended, but since 1971 UT has been bouncing lasers off of the moon mirrors, and this is well documented.



Here is a link to a YouTube video in case my embedding skills are lacking

Apollo 11 and the Texas laser rangers

What Neil and Buzz left on the moon

And why could the mirror have not been dropped off by a rocket? What defines this as proof? I don't think many will disagree with the fact that there is a mirror of some sorts, who knows maybe we are bouncing the laser off of the moon men's roof. But to say that it had to be placed there by humans is a little over stepping.

Originally posted by Vodo34861
And why could the mirror have not been dropped off by a rocket? What defines this as proof? I don't think many will disagree with the fact that there is a mirror of some sorts, who knows maybe we are bouncing the laser off of the moon men's roof. But to say that it had to be placed there by humans is a little over stepping.

If it were dropped off by a rocket it would have been pretty difficult to get it to land precisely where they wanted it placed. What would have been guiding the rocket? Speaking in terms of ordnance, rockets are unguided, which is what makes them different from missiles. I don't think that it is overstepping at all, and Humans placing a mirror on the moon is certainly more plausible than the laser bouncing off of the moon man's roof.

reply to post by Vodo34861


That's a good and valid point, but what would the point be to place footprints around the mirror, wouldn't circular wheels or tracks of some sort be a more efficient mobility mechanism than a seemingly random array of what appears to be footprints from boots? I also wonder what the point would be to photograph the mirror in place, it's not like it's position was 'eyeballed'. What is absent from the photo is other than footprints is the visual signatures of how the mirror got there, like a discharged landing house, signs of disturbed regolith by rocket powered soft landing, evidence of hard landing apparatus, or even the mechanized trails leading to the position the mirror is in.

So no one can argue the mirror placement being photographed, (apparently by another machine/rover/mechanized craft) does not prove human placement, just that the evidence of human placement from the image we see is much greater looking at the evidences left.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Surely a rocket could drop it off in the general vicinity? Then the lasers on earth can be directed/sited accordingly.

Its interesting but doesnt make for proof of man having been there in person.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

I wonder what the dissipation of a laser beam is over 480,000 miles and after its exit and re-entrance through a fairly murky atmosphere.... to say nothing about locating this tiny object over such a distance on a whizzing ball.

Why is it so hard for people to realize that both can be true at the same time? Stop falling into the traps of dualism on every darn issue...

Just because we actually landed on the moon does not mean that what people saw on television was not fake and staged by Stanley Kubrick (as documented by Jay Weidner's very interesting documentary "Kubrick's Odyssey Part 1" which can be found on torrent sites).

So the real question is; Why did they feel it necessary to fake it? Because of what they suspected or knew was up there perhaps?

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


The Russians landed a rover on the moon which had a similar reflector in its back and was able to be found with a laser from earth, so unfortunately, the NASA placed reflectors aren't proof men walked on the moon...

There's plenty of other evidence to suggest they have though, this just isn't it, or at least it's not accepted by the fake moon landing crowd.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

The Russians landed a rover on the moon which had a similar reflector in its back and was able to be found with a laser from earth, so unfortunately, the NASA placed reflectors aren't proof men walked on the moon...

There's plenty of other evidence to suggest they have though, this just isn't it, or at least it's not accepted by the fake moon landing crowd.

edit on 11/4/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

There are plenty of pictures of astronauts holding the mirrors and placing them in place on the moon's surface. Perhaps I should have posted them.

I am not stating the moon landings were a hoax or not BUT the existence of reflectors on the moon does not mean anybody put them there. The russians managed to get samples back from the moon which means it is entirely feasible to put a reflector on the moon using unmanned methods.

Proof of a manned mission has to use evidence that can ONLY ever be attributed to man being their. Otherwise it becomes a yet another bun fight between the believers and skeptics.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


All you have proof of is that there is a mirror on the moon. You are just inferring how it got there. The mirror was not placed in a precise spot that we predetermined before it got there.

I think there were probes sent to the moon to get moon rock before any manned landings so sending it up by an unmanned craft was not impossible.

Yes there may be mirrors on the moon, but there are also rovers on mars so this is not proof that these mirrors were put there by a actual human hands.

