Someone on /b/ started a thread concerning the Lunar landing, and subsequent photos that exist of it

the moons "surface" is naturally "reflective" to bounce sun light. you don't need mirrors.
you can bounce lasers off of it without mirrors

backing up my claims
>1.) astronaut behavior in interviews as well as history of alcoholism in some Apollo astronauts.
take a look, they are under duress:
youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
>2.) changed or retracted statements of Apollo astronauts
youtube.com/watch?v=SG7HjyuDP9w

>3.)photographic anomalies
youtube.com/watch?v=WYyaeHYJaaw

>4.) missing data
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

>5.) historical fraud of donations to institutions, moon rocks.
abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858

>6.) contradictions in physics
youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is

>7.) fraternization of pilots in NASA, i.e all Apollo astronauts are Freemasons. Fraternization of government agencies have historically been part of fraudulence and crime.
mintpressnews.com/senator-whose-family-was-caught-trafficking-cocaine-says-no-to-legalized-marijuana/206246/

msnbc.com/msnbc/mitch-mcconnell-painted-cat-the-majority-leader-sneezes

abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93046

lmao
why can't I do it without proper alignment then, just by pointing at some random point?

Then why does it only work when you line up your laser with the coordinates of the mirrors?

Checked.

I said at the beginning of my post that yours was the only post so far that was what I was actually asking for; someone that supported their claims with evidence of some sort.

Although I should have been clearer with my post, the second portion was referring to the others in this thread who choose not to support their claims with evidence.

Thank you, though, for providing even more information as to your beliefs. Although they do not coincide with my own beliefs, you are at least doing what I had asked.

I for one think it is fake, because JFK is a lying sack of shit, a pussy, and a pussy. And he had horse teeth. Good thing that amazing soul John Wilkes Broath made the the ulitimate sacrifice, killing that cunt.

I had an actual photo of one of the landing sites, does that not count as evidence?

I told you about the mirrors on the moon placed there by astronauts. How is that not evidence?

if the moon is "naturally reflective" in the observable spectrum of light, then it can reflect lasers.
Its just common sense.

........then again the light coming from the moon is very different and does not display the properties of reflected radiation.

You're not answering either objection.

You must understand, as men of science apparently, that a generalized statement does not apply to the individual or to the entirety of a population. I stated, further, that it was a statement to those who did not back up their claims with evidence.

Obviously, if you provided any form of evidence, you are exempt from the statement, as it excludes you.

You did specifically say the guy you were responding to was the only one who met your criteria. Hurt my feelings brah

Artificial light in the form of lasers directed at receivers/equipment placed on the moon will reflect in a slightly different wavelength than when directed at the lunar surface itself. Using the proper tools, you can pick up on those changes. By referencing the location of equipment left on the moon for this exact reason, which is available in definitive location information made available to the public, one can come to the conclusion reasonably that it is a successful ping of the moon.

Fair enough. Although, he was the only one who answered each question completely and thoroughly though. Other posts in the thread have either given one or maybe two points of evidence, didn't bother with the additional bonus question, or did neither of these things.

>youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is
This guy is retarded. Vacuum doesn't "suck". It just doesn't push back.
>he's an engineer
every fucking time
why is it the crackpots are always engineers?

Honestly when in the fuck is this board going to get some moderation. Why are shitpost threads (flat earth, fake moon landing, 9/11 conspiracies, global warming hoax eksdee) fucking allowed here.

>Other posts in the thread have either given one or maybe two points of evidence
Why would you need more? A hard empirical evidence like the mirrors (that you can test yourself with a bit of material) is enough. And certainly better than "oh they look like they are not feeling well" or "he said this and he said that".

you dont need mirrors to bounce lasers off of the moon.
"The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.[2] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[3] "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

but Here's also why i know that the mirrors on the moon are fraudulent.
"Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m TELESCOPE at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas."

it says right here that its impossible to find the lunar landing site using a telescope on earth, how do you expect them to be accurate in bouncing lasers off of small mirrors with accuracy using a telescope on earth?
"As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits."
skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/moon/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

