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

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Illustronic

 

A lazar can be bounced of the moon no reflector nessessary.
Quicker also. The reflector can move and screw up the readings. moot

Wrong, radar can be bounced off the moon for measuring distance but due to the spread of the radar and the lunar topography it is not nearly as accurate as laser reflection from the mirrors, and yes you need the mirrors for that. An older and even less accurate means of measuring distances is the parallax, or triangulation method but that is dubious as other measurements need to be known to get any figures, inaccuracies with this method can be at magnitudes of earth diameter inaccurate, radar as much as 300 meters inaccurate, laser within 3 centimeters accurate.

What do you mean the mirrors move? Tidal, lunar rotation, earth reflecting point rotation, plate tectonics? How much movement takes place in 2 and a half seconds? You think this isn't accounted for? There is nothing on the moon to move the mirrors in the nano second the light hits it, conclusion, moot.

About the quicker comment, an average radar distance method can take months to measure, laser less than 3 seconds. So you're wrong about that too.

reply to post by Illustronic


Hi ILLLUSTRONICS

www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lr... - Similarto Apollo 11 Laser Ranging

Apollo 11 Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment Retroreflector Experiment
These reflectors can be illuminated by laser beams aimed through large ... of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 ...

Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometers in diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometers in diameter when it returns to Earth. Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for several hours at a time.


If the beam is seven k in dia. that tiny mirror ain't doin much.
Several hours is pretty slow according to your calculations.
try again ljb

Real, and we can go there. I'm just not going to pack a up a suit and wear it when I'm on the moon.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
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

My God what a stupid PROOF Everything man made on the moon, was brought there by robotic missions to the moon.

en.wikipedia.org...

Who or what brought the lunar rocks back?

Originally posted by wildespace
Who or what brought the lunar rocks back?

The lunar rocks were found on Earth

en.wikipedia.org...

www.google.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Hi,

a question for you the experts:

is this video considered as original, unedited, form the 60s?

Apollo 11 Moon Landing NASA Original Footage. One Small Step for Man_ One Giant
www.youtube.com...

After watching it, I just realized it answers the big question about how they did it!

Unfortunately, it itselfs answers that the video that you were watching as real, was fake. Regadless if they arrived to the moon or not in that time.

but first, is this a valid video for all? an original video, unedited, from the 60s?

best regards

originally posted by: eriktheawful

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

I don't know if Kubrick had a hand in any moon footage but I do know that, if he did, it would be silly of him to use the same lunar surface he had used in his film, he would want to use something that didn't look like a movie prop/set. He'd want it to look authentic. Remember, if they really did fake this, it had to be plausible...

originally posted by: alcub
Hi,

a question for you the experts:

is this video considered as original, unedited, form the 60s?

Apollo 11 Moon Landing NASA Original Footage. One Small Step for Man_ One Giant
www.youtube.com...

After watching it, I just realized it answers the big question about how they did it!

Unfortunately, it itselfs answers that the video that you were watching as real, was fake. Regadless if they arrived to the moon or not in that time.

but first, is this a valid video for all? an original video, unedited, from the 60s?

best regards

Which part of the video you refer to? (because the video itself is a documentary full of various bits of footage and photos). If you're referring to the footage of Armstrong stepping off the ladder, yes, it's unedited, although it's a copy of the original tape.

The documentary actually includes footage from other Apollo missions (driving the rover, bouncing and singing, a huge boulder), so the video as a whole isn't accurate.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: eriktheawful

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

I don't know if Kubrick had a hand in any moon footage but I do know that, if he did, it would be silly of him to use the same lunar surface he had used in his film, he would want to use something that didn't look like a movie prop/set. He'd want it to look authentic. Remember, if they really did fake this, it had to be plausible...

Why would he want the 2001 moon set to look like a prop and unathentic?

You're just making leaps of logic in your post, with nothing substantial to support it.

originally posted by: alcub
Hi,

a question for you the experts:

is this video considered as original, unedited, form the 60s?

Apollo 11 Moon Landing NASA Original Footage. One Small Step for Man_ One Giant
www.youtube.com...

After watching it, I just realized it answers the big question about how they did it!

Unfortunately, it itselfs answers that the video that you were watching as real, was fake. Regadless if they arrived to the moon or not in that time.

but first, is this a valid video for all? an original video, unedited, from the 60s?

best regards

It is absolutely, positively NOT unedited footage. No offense, but my mind as actually boggled that you would even think to ask this. This video is not intended as a historical document. It is a public affairs fluff-piece put together to try to stir public support at a time (the late 70s) when the agency was at it's lowest point (The budget was gutted, Apollo was cancelled and the Shuttle wouldn't fly for years). Everything else in it is a montage of clips from historical film & video footage and pans of still photos (including stuff from other missions) taken years apart with some stock footage and animation put in.

