Seal

4 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Thanks for the reply

 I have no relevant qualifications. But I have 53 years of using my eyes and observing shadows.  I also did some amateur photography including flash photography.  I have seen thousands of real life examples of the shadow discrepancies you mention. 

Nice!

14 hours ago, blandy said:

Not on its own, no. Russia has put reflectors on the moon, using an unmanned craft. Actually, speaking of Russia, a big part of the race for space and putting a man on the moon and so on was the cold war rivalry between the USA and Russia. When the U.S. won the race, there wasn't (to my knowledge) any kind of stuff from Russia that said "no, the capitalist dogs have faked it, and here's how". And that's because Russia had its space programme and had put people into space (first) and knew what was involved and so on, they just didn't get there as quickly.

This part of your post is kind of glitchy.

First line - good. it's difficult to achieve.

Next bit, about you "being sceptical about things that cannot be demonstrated by anyone outside of an authority" - well OK, some distrust of "authority" is merited. However scepticism and refusal to believe just because the source of information is an "authority" is massively illogical. You talk about people aren't able to repeat this laser stuff at home, having previously stated (rightly) that it's all extremely complex. No people can't do it at home. People can't generate nuclear power at home either. Some large scale technological activities require huge resources, the collective expertise of large numbers of scientists and engineers and medics and long term programmes. None of that is available to the likes of us at home. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't believe that electricity is generated from nuclear reactions and powers our satellite TVs.

You then go on to talk about what you've read about the laser used, and frequencies and gates and photons and how the distance to the moon is needed. But it sounds like (apologies if I'm wrong) you don't understand (and it's something may wouldn't) what it's actually telling you. So here's another go at a simplification. It applies to Radar and to Lasers too:

Because (as we know) light and RF radiation travel at the speed of light, individual pulses from a radar, or from a laser (as we've also discussed) would get to the moon and back in 2.4 seconds. Now if you know (and we do) that radars and lasers (in this case) send a pulse and then nothing, then a pulse and then nothing...repeat ad infinitum - they do this like in the war films with surface ships hunting submarine with active sonar  - you get the ping from the surface vessel, then it pans to the sub and the crew hearing the ping hit their sub, then back to the ship and an operator saying "I've got a trace Captain" - so what that's doing is the ship send a short sound pulse in to the water and listens for an echo. When they get the echo, the time taken corresponds to distance to the sub.

That's what lasers and Radars do too. But the added factor is that light travels much much much faster than sound. And radars and lasers are sending incredible short pulses out at really high repetition rates. So how do you know (when you get reflected ones back) what they've been reflected from? = well if a laser reflection is from a cloud a mile up, it will be back before you can blink. But if it's from the moon, it'll be about 2.4 seconds till it comes back. SO if you're only wanting to see moon reflections, you need to have a little gate that's shut when you send the pulse, then opens after 2.4 (approx) seconds, then shuts again a tiny iota later. So you're not getting swamped with photons bouncing of everything. That's why you need to start off knowing (as best you can) how far away the moon is - it allows you to eliminate a lot of false returns and noise.

Next the reflectors v "just the moon" reflecting stuff back. We've talked about how the laser from the ground spreads out and its beam of photons hits and area (someone said 4 miles wide, but it doesn't really matter the precise size, just the principle). That's biggish area, and any photons reflected all the way back from it (if there are any) are going to be coming from slightly different distances, and take slightly different lengths of time to come back. ON the other hand, ones reflected back from a reflector, there's 2 things we know - they're all going to take exactly the same time, because they're all reflecting off a small specially made mirror (or prism). We also know reflectors (even when dirty) are better than rock at reflecting light, so more efficient at reflecting energy back to earth. Oh, and they reflect it directly back down the line it came, and don't scatter it. What that all means then is that at the receiving end on earth, the science says laser reflections from reflectors will take exactly x.xxxxx seconds, they will be of the frequency of the transmitted laser photons, rather than sunlight or starlight and if they appear before or after the anticipated time, we can ignore than, because they've bounced of a cloud  or a plane or dust in the atmosphere - so we shut the gate, so we don't see that stuff - which allows us to pick out from what we do see photons from the reflectors.

As we've also covered, there's an immensely powerful laser on the ground sending pulses of laser light at a super high rate, but over a vast distance and all kinds have stuff can get in the way, scatter them, spread them out...so only a very small number are going to make it back to the laser receiver on earth.

All that is just science and technology and logic and known techniques and tiny versions of it, or parts of it manage or are used in aircraft traffic control, CD players, Inertial navigation systems, Laser altimeters, stealthy communications, fibre broadband, missiles....And none of us could build that kind of stuff at home, but e make use of it (except the missiles) one way or another. We know it works, even if we don't understand how - a CD player uses a laser to detect tiny differences on a rapidly rotating disk and turns that into music, repeatedly, identically, over and over again? but look how fast the disk spins, look at the rate of change of data that it has to process...