" If you explore the Apollo landing sites with a small telescope, you won’t be able to see any of the objects left behind by the astronauts, as they are all too small to be resolved by even the largest telescopes. In fact, it's only in the last two years that we’ve been able to photograph the landing sites in detail from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter."
space.com/13485-moon-skywatching-craters-apollo-landing-sites.html
youtube.com/watch?v=LpjbdH1y_ds

actually, the russians did that too

but they used a robot

and it reflects better

so you didn't prove shit

>At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers wide[9] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye: out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one will be received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. They can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic. This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to 0.25 mm.[6][10] As of 2002, work is progressing on increasing the accuracy of the Earth–Moon measurements to near millimeter accuracy, though the performance of the reflectors continues to degrade with age.[6]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

TL;DR: They use the mirrors because they can get much more accurate readings, not because it was impossible before they were put there.

Mhhh, you gotta be more precise in what we're trying to criticize then. Because for example claims that it's plainly impossible to get a rocket to the moon at all.

Daily reminder that if you believe in any of the following
>vaccines cause cancer
>moon landing was fake
>9/11 was an inside job
>Global warming is not real
>The earth is round

You do not belong on this board. Please leave.

Yes. Some evidence holds more weight than others, and yes sometimes one piece of evidence holds the weight of ten others. As much evidence as you have would be best, but I understand your claim and position.

Personally, I believe 100% that we landed on the moon, and that the imagery is not false. There may be some digital recreations or touchups in newer iterations of the images, but the fact stands that in '69, the images were as real as can be. Combine that with the countless number of hard proof evidences such as images from probes launched by the EU, China, Japan, India, Russia and the Soviet Union, while it existed, and satellite topography accurately recreates in a 3d environment the Lunar background present in the photographs, and it is hard not to see it as true.

(Also, the Soviet Union backed up the claim that America put a man on the Moon during the Cold War, and Russia still supports the claim. If it were false or even SEEMED like it scientifically could be false, they would dispute it at least).

none of you have actually done the experiment

it can only be detected by a computer, its very faint

but like I said the russians reflect even better, yet didn't need a manned mission to do so

>vaccines cause cancer
Check, they don't.
>moon landing was fake
Check, it was real for sure.
>9/11 was an inside job
Still belong on this board so far
>global warming is not real
Slippery slope wording, but I got you senpai.

>the Earth is round
...uhhh... Well, I mean I GUESS this is technically accurate... Because it's oblate slightly, and not perfect round. That's what you meant, right?

You didn't mean that it was flat, did you?

Im just a little confused on your wording I guess.

Well yeah man, you can't just laud someone for posting SOME reason he believes something. There's nothing easier than finding shitty reasons to believe in something, it's just rationalization. Making up bullshit really isn't hard work. And I find it in really bad taste to tell to someone "good job buddy, you made up/copypasted some bullshit!".

>you dont need mirrors to bounce lasers off of the moon.
You DO need mirrors to get the more accurate reading we use today, which you would have noticed if you read the next sentence of that article

>but Here's also why i know that the mirrors on the moon are fraudulent.
And what device would YOU use to detect small amounts of light from very far away?

>it says right here that its impossible to find the lunar landing site using a telescope on earth
Its easy to find them, you just cant resolve the details on the ground. For the laser ranging you just point the laser at established coordinates on the moon. You dont need to be able to see what you're aiming at

...

True, mirrors are no proof of a manned mission. They do prove its possible to fly to the moon and make a soft landing though. Not that massive a leap from sending robots there to sending people

Normally, I would agree with you 100%. But this thread wasn't meant to prove or disprove, it was just to get each posters theory and the evidence they use to back that theory up.

I do understand your reasoning though, and perhaps I should have been a bit more clear with my original intentions, especially when posting on a science board. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

But yes, in a traditional scientific forum or discussion, I would have taken the time to counter the points and cite why they are false, partially false or not proper forms of evidence.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to take any form of evidence that comes form YouTube videos seriously, as anyone can post anything they want. Someone can post bunk science or math, fabricate what they want in the video or be severely misinformed and say its true.