In the "first step" footage, the video is not synched with the audio (Wildespace is mistaken about it being unedited, above). The video shows Neil jumping down from the ladder to the footpad for the 2nd time - He had already jumped down and then jumped back up to the first rung to make sure there would be no problem with that. After the 2nd jump down, Neil spent about a minute standing in the footpad describing the surface as he saw it. About a minute later he announced he was stepping off the LM and then said, "That's one small step..." This is the audio that is super-imposed over the 2nd jump (The actual step is kind of tough to see since his foot is out of the frame and he's only picking it up and moving it to the side a foot or so and then replanting it).

Apollo 11 EVA footage (Part 1)

So no, although it uses some historical footage (in an altered state), it is not "original, unedited" and was never intended to be taken as such.

Hope this helps.

a reply to: wildespace

Thank you all for all your clarification and deep information.


The effect used in the moon landing is: Transparency, videos over video.


The video when Armstrong is descending the ladder is the key of all, because human body is not transparent.

You can see, throught Armstrong´s suit, the mountain background When the video is running.

The effect used is simple transparent video over video.

It was a basic video effect available then. And today it is a common effect you watch now in TV, internet videos, memes, etc.

Then, it was like watching a movie.

But the genial part is that people were watching transparent black and white videos effect with audio communication.
(videoconference existed decades before it)

Analize the moon landing video over video with transparency, then you can see the full movie:
-each video has their own reflections, like the back of the suit shows external reflections when lifting the astronaut.
-video can be coded, decoded, delivered on the earth.
-stations receives video with high frame rate.
-black and white transparent videos help to hide any other effects -like human interactions- from first sight.
-available for conversion in different formats, and broadcast globally.
-controlled environment, broadcast one signal from anywhere.
-people interacts in the videos about the scenary, via audio line:

-makes understable some dialogs. For example, common coded instructions between the capcom and astronauts to move the scenary's inclination, position,etc, indicated in clear numbers and feet, as example the dialog -with photos-, during [04 13 37 08, 04 13 43,05] between Armstrong, Aldrin, McCandless-capcom in apollo11.spacelog.org...:06:46:06/ , and other examples during and after that mission. ..or in other missions.


-plus: Landscape is key.

Key question is: How they knew the exact landscape of the moon landing months/years in advance with that accuracy?

In that time, telescopes couldn't get the moon's landscape with accuracy of inches.

It is understable they made training simulations of the landing, but:

If the landscape of the video = landscape of the simulation, then it is a simulation.



Armstrong in the ladder, it shows the moon landing special effect: Transparent video over video, with audio communications.


best

a reply to: alcub
Transparency in Apollo 11 footage has been explained a while ago: www.quora.com...

This is a camera artifact called image lag, typical of certain television pickup tubes of the era, including the Vidicon tube used in the Apollo TV Camera.

This type of camera tube projects a scene onto a photoconductive target, creating a charge-density pattern which is then scanned to create the electric TV signal. The electrical charge remains present on the target until it is re-scanned or the charge dissipates. The image lag causes a characteristic smear or tail following fast-moving objects in a scene, and prolonged exposure of a bright stationary object results in a slow decaying after-image that looks like a ghost or x-ray effect.

Vidicon TV camera is well-known for producing "ghosting"


www.youtube.com...

Unless those footprints were made by giants that reflector looks to be impossibly small to lock onto over such a distance. But I'm no laser specialist so I'll leave it at that.

Enjoy this explains it all

originally posted by: alcub
a reply to: wildespace

The effect used in the moon landing is: Transparency, videos over video.

The video when Armstrong is descending the ladder is the key of all, because human body is not transparent.

You can see, throught Armstrong´s suit, the mountain background When the video is running.

The effect used is simple transparent video over video.

It was a basic video effect available then. And today it is a common effect you watch now in TV, internet videos, memes, etc.

This fails on many levels, starting with the most common CT mistake of them all: You see something you don't understand, or is not what you expect, and automatically assume it is evidence of fakery. It just never occurs to these people (indeed, it is utterly inconceivable) that their expectations may be wrong, or that they might be misunderstanding what they are looking at.

You saw transparency and automatically assumed it was a special effect. It didn't occur to you that it could be a camera artifact that was very common that those of us who remember television from that era. Wildespace's dartboard video decisively illustrates this. So decisively that I won't even bother to ask why you think your imagined sinister villains in the mythical TV studio would have used a special effect during a shot of someone coming down a ladder, instead of just, you know, filming a man coming down a ladder.

Oh, and there ar no mountains visible in any of the film, video, still or overhead imagery of the Apollo 11 landing site.

Analize the moon landing video over video with transparency, then you can see the full movie:
-each video has their own reflections, like the back of the suit shows external reflections when lifting the astronaut.
-video can be coded, decoded, delivered on the earth.
-stations receives video with high frame rate.
-black and white transparent videos help to hide any other effects -like human interactions- from first sight.
-available for conversion in different formats, and broadcast globally.
-controlled environment, broadcast one signal from anywhere.
-people interacts in the videos about the scenary, via audio line:

Word salad. Not only are you ignorant of the video technology used, you also have no idea how the signal was transmitted, how it was received, or how the signal was relayed to TV stations. All of this information has been freely available since it happened, and you can still find old-timers who are happy to talk about it. But you didn't do any research - You just made-up a bunch of stuff. Try reading Live TV from the Moon by australian Dwight Steven Boniecki.

