Seal

Nice!

You may not be surprised to think I have a slightly different view on international relations. I suspect that wars - most certainly including the cold war- are rackets. And I would apply this to Cold War too. I think in part this is because governments find fear a useful tool. Although not limited to this. I see the space race and the cold war as more artificial than perhaps historic narratives suggests. I appreciate this is probably a big discussion in its own right and don't wish to distract from this. Lets just say we perceive the nature of reality differently. I am not refusing to believe just because something is from an authority. I am refusing to believe on a principle that I think having a belief is bad for your mind. For reasons I have already alluded to. And because this particular authority has proven itself to be untrustworthy. With regards to your clarification of the lasers issues. Thanks it is interesting. However, I still find it hard to believe that it is happening. Lets say the photons are spread out over 4 miles, or 200 or 2 miles. I think I was the guy that mentioned four miles? That was just what I read on the wikipedia page. I found different samples. You may be sending up quadrillions of photos. But when they are spread out presumably 99.999999% of them will not hit the reflector. The odds of them getting back are so little anyway assuming they even hit the reflector. And then to be able to identify that that photon is the one you sent out, and distinguish from the huge amounts of photos that the moon would be reflecting anyway. Is a bit beyond what I think is possible. However like I have said - even if it is there - it is not proof the apollo missions went to the moon.

I am saying I don't think anyone has professional and academic experience with moon photography. At least from location. My qualifications are that I have eyes and have observed shadows and light for 37 years. You could take this up with the photographic experts who have doubts about the moon landing photos though. There are a number.

I disagree. You posted moon overshoes from Apollo 17 and then said it explained Apollo 11 footprints. Also you are assuming that the situation is that all evidence is good evidence. I am open to the possibility (naturally taking the sceptical position) that evidence (in this instance in the form of photos) shouldn't be questioned. Like what I am saying is - Nasa lied, got caught out, came up with another lie to justify - is a legitimate possibility.

Here are some examples of NASA lying: Giving petrified wood to museums in place of actual moon rocks. Never acknowledging until recently that most of their satellite information came from high altitude balloons rather than satellites This is a much repeated lie but... we will go back to the moon by xxxx year We will visit mars by xxxx No non cgi photos of the earth but they have previously claimed to have taken photos. Most images from space are thus a lie, or deceitful. Claiming they do not have the ablity to pass through the van allen belt. I don't know for sure that this is a lie, but it is still ridiculous https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a22888068/iss-leak-astronaut-finger-tape/ I struggle to imagine how this kind of story can be taken seriously. What about when Tim Peake got caught filming his ISS shots in front of a blue screen when they said he was on the ISS? Saying that there is videos from the moon landing and then saying that filmtape can't pass through the van allen belt radiation. Note I am not saying whether it could or couldn't myself, just that Nasa must have lied about one. Anything Don Petit says. They use dwarf models of astronauts at the museum to give off the impression that they would be able to fit inside the module When asked about how they took a photo of a black hole without light - two conflicting responses. On that it used radio waves converted into the light spectrum, and secondly that they actually took the picture with light. That is from the top of my head. There are plenty more. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With regards to the faking of the moon photos. It makes most sense to me that they were faked not just in a studio by buzz and Neil in space suits. But over time. This explains why unseen never seen before photos (lincluding the photos i PM'd you) were released in the 90's. I couldn't see the overshoes soles in the photo, so I am not sure it shows anything. Plus if it is on a set, you would assume that different people left footprints for show or possibly by accident depending on how they wished to set it up. Also: have a peruse of this site for how the landscape photo trickery might have worked: http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/ I don't think the footprint thing is bollocks i suspect just lies upon lies. I also think that the photo you sent of the moon overshoes is from apollo 17, and thus is not evidence at all of was worn by Neal / Buzz. But at the same time I am not saying Nasa didn't claim they wore overshoes also. It just is that the photos you show aren't evidence of the other.

I don't think this shows the same thing. The perspectives in these photos make sense. The perspective in the the initial photo makes no sense. The flagpole shadow goes entirely the opposite way. And whilst there is also an allusion to a shadow in the direction it should be going. It should be a lot longer than it is.