Again, I do not agree with him, but this thread wasn't created for the purpose of proving or disproving anything, only to father information.

>True, mirrors are no proof of a manned mission.
how do you know there are mirrors there in the first place. the moon supposedly reflects light naturally.
you cant see the mirrors from ground level telescope or satellites.
only a few people can test it out and claim it.
the best proof they gave us of the apollo mission is small pixels representing the landing site from a fly by just a few years ago.

>how do you know there are mirrors there in the first place
Because you can point the rangefinder lasers at it and get results

>the moon supposedly reflects light naturally.
Of course it does, thats how you can see it

>you cant see the mirrors from ground level telescope or satellites.
So?

>only a few people can test it out and claim it.
Just like pretty much everything in science?

>the best proof they gave us of the apollo mission is small pixels representing the landing site from a fly by just a few years ago.
Not sure If I would call it the best proof, but sure

The most powerful land based telescope has a viewing area at the distance of the moon of roughly 80-100m per pixel presented. This is far too large of an area to pick up the Lunar Lander or any of the equipment left behind.

Also, the ability to test and find the mirrors can be done as long as you have the equipment (All colleges that have an observatory and most hobbyists with observatories at home have this equipment).

By directing the laser beam at mirrors placed in locations known as public information, and assuming you have a receiver or device capable of picking up information about and performing spectrometric calculations, you can see a direct difference when the laser is on one of the mirrors on the moon vs the lunar surface itself.

Go down to the nearest observatory or school with an observatory and ask them to do this for you, and ask them to teach you more about it.

They will be more than willing to do so, I guarantee you.

> What is diffuse reflection
> What is specular reflection
> What is a trireflector

every surface is "naturally reflective"

i also want to put this out there as a trivia.

there is no hollywood movie of the apollo missions LANDING on the moon.
There plenty of movies about terrorist attacks, real life heroes, fictional mars landings, holocaust events, civil wars, athlete, and act. But no movies from Hollywood about non fictional moon LANDINGS.

Well yeah, a successful moon mission is kinda boring

>tfw Hollywood makes a high octane moon landing blockbuster
>there's a love story between Armstrong and a busty bimbo
>they discover there is a hidden nuke onboard planted by the russians, which they have to defuse using a clever contraption
>near the end they discover the President was locked up and tied in the lander's, trunk
>they have to do a risky spacewalk to get him back safe and sound to the orbiter

I mean they did that Apollo 13 movie which is as close as you're going to get to a Moon Landing movie probably. The fact is though, that we have been to the moon. We landed there and we recorded it, and it was broadcast to every television in probably 90% of the civilized world.

We haven't put a man on Mars, so those are still exciting and unknown to us. Heroes are exciting, and movies about terror attacks instill a strong nationalist pride and unity.

I'm. Not exactly 100% sure what the point in this post is, but maybe I'm missing on it. Is it supposed to be in support of the Moon landing being real or fake, or just general information that's (slightly) off topic?

its not even touched on the fictional character genre with non fictional elements other than setting.

hold on, I take that back..........the only movie close is
superman, who is seen fixing the flag on the moon. he also fights some guy.

Im confused, are you trying to say the moon landings are never referenced in movies?

OP here. Thread derailed beyond repair.

This is now a thread about references to the Lunar Landings in cinema, or ways a film could theoretically embellish or exaggerate the landing to make it more appealing to a wide audience.

Well in that case I present pic related, actually a bretty gud movie

no they were referenced, but no movie about an event to event legit moon landing.
some examples of references:
In dumb and dumber, llyod looks in disbelief as he passes by an outdated newspaper on the moon landing:
youtube.com/watch?v=-f_DPrSEOEo

in Interstellar, the Murphy's principal explains that the moon landing was fake:
youtube.com/watch?v=MpKUBHz6MB4

In the movie Capicorn 1, they referenced the moon landing and planned to fake a mars mission. The entire movie is about NASA.