-makes understable some dialogs. For example, common coded instructions between the capcom and astronauts to move the scenary's inclination, position,etc, indicated in clear numbers and feet, as example the dialog -with photos-, during [04 13 37 08, 04 13 43,05] between Armstrong, Aldrin, McCandless-capcom in apollo11.spacelog.org...:06:46:06/ , and other examples during and after that mission. ..or in other missions.

The lunar TV cameras did not have monitors, so the astronauts could only point the camera that-away. They relied on input from people back on earth who could see the image the get the framing just right (and even then it was often a little off).

-plus: Landscape is key.

Key question is: How they knew the exact landscape of the moon landing months/years in advance with that accuracy?

In that time, telescopes couldn't get the moon's landscape with accuracy of inches.

What in heaven's name makes you think they had that sort of accuracy? Really? You make a preposterous claim with no support whatsoever, and then imply that it is suspicious. Also, I'm willing to bet that you are completely ignorant of how NASA actually imaged the prospective landing sites, using what instruments and to what resolution.

It is understable they made training simulations of the landing, but:

If the landscape of the video = landscape of the simulation, then it is a simulation.

So, If the landscape of the video =/= landscape of the simulation, then it is NOT a simulation?

The logical fallacy in your argument is kind of moot, since you have offered no comparison whatsoever between any simulation and the lunar landscape. Go ahead and try, but anyone who knows anything about the mission knows that Apollo 11 missed its targeted landing site by almost 3 miles down-range, so good luck with that.

originally posted by: Fermy
Unless those footprints were made by giants that reflector looks to be impossibly small to lock onto over such a distance. But I'm no laser specialist so I'll leave it at that.

It's not a matter of "locking on". By the time it reaches the Moon, the laser beam is hundreds of meters across. All but a few photons get either absorbed or scattered by the surface, but the LRRR causes a sharp, well-defined spike in the returned signal when the beam passes over it.

China recently bounced a laser off an LRRR. Link There is a small error in this article where it list only the three Apollo LRRRs and the Soviet LRRR on its Lunkhod 2 rover. Lunokhod 1 also had one, but the rover was lost in 1971. In 2010 the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter found this rover in an image. Physicists at UC San Diego were subsequently able to bounce a laser off of its LRRR. Link

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: eriktheawful

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

I don't know if Kubrick had a hand in any moon footage but I do know that, if he did, it would be silly of him to use the same lunar surface he had used in his film, he would want to use something that didn't look like a movie prop/set. He'd want it to look authentic. Remember, if they really did fake this, it had to be plausible...

Why would he want the 2001 moon set to look like a prop and unathentic?

You're just making leaps of logic in your post, with nothing substantial to support it.

I don't think you read my post properly. I was speculating that if Kubrick had filmed Apollo footagevwith the intention of fleecing the public then he wouldn't have used his moon prop from 2001.

a reply to: OptimusSubprime

During the Apollo 15 and 17 missions in 1971 and 1972, astronauts deployed probes to measure the moon's subsurface temperature and tried to quantify how much heat moves from the moon's core to its surface. Scientists expected these heat flow measurements would tell them whether the moon's core was hot like Earth's and how much heat the rocks of its crust and mantle could generate.

The probes measured temperatures at the moon's surface and a few meters down into its subsurface from 1971 to 1977. The raw temperature data was transmitted to NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston, where it was recorded on open-reel magnetic tapes. Technicians then gave the tapes to scientists involved in the mission who analyzed the data and archived them.

But when the heat flow experiments ended in 1977, only tapes from 1971 to 1974 were archived at the National Space Science Data Center, the NASA space science mission data archive at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The rest of the tapes, presumably still with the scientists who analyzed them, were never archived, and most have been lost ever since.

The missing tapes and the weekly performance logs gave the researchers enough new information to tease out a likely cause for the mysterious heating. The probes closer to the surface saw a greater temperature jump and saw it sooner than the probes deeper down, suggesting the heat started from the surface and moved downward.

The researchers also paired the new data with images of the moon's surface from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The images show the astronauts' activity disturbed the surface environment at their landing sites, which darkened the lunar soil in those areas. Darker soil absorbs more light from the sun, which makes it warmer, and the researchers suspect this is what caused the warming.

phys.org - Scientists solve lunar mystery with aid of missing moon tapes.

Even more evidence!

This time it was temperature probes placed around the areas. They lost data tapes for several years for over a decade. They found backup tapes warehoused (it did not say, but I think it is a pretty good bet that the Ark is there to! lol). After doing some due diligence they found out an explanation to the data they had seen.

The moon's temperature fluctuation was man-made!!

The surface was disturbed with all the walking, golfing, and 4 wheeling going on up there. That caused dark spots which led to surface temperature fluctuations. With a full data set they found that the likely solution was all the activity disturbed the surface which caused surface temps to rise which then moved downwards.