The MOON HOAX

[lux]

From a piece written by Buzz Aldrin regarding his experiences on the Apollo 11 mission and published in Life magazine, Aug 22, 1969 issue.

“Eagle” = the Apollo 11 lunar landing vehicle
“EVA” = Extra-Vehicular Activity

“It was surprising to me how much at home I felt in Eagle because of all the simulations we had done back at home. The view of the moon from the surface and the EVA itself have much less reality to me now than have those familiar operations inside Eagle. When we looked out the windows for the first time it just looked comfortable. As if you could almost go out in your shirt sleeves and get a suntan out there. I remember thinking, 'Gee, if I didn't know where I was I could believe that somebody had created this environment somewhere out in the West and given us another simulation to work in.' Inside our suits and helmets we could smell nothing on the surface, but when we got back into Eagle and got our helmets off we could.

“Odor is very subjective, but to me there was a distinct smell to the lunar material, pungent like gunpowder or spent cap-pistol caps. We carted a fair amount of lunar dust back inside the vehicle with us, either on our suits and boots or on the conveyor system we used to get boxes and equipment back inside. We noticed the odor right away.

“Then the particles started finding little homes for themselves in the flooring or the suits, rubbing up against things. Once we lifted off again and were in zero gravity we expected to see these particles emerge and float around. We didn't exactly expect a dust storm, but we certainly expected a considerable amount of it floating up from the floor and out of nooks and crannies. Surprisingly, it never did. We were able to go ahead and take off our helmets and gloves without worrying about getting dust in our eyes.”

[hoi.polloi]

Good digging, thanks for those surreal excerpts.

[simonshack]

*

There are things I cannot stand. I am human after all - damn' it.

For example, I just can't stand 'young-BBC-funded-space-professors' such as Brian Cox. Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?



This profound allergy to such vapid personages caused me to write a few comments under the YT video linked below - in which the popular TV-personality-cum-space-professor Brian Cox very stupidly states that anyone questioning NASA's alleged moon landings is "a MORON".

Please go to Youtube and participate in this video's comment section - (if you have spare time on your hands, of course!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg ... mBLwbxapwk

[dblitz]

Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?

When this guy is on t.v. I have to leave the room.

I call it space-rage.

[MrSinclair]

All I know of Cryin' Box is that poster...and I hate him

[antipodean]

Is Cox the passenger ? He stretches his arms out as though he's putting his hands on the steering wheel.

The scenery doesn't look like the UK. If he's the passenger it's a right hand drive car.

Edit : Just read the poster, it must be Australia.

[brianv]

Oh dear - am I becoming unduly intolerant?

When this guy is on t.v. I have to leave the room.

I call it space-rage.

Get rid of the TV, don't be ruled by it!

[dblitz]

I only use it to play wii or ps3 or watch youtubes off usb.

[sceppy]

They supposedly put a retro reflector on the moon, as we are told, so I'd like to know this.
On myth busters, we see Adam and Jamie go to an observatory to watch them fire a LASER at this reflector and the operators say, it's like finding a needle in a haystack or something to that effect.
Anyway, let's assume they point the scope up and fire the LASER and hit the so called moon reflector, first time.
We are told that the so called moon is 240,000 miles away and we are told that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour, give or take. So let's basically work it out.

To fire a laser at the so called moon and have it return, it should return (assuming everything is perfect) back to the observatory in approx, 2.6 seconds, taking 1.3 seconds to hit and the same time, back.

The earth is supposedly spinning at 1000 mph whilst this is happening. So by my reckoning, the people in the observatory should have shifted (approximately) three quarters of a mile away, on the return of that bounced laser, so how in the hell did they manage this?

1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.

[Heiwa]

They supposedly put a retro reflector on the moon, as we are told, so I'd like to know this.
On myth busters, we see Adam and Jamie go to an observatory to watch them fire a LASER at this reflector and the operators say, it's like finding a needle in a haystack or something to that effect.
Anyway, let's assume they point the scope up and fire the LASER and hit the so called moon reflector, first time.
We are told that the so called moon is 240,000 miles away and we are told that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. We are also told that the earth spins at 1000 miles per hour, give or take. So let's basically work it out.