Is it because of aliens or alienlike monsters that inhabit the dark side of the moon? If so, I will go watch it.

Also
>Apollo 18
Made me Kek for some reason.

There would obviously have to be some sort of odd half hushed love triangle in the movie, and a scene of self sacrifice where the main male hero stays behind to save the rest of his crew.

I still have no clue what your point is

Its about moon monsters living in craters. Its pretty good horror

Those trips don't lie. I will watch it either tomorrow or later tonight, for sure.

my point being that there is no historical, based on testimony and science, hollywood movie about the moon landing. only references to it and mostly in fiction.

you figured how popular the moon landing is, there would be a lot of movies based on it.
the closest we got was Apollo 13.

>my point being that there is no historical, based on testimony and science, hollywood movie about the moon landing
I already said that this isnt surprising, since a movie where the main characters do almost nothing and nothing goes wrong would be boring

Moon landing wasnt dramatic, so no dramatic movies

they dont even touch on a future moon landing starring matt damon with actual science.

Why would they? They most realistic thing owuld be a moon mission where something goes wrong, which has been done, or another, future landing where something goes wrong on the ground, which has also been done

Or are you just complaining that "The Martian" wasnt set on the moon? It originally was by the way, but solving all the problems was too easy so the author moved it

The Martian was a fantastic movie. Im glad that it at least had a foothold in real science, and wasn't completely far fetched.

Definitely read the book too. I won't say either id better than the other, but the who in combination creates a much richer story.

A part of me was a little upset it didn't take place on the Moon, but in retrospect, The Martian sounds better than The Moonman.

>A part of me was a little upset it didn't take place on the Moon, but in retrospect
The moon doesnt work as well. The problems there are either too easy or too hard to solve. Mars is just hospitable enough for the plot to be plausible

Yes. For sure. If the movie progressed the same but on the moon, he would have just died instead of being knocked unconscious.

Granted, those problems wouldnt have arisen, considering no winds to generate storms like that, and at this point it might as well be an entirely different movie.

That's sucking. How else would you define it?

This guy thinks planes cant fly over a rotating surface kek

He thinks vacuum produces an external force that pulls things away. Like negative pressure would do, if it existed.

I feel like there is some innuendo based pun here.

I dont htink thats what his objection is, he seems to think conservation of momentum relies on having something to "push against" so it doesnt work in space.

So he's retarded

This is always slightly humorous to me. One of the things I love most about space is hoe much more pure the mathematics and physics of certain things are.

On Earth, you have to deal with things like friction and the excessive downward force of gravity. Those aren't as big of issues when dealing with space travel (I mean, aside from gravity of course, to a lesser degree. Sort of).

But either way, mathematics are just easier to do in a vacuum, in my opinion.

Indeed. You put something on path it will just follow it nice and predictably. For a while anyway

It's more pure. Feels better to do math like that.

Or maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to have to deal with friction in my math.

Maybe a combination of both.

Then again you get hit with the n-body problem which is literally unsolveable

>6.) contradictions in physics
youtube.com/watch?v=Jq3dU2Ju_is

He shoots himself in the foot when he holds up the bullet. If a bullet would work any burn rocket would then work, as there is an object (exhaust particles) being projected from a reaction (the burn) against the casing (the thruster body).

That's how all of our rockets work. The only thruster that operates the way he thinks thrusters operate in space (compressed gas being released from a tank) is the MMU unit used by NASA astronauts IN-ATMOSPHERE (~480km is the edge of the atmosphere, and the highest altitude they were EVER used was 468km) So, yeah. Also what said.

Fair enough. I think the purest form of mathematics in terms of freedom from the influence of outside factors not directly relating to the physics of the problem directly would take place in interstellar space or even intergalactic space, with a great enough distance from any gravitational force that any celestial bodies (with able to be calculated gravitational influence on one another or not) would be of negligible impact.

But I suppose at this point I'm getting into non practical or theoretical physics best suited for pen and paper where you can pretend these factors don't exist at all....

And also, this thread is so far off track at this point.