Does the second photo also see to show the shuttles shadow going one way, the astronauts shadow going a similar way albeit oddly slightly different, and the shadow of the US flag going entirely the opposite direction . I can't even see how that would be possible if it was faked with studio lights.

I disagree. I think there is very limited evidence outside or relying on the word of an authority. There is very little good evidence besides - yeah bro we went there. Got any evidence? Mostly just my word. I got this rock though. And you should see these photos! I think the body of evidence whether meta or physical either fails to support the assertion. Or is suggestive that there is something very off with the narrative provided. So I disagree that it goes beyond the critical into blind ignorance. But of course this depends on your perspective over the quality of the evidence.

Nice wording. I expect if you have observed this, it might just be that sometimes things are written quickly on a forum. And translating a approach of the mind into words doesn't always happen smoothly. You would probably notice there are sentences that seem unnaturally constructed to show i try and think about it when I can. But also taking such approach does take a mental discipline which is admittedly tough to use in practice in a universal manner. Sometimes approaches are not endgames where we are at, but things to which we work towards.

Ok. I think that is misunderstanding the logic and its purpose. The reason I avoid beliefs is because when one commits to a doctrine or an ideology, or assumes a certainty, then there becomes a risk one stops critically thinking about that thing. I think this is dangerous, at least for myself, as it leads people to commit to -isms, whereas I don't necessarily think stuck in cults, reality tunnels, is conducive to exploring the nature of this reality. I must admit I cannot prove that you have not flown to work on a dragon this morning. But I can suspect you didn't bearing in mind other things. To compare this to the example we have previously discussed. In our early discussions on this, I provided context on why I am sceptical about that explanation. Namely that it would be a bit unnecessary, perhaps a waste of limited space to have two boots, rather than just design one and also nasa's long and distinguished history of telling inaccuracies, and the vast body of evidence that the apollo missions were fabricated. That is why I find the explanation insufficient to be a debunk. It is just an explanation. Unproven, but from the word of what I suspect to be a liar. I don't think it wise to take dishonest authority at their word. It is best to remain skeptical about it. Just my position. I think accepting at their word is worrying plus conducive to creating an environment where lies can be made easily. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8226075.stm I have plenty more examples of such dishonesty. This is my favourite. I don't think it is wise to treat the words of liars as gospel. I attach extra skepticism. I hope that explains it - I don't quite take it to the Epicurean extent, perhaps more the Socratic extant that the only thing I know is that I know nothing. I think some subjects I am interested in are often best navigated by meta data. I think it is incorrect to consider anything proven when using this. I appreciate that you very much disagree with this. I find your objective certainty over things odd. But I appreciate that the nature of my life has led to me perhaps being more open to disconnecting from zeitgeists than others.

I have never had a GP, although the caveat is my dad was one. I haven't used medication in over twenty years. And I don't have a smart phone, I have a doro. But I do use the internet. Other than the internet, I have a car, I ride a bike, and I use an oven and a kettle. I have also given a lot of good explanations back. Can you point out my logical knots? I feel like you are trying to put something on me that wasn't the case, I made a comment in thread called 'general conspiracy dump. Then answered a lot of questions people threw at me. I am not trying to entertain, just trying to answer peoples questions. How is what I If you are bored, you could always read something else. What exactly is the purpose of this thread if I have misunderstood it so? I have never been privvy to a position whereby I can determine the nature of this earth. So I won't argue for flat earth. Sorry if that disappoints. Would you?

I would say that the only way you can be sure that what you don't know doesn't invalidate what you think you know, is if you know everything. Otherwise you can never be sure that what you don't know doesn't change what you think you know. Yes you could say it about anything in the world. I would say I suspect things that haven't happened personally. Not that I believe them. There is a difference. I don't think my position is an unreasonable epistemological position to take. I suspect the berlin wall came down. I have no idea what happened to hitler. Yeah I suspect the wright brother invented the aeroplane, although it is not a matter I have ever indulged myself in. There are plenty of other reasons shy one could see the apollo landings as fake, that boot issue is just part of that. I don't think its that great to say... this is an explanation, therefore don't consider anything else. Of which that was one. I would say that in my thought process I apply something similar to occams razor (which bears more in common with a way of reasoning, than something that can be used to establish a truth objectively). I think that yes, that it is entirely possible. I think it is quite insane to say that you objectively know we went to the moon on the apollo missions, when you are completely unable to prove, without an appeal to authority that it is the case.