To fire a laser at the so called moon and have it return, it should return (assuming everything is perfect) back to the observatory in approx, 2.6 seconds, taking 1.3 seconds to hit and the same time, back.

The earth is supposedly spinning at 1000 mph whilst this is happening. So by my reckoning, the people in the observatory should have shifted (approximately) three quarters of a mile away, on the return of that bounced laser, so how in the hell did they manage this?

1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.

I like this post.

[lux]

Get yourself a copy of National Geographic – December, 1966. Available for a few dollars on eBay, etc. You can show it to anyone who brings up the Apollo "laser reflector" nonsense.



An article in this issue called “The Laser's Bright Magic” on page 876 says,

Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment.

So, laser's have been bounced off the moon and their reflections measured since at least 1962 – that's 7 years before Apollo 11.

The article also describes laser range-finding systems already in use (in 1966) by the USAF that measured distances of aircraft and could do the same with space objects by reading their reflections.

Obviously, no “reflector” is needed to bounce lasers off the moon so the whole argument is nonsense. The Moon itself is a very good reflector of light and that's all a laser is – light.

[arc300]

1000 mph divided by 60 minutes, divided by 60 seconds, equals 0.27 miles per second, times by 2.6 seconds, equals 0.72 miles, or three quarter miles shift from the start of the laser.

Then this must obviously be true for the "bouncing lasers off the moon's surface" claim, as well.
Could they (claim to) be picking up the signal/laser etc when it hits the ionosphere or whatever, rather that in a ground-based dish?

[arc300]

"In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2½ seconds is affected by the relative motion of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects.[5] Nonetheless, the Earth-Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lase ... experiment

How?

Is the returning signal picked up by an array of receivers spread over a wide area? No. At least not at the Apache Point site:

"The laser pulse is reflected from the retroreflectors on the Moon (see below) and returned to the telescope. The round-trip time tells the distance to the Moon to great accuracy." ~ From the top side-bar pic here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Poi ... _Operation

On the same Apache Point page they mention a whole host of difficulties regarding Lunar Ranging - the moon's libration, crustal tides etc etc- and include the problem of the Earth's rotation, yet fob us off with:

"... and the Earth's rotation is measured by the IERS and can be accounted for"

Of course, they don't mention how.

I'm loathe to continue looking at this due to my lack of any relevant expertise, but my interest has definitely been piqued. I also remember a previous poster, can't remember who, saying that we won't be able to beat the Space Fraudsters at the math. And I'm guessing that when you have a cash-cow as big as NASA et al, you'll have a seemingly rational explanation for everything.

[Farcevalue]

My experience with a laser measuring tape has been that there is a fairly narrow margin of error for having the beam bounce back into the laser receptor with enough accuracy to get a reading. It seems that the reflective surface must be near perpendicular to the transmitter and receiver for the beam to align.

Granted, I am sure this is rudimentary, narrowly calibrated gadgetry in comparison to the equipment being used to analyze heavenly bodies, but it makes one wonder.

Not to mention, that at those distances, the slightest variation in in the tangential angle of contact would cause the beam to careen dramatically.

[sceppy]

What we see as the moon, is a bright glowing image. We can all accept this, yet with this being the case, we can all logically conclude that... if anyone was stood on that, they would be at best, lit up like a beacon and blinded by the light and at worst, they would be burned to a crisp.
The pictures and video that we all get to see, depict a mere small spotlight on a small area of this apparent grey cement type substance.
It's so ridiculous and so easy to see it for what it all is, (fake) that I regularly sit and scratch my head wondering how people who have viewed all this stuff can honestly sit with a straight face and say it was legit. It baffles the hell out of me to be brutally honest.
Those who go along with it without having viewed anything about it, I can accept their belief in it because they don't know any better. The rest have no excuse whatsoever.