There is a interesting read about Stanley Kubrick being involved in any Moon Landing Hoaxes:

Stanley Kubrick is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollo 11 and 12, presumably because he had just directed 2001: A Space Odyssey which is partly set on the Moon and featured advanced special effects.[40] It has been claimed that when 2001 was in post-production in early 1968, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. The launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would remain in Earth orbit and fake footage broadcast as "live" from the Moon's surface. No evidence was offered for this theory, which ignores many facts. For example, 2001 was released before the first Apollo landing and Kubrick's depiction of the Moon's surface is vastly different from its appearance in Apollo video, film and photography. Kubrick did hire Frederick Ordway and Harry Lange, both of whom had worked for NASA and major aerospace contractors, to work with him on 2001. Kubrick also used some 50 mm f/0.7 lenses that were left over from a batch made by Zeiss for NASA. However, Kubrick only got this lens for Barry Lyndon (1975). The lens was originally a still-photo lens and needed changes to be used for motion filming. There is a mockumentary based on this idea, Dark Side of the Moon, but it could have fueled the conspiracy theory. There was a similar hoax article originally posted as a humor piece, but which has been quoted as in earnest by conspiracy theorist Clyde Lewis.[119]

Source

I especially like the part how his moon set for 2001 looked nothing like the photo's and video of the Apollo landings.

There is a very good read on the whole Moon Landing Conspiracy on the Wikipedia:

Wikipedia Moon Landing Conspiracy

People are missing the point that the mirrors themselves don't have to have been placed by man but look at the photo and there are no signs of a mechanized means of placing there and only signs of footprints, that is the observations that has been ignored so far in this thread except by me.

Explain that away.

reply to post by Illustronic


The pics could have been faked to make it seem that they were placed there during a manned moon landing. If we had indipendant pics taken after the mirrors arived on the moon and they showed foot prints then that would be much more credible in the proof department.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Illustronic

 

The pics could have been faked to make it seem that they were placed there during a manned moon landing. If we had indipendant pics taken after the mirrors arived on the moon and they showed foot prints then that would be much more credible in the proof department.

So you're saying we had the technology to launch a craft into orbit, fly to the moon, LAND on the moon and place mirrors there via robots but the idea of humans being on the craft is somehow preposterous?

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Read your reply over slowly, then tell me what sense it makes.



Photo taken at site reveals footprints, before the age of robotics on hydraulic appendages that move like human or animal appendages, not to mention NASA robotics in space is a decade distant from the time of the photo.

Would trust a third party photo, but not the original. How does that make sense?

Why wouldn't a third party fake a photo?

Why would the original party fake the photo?

You are right about one thing, a photo by anyone would have to occur after the 'mirrors arrived'.

reply to post by john_bmth


The logistics of a manned space mission compared to an unmanned probe are miles apart in difficulty. As people have pointed out in this thread we know that the Russian's sent probes to the moon that returned with samples of moon rock.

Mirrors on the moon doesnt prove that humans went there and placed them themselves. It just prooves theres mirrors on the moon.

reply to post by Illustronic


If NASA are lying about the manned moon landing then they would have motive to produce fake pics showing footprints around the mirrors.

I said a 3rd party pic showing footprints would be more credible but i didnt say they would be absolute proof. As like you say they could be faked also.

Originally posted by Illustronic
That's a good and valid point, but what would the point be to place footprints around the mirror, wouldn't circular wheels or tracks of some sort be a more efficient mobility mechanism than a seemingly random array of what appears to be footprints from boots?

Some will say that photo is another part of the hoax, not the real mirror just something set up in a sound stage so NASA can pass it off as the mirror left by the astronauts...

...it's a nutty explanation, I don't ascribe for one second to the moon hoax theory, but those who do will always find some way to explain away the much more simple and logical explanation that yes, indeed we went to the moon six times with twelve of our guys.

I still don't understand why it's so hard to believe for some that we went to the moon. Yes, it's an amazing feat, but well within the technology and science of the time. Sure, we had to push and expand our knowledge and technology to get there, but that's what we as a species do. We did it first with shipping and navigation on the seas, and in our time we are doing it in space.