>12 successful moon landings were made between 1969 and 1972. Exactly which one of these missions was faked?

all of them, lord shillington

The conspiracy theories state that they collectively are faked, but most notably referenced as especially faked is the first landing.

I do not personally agree with the conspiracy theorists, but I am collecting information on what evidence people who claim either side of the argument use to support their claim.

It's true dood there are liek photos and mirrors n shieet

I don't get it.

It's actually 6, from 11-12 and 14-17. 8 and 10 were cislunar, plus 7 and 9 which were manned Earth oribters.

It was fake.

The phone call to the president from the moon? Is this a fucking joke?

Also the pod departure from the moon's surface to the orbiting shuttle above is SKETCH.

Not too mention that the moon would make a great place for a base. It is rich in lithium so there's that as well.

Essentially. It was faked because there isn't a reason why we shouldn't be there right now.

>Essentially. It was faked because there isn't a reason why we shouldn't be there right now
Do you know how much money the ISS has cost and continues to cost? A moon base is the same thing but 1000x worse, and its not even zero G

Calling the ISS zero-G isn't 100% accurate. I mean its not practically incorrect, but it is on a technical level. It's an artificially induced lack of gravity...

But I'm nitpicking at hat point anyway. You are right that a moon base would be much more expensive.

Its in free fall, things in orbit are not experiencing any g-forces, hence zero G. There is nowhere in the universe where you dont experience any gravity at all

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

About as much as we gave to Israel between the 1970's and now.

Faggot.

>retard Veeky Forumsfags worried about cost

Is this a joke? The amount we spend on the space programs is a penny dropped into bank vault.

I know. That's why I said it was nitpicking. I've just been up for a long time and tend to argue semantics for no reason at that point.

Right, and you think we should pay 10 times that for a facility that is 1/10 as useful just so we can say we have a base on the moon?

Ok fair enough. Carry on

>implying having a facility on the moon wouldn't be useful as a refueling station as well as a research station for a massive telescope on the dark side of the moon

Also lithium kiddo. Ever heard of it?

You sciencetards have no imagination you know that? You live in a box full of rules that have been broken thousands of times but still stick to them.

It's sad.

>Is this a joke?
Its the entire reason the US space program was scaled down so much after the moon landings, so clearly it matters

A moon base has more potential to be more useful.

Honestly that's a pretty good way to learn, since an awful lot of this particular conspiracy theory stems from a lack of understanding. For example, the idea that the lunar lander would've dug out a crater during landing. Pic is Apollo 14, under the engine bell the ground is basically flat, and the only crater visible is just one that happened to be nearby.

Why is that idea incorrect? The people that assume the engine would dig out a crater have a very basic idea of rocket engines, likely stemming from footage of big launch vehicles commonly seen on TV/in movies because it looks good.

For the lunar lander though, it doesn't need an enormously powerful engine since the lander doesn't mass that much and the Moon gravity isn't high, but its still capable of chucking out up to 45kN of force (you can convert that yourself for other units), by comparison just one of the Saturn Vs 5 F-1 engines can do 7,770 kN in vacuum.

The way a rocket engine works is that it burns propellant to make it rapidly expand into a gas. Since we already know the force of the engine, and the size of the engine bell (since the force of the engine is being put through a circle of that size), we can figure out the pressure at the end of nozzle which turns out to be around 20 kPA. A human standing is ~55 kPa. Do you leave big craters in the dirt when you walk?

And the descent engines wouldn't have been at full throttle either, on Apollo 11 it was only around 1/3 throttle, which drops the pressure even further.

braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm goes into it a hell of a lot more, and there are plenty of other resources available on the subject.

>You sciencetards have no imagination you know that?
And you clearly have no concept of how difficult and expensive doing anything in space is

>implying budgets are static and don't change

I think the problem is you faggots don't have the technology to land on the actual moon. Nor do you have the tech to create a base there.

Only in the very long term

You obviously don't understand that we should be able to if we landed there fifty years ago.

>Veeky Forumstard complaining about a budget again

Jesus fucking christ.

Thank you for proving my point.