Anyway, I need m'tea,

 

 

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. 

40 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

What qualifications do you hold on this area?  Are you an avid photographer with years of experience?   Could you outline your professional and academic experience with moon photography please? 

I am applying Occam's Razor. I am making presumptions based upon your academic qualifications,  specialisms and interests.  It will allow me to better assess your opinion if I can remove those assumptions from my Occam's Ravor assessment. 

Thanks. 

PS - I am happy to reciprocate if requested. 

 

 

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. 

15 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I think things like the footprint discussion in this thread is an example of deliberately not believing something.

I'm ok with still doubting the validity of the moon landing. But on that point in particular, it's irrefutable. 

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.  

16 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Quite the opposite. The overshoes needed to walk on the moon were big and bulky. They weighed a lot. Having them separate enabled Buzz and Neil to leave them on the moon to save weight and allow for the extra weight in the shape of moon rock samples that they brought back with them. Their overshoes are still on the moon now because they did just that.

NASA are only liars in your opinion because you believe conspiracy theories like this. They're not liars. 

And I don't understand how you are skeptical about that explanation. You can look up the photos that they took on the moon. Even if you think these photos are fake, you can clearly see in them that they are wearing the overshoes, and not treading on the moon with the boots you see in the space suit photo. Therefore it is absolutely provable that they did not walk on the moon, or the desert, or the film studio or whatever you believe it to be, in those smooth soled spacesuit boots. Whatever they walked on, they walked on it using the overshoes which have the correct tread for the footprints.

So even if you think it's all a conspiracy theory, even you have to acknowledge that the footprint thing is bollocks. 

Maybe there's some other evidence you have to show it's a conspiracy (spoiler: there isn't) but the footprint thing isn't it.

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.

16 hours ago, blandy said:

I've just been to the post office. It's mostly sunny here right now. Walking back, I took some photos of shadows cast by stuff in the way of the sun.

The first one, the shadows on the pavement next to the red car are quite slanted, but look further down the road, 30 yards and the ones opposite the tree are not as slanted - they're pointing in an apparent different direction.

Second picture same thing - my shadow is at more of an angle than the ones down the street and the last one, I stood next to the tree outside my house. Again shadows in a different direction, and I'm maybe 4 feet away from the tree

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.

17 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Incidentally here is the picture that prompted this myth. It is indeed a picture of Neil Armstrong’s space suit. And it does have smooth soles

Here is some close up photos of the kind of overshoes  they wore on the moon. One of the photos is a close up of the sole. 

 

And here is a picture of Neil Armstrong on the freakin’ moon. You can see his boots clearly don’t look like the boots on the space suit above. Instead they look exactly like the overshoes which have the right tread

 

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. 

3 hours ago, bobzy said:

I think this is largely decent logic…

…but there’s such a vast array of evidence that the moon landings did happen; certainly far more evidence than they didn’t happen…

…so why would decide to take that “belief”? It goes beyond critical thinking and into blind ignorance, no?

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. 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

I suspect your sceptical approach may be somewhat inconsistently applied, based on what you've written in this thread. That's fine, it's just an observation.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

As long as you admit that using your logic nothing that has ever happened in the world ever is provable, then I’ll agree with you. 
 

It’s absolutely mad. But each to their own

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.

6 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

So I’m guessing you don’t use much of anything in the modern world then? GPS? Medication? Cell phone? The internet? Oh wait….

Seriously, you have been given a lot of very good explanations and a lot of patience on here thus far. It is mildly entertaining for a few minutes to watch you tie yourself up in logic knots, presumably so you can feel like you have some special inside information that no one else is privy to. But I’m bored now reading statements like the the one above.
Please try harder if you want to keep entertaining me.

Could you start arguing for a flat earth?

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?

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

But you could say this about absolutely anything in the world ever. 
By this logic you don’t believe anything that has ever happened that you haven’t personally witnessed. 
 

How do you know the Berlin Wall fell? How do you know Hitler killed himself? How do you know the wright brothers invented the aeroplane?

You can’t put out a statement suggesting something is fake because of reason X, and when someone points out reason X is nonsense, just say “yeah we’ll maybe there’s another explanation?!”

 

On a separate note, do you think NASA would be clever enough to fake a moon landing and cover it up for decades, but be stupid enough make footprints with the wrong shoe?

Or is it more likely that the completely obvious, simple and logical explanation that they wore overshoes is the reality?

 

Id suggest you research Occam’s Razor

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.

12 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said:

I don't understand complicated things so therefore I don't believe in them. 

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. 

12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But when the statement is that the footprints on the moon don’t match the boots the astronauts wore, and the “explanation” is that they wore overshoes which DO match the footprints, then I don’t see how that doesn’t obliterate the original statement?

What is the alternative explanation? 

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.

1 minute ago, limpid said:

If you are this sloppy with your terminology, how do you know you are searching for things which actually answer your questions?

