by Black Man 89 Replies latest jw friends
What's harder than sending men to the moon is any agency of the US Government organizing and carrying out a clandestine conspiracy such as a fake moon landing and not getting caught.
When forthright with their intentions, this government can accomplish great things. But when they try to lie, steal and cheat their way through an operation, they usually fail miserably.
There is another super-secret tape recording from the Kremlin, which only I have, and I am now sharing it with the world.
"We now have evidence that will show that imperialist dogs never landed on the moon. Their effort was so feeble that any high school kid will be able to show that their landing was a fake. But hey! let's don't say anything about it. We would not want to create a problem between ourselves and the capitalist pigs. We'll just let the whole world think that they pulled off the greatest exploration since Columbus without a hitch. We'll just eat all that money we spent trying to beat them in space. It's no big deal."
Then how did this get there?
31 years after landing on the moon, an Apollo 11 science instrument still shines
For the past 30 years, a small reflective plate about 18 inches square has been sitting on the lunar surface quietly bouncing laser beams back to Earth. It continues to defy the predictions of some early Apollo planners who guessed the specialized mirror would quickly be buried in powdery moondust.
When Neil Armstrong placed and balanced the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector on the white ground just a few giant moonsteps from the site where the Eagle touched down, nobody could have known the device would be as useful at the turn of the 21st century as it was then. But thanks to its simple, non-mechanical design and an extraordinarily placid lunar world, scientists still use the reflector to follow the most miniscule wobbles in the moon's spin and orbit.
The Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector, or LRRR, was one of the two primary science packages deployed by the Apollo 11 astronauts [See accompanying article, MoonScience, for more on the others]. It was a flat configuration of special reflectors that possess the special property of always reflecting light back to its point of origin.
It was used to reflect laser beams back to Earth so scientists could make very precise measurements of Earth-Moon distances. Although the moon is on average about 238,000 miles (385,000 kilometers) away from Earth, scientists were able to measure the Earth-moon distance to an accuracy of about 1 1/4 inches (3 centimeters).
Before Apollo 11, only very rough measurements could be made.
The Apollo 11 retro-reflector and similar units left later by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions, and one Soviet lunar probe, have produced many important measurements. These instruments are the only Apollo experiments still working, and, according to Carroll Alley, the University of Maryland physicist who was principal investigator for the reflector experiment, "There seems to be no measurable degradation in their performance."
The reflector array allowed scientists to precisely measure the moon's orbit and spin rate, and the speed at which the moon is receding from Earth (about 1.5 inches or 3.8 centimeters per year). They also know more about Earth's spin and as a result of reflector data.
The measurements allow scientists to learn all kinds of things about the moon, from the thickness of its crust to the makeup of its iron core, to the motion of its axial wobble.
"We now have a lot of material about the moon, but the main goal was to study gravitational theory," Alley said.
At the time of the Apollo missions, there was some debate about what system of physics governed the motion of bodies in the solar system.
"The ability to monitor precise point-to-point distances allows one to determine if the Earth-Sun-Moon system is governed by Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian relativity or by some other system, such as the one advanced by Dr. Robert Henry Dickey," he said.
A Princeton University physicist, Dickey was a profound theorist who some believe narrowly missed winning a Nobel Prize. He advanced an alternative to Einstein's theory of general relativity that predicted certain characteristics about the moon's orbit around the Earth.
Dickey's theory had gained a certain amount of influence, but it required measurements to validate or defy it. Such measurements were made using the Apollo 11 retro-reflector.
The measurements that ultimately disproved Dickey's system may have been the most significant of the Apollo 11 science results, Alley said. These helped scientists understand what governs the motion of the solar system, and better understand the laws of gravity.
And all that from a shiny-topped tile sitting in the dust of the moon.
the moon is fake!
I always thought that due to light polution in the cities, we cant get a good view of the night sky. Last time I checked their are no cities on the moon to interfer. The physical characteristics of the moon's atmosphere (as it were) should not have the same affect of distorting light as the Earths atmosphere does.
What about the camera work of the first steps who shot that? Was the camera previously set up? Or did someone get out set up the camera and than tell us were watching the first steps on the moon? Either way you are not dealing with a 'live' shot and all these years we have been told that him coming down the ladder onto the moon, is the first steps. If it is a recreation of the first step why not say so? Instead they sell it to us as gospel just like the dubs sell their being chosen by christ. It always comes back to the dubs.
But if they were real, why hasn't NASA been able to send a man to the moon since the 1970s?
It's not that they aren't capable, they simply have no reason too. There were SIX manned moon landings, they played golf, and looked at some rocks... There's not much to do on a big rock, sure there are some minor things that would be interesting to check out, but not worth the huge amounts of money it costs to go there.
With all the stuff that's going on in space right now, it's obvious that we are capable of all sorts of things.