My actual only real belief is that belief is the death of intelligence. It is why I use the term suspicion so much. I learned from a great man that words are important.

Your explanation was that they used overshoes that do match the footprint. Another could be that nasa got called out for something, and thought of a reason to justify it, so came up with the explanation. For the overshoes to debunk the inconsistency in footprints, then it would need to objectively and demonstrably have been true. I havent seen that happen. Bear in mind nasa are quite good at coming up with retrospective statements to justify previous inconsistencies. It is a bit of an organisational trait.

I wasn't asking a question when you referenced my terminology. I was merely making a back of the fag packet calculation and used back of a fag packet terminology. On a forum, not on a thesis. But I will endeavour to use words more proper in the future. Perhaps any research that takes a few minutes isn't complete? Not saying it isn't. That article is behind a paywall to me other than the abstract. It reads like the increased accuracy is achieved by direct numerical integration of the equations of the motion for the moon and planets. And is based on a theory of how the moon rotates and the acting on it and equations. As well as technological advances of the retroreflectors. How do you know whether the increased accuracy is from the reflectors, or from the theories and equations. Might it be the input of the gate, rather than the reflector that increases the accuracy? Not stating that they are, just that the abstract is not clear, it references previously unknown phenomena more than it references the reflectors. If you just researched for a few minutes, are you sure you did enough research (although perhaps if you haven't done it before then the not sloppy terminology would be search), might not be sufficient to fully understand something)? Are you able to send across the full experiment and its results? I would be interested to read, but not interested enough to pay.

It 'could be' a bit like that. But also it 'could' be something else. This is similar to where I have an issue between your use of explanation + debunk. To me debunk means to objectively obliterate something. An explanation could work. But also could be superseded by a different explanation. It doesn't mean there is not value in the explanation. It is missing an important level of critical thinking when you just assume that there is an explanation. Therefore this must be the end of that. I think it is ok to be sceptical of an experiment that cannot be replicated without millions of monies. Nonetheless I am a little tired and will be going to sleep now. I hope you all have pleasant dreams and you can look forward to a day of me being in meetings and travelling tomorrow, I do appreciate, but dislike, that such discussions can often raise hackles and stuff. I'm sorry if I have angered anyone, but I appreciate all your efforts and points. They have been thought provoking and intelligent. Good night x

I have this: https://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/1941267a0 It is a bit lighter than what I expect you were hoping for. I appreciate that is one reason why there seems to be little on it, but also there could be others. I appreciate it is not the same experiment but it is the similar results that are of interest to me. I am interested in your thoughts from doing research.

That is a really cool photo. To get proper results would this not be best done when the moon is not lit up, for the moon would be shedding loads of photons that couldn't be distinguished from the few fed back by the laser?

Out of interest have any of you conducted / replicated the lunar ranging experiment?

Possibly. Although it could also be because they wanted to promote the idea that the lunar laser experiment was the reason. But I am sceptical about both you notion, and also mine. It reads to me like it can only get reliable results by inputting the information that happens to be reliable result being looked for, but yeah I am sure that they do blast loads of the little fellas out there for the reason you say. I don't see how a few photons can be distinguished from all the extra noise out there either.

Yeah, I put my daughter to bed. And then I had dinner. And then there were loads of messages. Sorry! I did coincidentally just do a post that perhaps answers it. In terms of citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments - "The first successful lunar ranging tests were carried out in 1962 when Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a 50J 0.5 millisecond pulse length.[7] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser." http://picsandfiles.connectedcomputer.com/Moon/NatGeoLaser/NationalGeographic1966LaserTheMoon.pdf - this national geographic article talks about it also. I think this article is a bit low on details. It seems to reference a full text called 'optical echoes from the moon' which seems to be behind a paywall. This article has further details: http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm If I put my sceptical hat on, it is strange why the experiment has not suffered too much repetition. Not a lot of follow up.