From this paper (cited 319 times in other peer reviewed papers) in 1973:

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.182.4109.229

That took me minutes to do my own research.

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  

9 minutes ago, limpid said:

Thanks, but this is not the "same experiment". It's a similar experiment.

That non-wiki links are to an insecure sites. All of the links appear to be to articles. Do you have a link to an (extract of) a primary source? The kind of thing that would be needed to do my own research?

I'd guess that there hasn't been much follow up as they put retroreflectors on the moon's surface to do a better experiment.

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.

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Here is a photo of the experiment being done by the way. Pretty cool

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?

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Probably because shortly afterwards they put a reflector on the moon which gave far more reliable results

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. 

25 minutes ago, limpid said:

Is there a reason you ignored my reply explaining this?

Also, please cite your claim that the "same experiment" was performed before we'd landed anything on the moon.

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.

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

The accuracy ought not to be a problem. Like I’ve posted earlier the steering of the light beam is pretty easy. Not as much as with radio waves from a directional antenna, but still to an extent, the laser beam will also spread wider with distance, so a beam that’s (say) a metre wide as it leaves the lens on earth, will be many times wider by the time it reaches the moon, so it gives room for tolerance in the steering at the target. I’d guess much bigger problems might be getting the right weather conditions - no clouds, no dust, no ruin, snow etc.  they’d stuff it up right at the start. But clear conditions and you could definitely pinpoint the location on the moon where the astronauts left the reflector(s).  I’m not sure whether the clangers who live in the moon go and give the reflector(s) a wipe down and polish every few weeks. Probably not. Should have thought about that earlier.  The moon does obviously reflect some light to earth, but not efficiently and as lasers operate not across the spectrum of visible light, but at a specific single frequency (which can be different for different lasers), it won’t be the moon reflecting the laser light back, it’ll be a dedicated reflecting device(s) made so that it/they don’t just scatter the received light, but reflect it back the way it came.

The science and engineering is there and versions of it are in use in all kinds of stuff.

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. 

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Speed in that sense is irrelevant. Angular velocity is what's important. 

The earth rotates at 15 degrees an hour. 360 degrees in 24 hours. It is incredibly slow

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. 

1 minute ago, blandy said:

What's important here is not the speed measured in miles per hour or whatever, but the rate of change of angle between two points, one fixed on earth, and one fixed on the moon.

If you look up at the sky, at night you can see the moon travel across the sky, it's motion is discernable in real time as it moves across the heavens and you can easily follow it for hours on end - you don't have to turn your head much or quickly - and it's the same with an antenna pointed at the moon - it doesn't need to be steered at any fast rate at all to keep "on target". But then there's the factor that the moon is spinning on its own axis, which means that we're seeing a changing face of the moon as we track it, but we never see the dark side of the moon, because it rotates at the same speed around its own axis as it does around the earth (tidally locked, as Simon said) - it completes one full 360 degree turn on its axis in the same time it takes to circle round the Earth. That means the same side is always turned toward us, and it's on that side that the astronauts landed (or pretended to land, if you wish). So that's why mph speed is irrelevant here.

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?

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just seen this question. The antennas from the ground are directional. What that means is [simplified explanation again] like this: If you take say an antenna on a car that receives radio signals - that's called a monopole antenna and it has a radiation pattern which is like a ring donut - radiation from 360 degrees horizontally and none from directly above or directly below vertically - this is ideal for a receiver (or a transmitter) not knowing at any one moment where the other end of the link is. The disadvantage for a transmitting system is that your energy is spread out all round that 360 degrees. But if you know where the other end is, you can using a sector antenna, focus the energy to all go in a narrow beam (pointed, in this case, at a small area of the moon). The difference between what the person on the (in this case the moon) receives from a sector antenna compared to what they receive from a [isotropic - omnidirectional] antenna is what's called antenna gain. It doesn't actually amplify the signal, it just points it all in a narrow beam, but the downside is that if you're not in the beam, you see no signal. So unless there were other radios in the line of sight of the beam to the moon (and there weren't, because the beam was pointed up at the moon, not towards the ground) then no amateur radio folk would see or detect any signal.

In the other direction - transmissions from the moon to the ground, as I said in my earlier post, these would be much lower power than those from the ground upwards. So by the time they got to earth, unless you had a massive eff off dish pointing at the moon, you'd also not be able to detect them.

Finally, there's the frequency used. Radio frequency is regulated by people like OFCOM in the UK, ACMA in Australia and the FCC is the US. Various parts of the spectrum are allocated to various uses - the police and ambulance, TV, Music and speech radio, Radar, military, Air traffic control, Mobile phones and so on. NASA has its own part (not looked at what frequency they were allocated back then), but it's unlikely that "normal" kit to operate in that part of the spectrum would be even available to the general public [could be wrong, I'm just brain dumping here, not googling - Radio stuff and remote control links and so on is part of my CV].

 

 

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.