We've sent solar powered robots to mars, we have functioning manned space stations, space shuttles, privately owned spaceships.
It's simply not economical to send a man to the moon. Why send a human there, who needs food, bathrooms, companionship, air, and huge amounts of crap just to GET there, when you could send a robot to do the same thing better and cheaper?
Lore
Lucky for him Buzz wasn't younger.
I thought this whole thing was going to be put to bed when that Japanese moon surveyor took pics - that was two years ago and no pics.
I don't believe in the moon loanding and half the reason is that it winds up purists like AlanF. Its much more fun to see the potential hoax so here's my hoax evidences:
1/ Loads of excellent pictures - David Bailey quality - taken from a chest mounted ice cream tub contraption - get away with yourself you prunes - give me some headless pictures, accidental moonboots and a few thumbs over the lens and I might just give you some credence.
2/ Lack of radiation shielding - I'm probably mistaken but isn't the sun sending a massive stream of charged particles at the earth and the moon with one problem - the moon and its approach are not shielded. The only freckles on those astronauts are from Florida. They'd get bbqd in minutes - their suits are like some crepe paper and tin foil joke kit.
3/ Precision engineering with boxing gloves.... never - I've tried to change channel on my tv with practice mits on and believe me its just a disaster - if you're telling me that those geezers had on high pressure ballons on their hands and were able to do more than box each other then I'm at a loss. They wouldn't be able to do anything on the moon once outside the tin can space ship.
4/ Automatic cameras taking perfect shots of the lunar lander taking off??? You what - where do people get off making stuff up? No - it was a movie crew filming a very poorly done cable hoist on a crane lifting a lunar mock up off the movie floor. You need a hulking huge rocket the size of Al Gores house to take off from the earth but to get off the moon you need a couple of party firecrackers... nawww you are yanking my chain.
5/ Reflectors on the moon..so what - anyone want to point out that the Russians got stuff onto the moon as well and they sure as heck didn't go.
6/ Why haven't they gone again? Cost? My ars*. The NASA set up is a money sink hole - they are so inept and probably corrupt its a joke. Just how many Mars projects have screwed up..? Anyway to get to the moon all you apparently need is a zx-spectrum and a large rocket, firecrackers and several silver foil survival bags to cover the bottom of the lander and to line the boiler suits.
7/ Too many dead people in suspicious circumstances. Its interesting to see just how many doubters didn't make it. Of course the three astronauts who burnt to death in a freak accident while testing the lunar cockpit was just a mistake - I mean why not make the module highly flammable surely that's OK....? What one of them was expressing public doubts..
8/ The lunar lander lands like its drunken (if the demo's of the one man test projects are to be believed) - if ever there was a naff piece of precision landing kit that is it. Is anyone really telling me that this lump of metal sporting a huge fart of a booster as its main decelerant landed in the gentle perfect way as shown on the TV... I've seen Harriers landing (and they are a highly efficient bit of kit) and they aren't elegant. Nowadays - rather stupidly one would think - they rely on a huge bouncing bag construction to get kit onto the surface of Mars - no stop - use a lunar lander, you've already solved the problem 'brilliantly' and they are so much easier on the cargo trust me.. Let us reason together and be wise - the lunar lander would have landed like a sack of potatoes driven by a rabid monkey with paper wings strapped to its back.
9/ Ok Ok you convinced me that your egg box with silver foil and sticky tape did manage to land using its main booster to slow descent. Where was all the dust when you landed? Where were the gas outings and smoke - you can't fool me those things are blinkin' noisy (even without atmosphere the lunar lander would be vibrating) and bright - when I saw the 'moon landing' you astronaughties where talking to me and I could see the moon's surface as you approached to land, so no rocket light, sound or smoke - jeepers why bother with all that stuff when you take off because you don't need it in space clearly.
Anyway - I'm off to bed so you can call me names and I won't care till tomorrow. Night lovelies:)
Anyway - I'm off to bed so you can call me names and I won't care till tomorrow. Night lovelies:)
Good nite Q.
I, for one, miss you.
Warlock
darth frosty wrote:
: I always thought that due to light polution in the cities, we cant get a good view of the night sky. Last time I checked their are no cities on the moon to interfer. The physical characteristics of the moon's atmosphere (as it were) should not have the same affect of distorting light as the Earths atmosphere does.
While that's true, that's not the issue. The issue is that if you use a bright daylight exposure setting on a camera when taking pictures of stars, the stars will be too faint to see. I've taken lots of pictures of the sky at and after sunset, and at night, and this is the way it works.
: What about the camera work of the first steps who shot that?
No one took shots of the first steps from outside the lunar lander. The astronaut inside the lander took shots of the first guy out going down the steps. Then the first guy took shots of the second guy coming out. Look this up for yourself rather than speculating about it.
AlanF