But if it isn't the moon reflecting back then how come the experiment could be performed in the early 60's? I still think finding the reflector would be difficult. The beams claim to be 4 miles wide at the surface - which is what you are saying. But all the variables make it too hard to my mind. You have the weather conditions that you mention. Any dust - although I imagine less than there would be if it was in the sahara. Solar weather. The earths atmosphere. The rotation of the earth. The orbital velocity of the moon (I am still gunna use my laymen terms in my head sorry), where the moon is in its cycle, I think 4 miles wide is not enough - assuming that was correct, I lifted that from wiki, although another place said 200m). Especially when you are reliant on this thing to send a reflection back to you. But I don't think we will reach an agreement on this. Also bearing in mind that nasa claim to have taken things to the moon on unmanned expeditions. If there are reflectors up there, is it proof that man went to the moon? The toughness in completing the experiment is not just limited to hitting the laser. But also in being able to isolate the photon that comes back and being able to replicate the experiment. I am also very sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority. Reading about a the Apollo project (apache point observatory lunar laser range operation project, it suggests that you need a laser than can shoot enough photons up that you get some back. He - someone involved in that - states this is 1017 green 532 nm photons per pulse (be aware I am just digging into it this repeating the words of others. So I am taking a layman understanding from this), and at this level, you can only expect to get about 1 photon back. And this is the best that can be expected using a 3.5m telescope, and this can only be done somewhere with absolutely minimal background light and no distortion. So basically it appears to be far too complicated for regular joe's to achieve https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/apparatus.html you wild need a laser as well 532nm green with a gigawatt of peak power that can output pulses of 120 picosecond duration at 20hz. Customized detection hardware and it seems special computer hardware and software to statistically 'interpret the "data". In short it seems there are only 8 places equipped to do this. Reading about how the lasers work, it reads like you need to give it a gate - in order to filter out "local noise" like reflections from clouds. So basically you need to input the earth - moon distance, in order to find out the earth - moon distance. Seems weird, although I may have misread that. Also I don't see how at the Earth anyone would be able to distinguish between the photons from the laser. And the photons given off by the reflection from the moon - which is a broadly similar portion of the spectrum. Presumably this explains why the result of the experiment worked before we even "had lasers on the moon". If the theoretical return of a photon is statistically likely to be just 1 photon, then how is this distinguished from the other photons of identical wavelength? I imagine it would be like detecting an ants fart in a hurricane. It think it requires faith, as it seemingly cannot be verified by the regular dude. Basically to my mind it requires a massive assumption that the return is actually the reflection. It is also true that if you point a temperature gun directly at the moon, you will see an increase in temperature from the surrounding atmosphere.

I fear this is missing the point. The point being that having the accuracy to pinpoint the laser especially decades after the reflector is placed would be practically impossible, and that, bearing in mind the same experiment and results could be performed before anyone went to the moon, is suggestive (to me at least) that it probably ain't a reflector reflecting stuff back. Its probably just... the moon.

Yes. But is there not a significant rate of change angles, that would be very difficult for a laser positioned adhoc decades ago. To maintain a position able to reflect lasers back. Taking account of things like the orbital precession and that the moons orbit is apparently change slightly over time. Would make a laser become redundant very quickly. Bearing in mind that the lunar refracting experiment was achievable before anyone went to the moon - allegedly - who is to say it is even the reflectors causing the effect?

Okay. That is interesting stuff. However, if it was via radio there would be more of a delay that what there is. I'd guess four or five seconds minimum (however there is a few second delay in radio between two ships on the same ocean anyway so without being an expert I would expect more). Yet that does not show in the recording. There are some gaps, but taking into account that there is a few second delay. Sure it may have been edited, but I again I would have doubts, and their sign off at the end of the call is pretty much instantaneous.