[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[Czero 101]

Hi Czoro101,

Lunokhod 1 landed on the Moon 17 Nov 1970 but because USSR or Russia lost it's location, they didn't get anything from it from 1971 to 2010 in regards to a laser reflector, please scroll down link to "Retroreflectors on the Moon":-

http://en.wikipedia..../Retroreflector

However Apollo 11 put the first retroreflector on the Moon on 20th July 1969, although other Apollo missions put others there, the original still works, and worked before Lunokhod 1.

http://news.bbc.co.u...tech/399468.stm

The Space Race was very important to USSR at that time, and lost face by not being the first to have a manned landing on the Moon:-

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Space_Race

I will say they were clever for that time with Moon robots, probably in advance of USA, who were only concentrating on manned trips to the Moon, but most would laugh if you say that USSR and USA worked together, USSR would have loved it if they thought USA didn't have a manned flight to the Moon and would have told everyone!

http://en.wikipedia....ging_experiment

Obviously during this period USA didn't have any plans for robots on the Moon, don't confuse with satallite, it was all manned, indeed your cell phone today has probably a better computer than what Apollo 11 had:-

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

While all the info you have posted is true, you have yet again missed the point we are trying to make here. Perhaps its a language barrier? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I will just try to be a little more clear.

Neither I or Obviousman are saying that we believe that "robots put the LRRR's at the Apollo sites", nor are we saying that the Moon landings were hoaxed in any way.

All we are saying is that ON ITS OWN, the fact that there are LRRR's at the Apollo sites BY ITSELF does not equate to undeniable proof that Man went to the Moon since it can be proven that Retroreflectors were put on the Moon by Soviet robotic landers.

The fact that there are LRRR's at the Apollo sites does add to the massive body of supporting evidence that proves unquestionably that Man landed there, but as absolute proof on its own, it falls short.

Cz

[Obviousman]

I knew Turbo would try to weasel out of admiting they were wrong. They have always exhibited an almost shameless level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread.

*********

Monk,

Czero 101 is precisely right.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Obviousman

[monk 56]

Hi Obviousman and Czero 101,

For many years i have been interested in how the Moon has gradually been moving away from the the Earth, during this time i was connect to numerous astronomy associations, the last before i was badly disabled is below, the patron was the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the president was his brother Frederick W. Clarke, link below:-

http://2012forum.com...=5130&mode=view

Finding Lunokhod 1 was crucial to me getting involved in this debate, link below:-

http://science.nasa....03jun_oldrover/

It was very unlikely that it would be found, almost impossible for it to be found at a location near any landings of Apollo 11, 14 or 15, but now it has been found, and we have five signals by reflector on the Moon, i will explain the experiment on next thread section.

Edited February 18, 2013 by monk 56

[monk 56]

Lets look at a moon map to the general location of these retroreflectors, you will note there is a great deal of distance between all of them, A11, A14 and A15 are the positions of Apollo reflectors, that were placed on the lunar surface by astronauts.....L17 and L21 are the position of Soviet robotic machines that had the reflector attached on back, link below:-

http://physics.ucsd....pollo/lrrr.html

Edited February 18, 2013 by monk 56

[monk 56]

Now for the casual reader or researcher, you must note one thing, in order for any experiment regarding the Moon to work by retroreflector, you don't just casually wave a laser in the general location of the Moon, you must have precise latitude and longitude, if you don't it doesn't work, which is why USSR lost Lunokhod 1 for so long when it went walkabout, the reflector was attached to it!

So now we know the location of Lunokhod one and two, we can fire lasers to them, the USSR left two reflectors by robots, the USA left three, we can bounce a laser off all five!

The United States have never left robotic Moon Rovers on the Moon, they only left transport rovers for astronauts, please explain?

Edited February 18, 2013 by monk 56

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The United States have never left robotic Moon Rovers on the Moon, they only left transport rovers for astronauts, please explain?

You are getting totally the wrong end of the stick here and really not listening to what CZero 101 and Obviousman are saying. As a result you are simply wasting your time as you are preaching to the converted.

Please try to understand the following:

1. CZero 101 and Obviousman already know all about the reflectors and how they work.
   
2. CZero 101 and Obviousman do not believe that Apollo was hoaxed.
   
3. CZero 101 and Obviousman do not believe that the Apollo reflectors were put there by unmanned rovers.
   
4. CZero 101 and Obviousman do believe that between 1969 and 1972 12 Americans walked on the surface of the Moon.

What CZero 101 and Obviousman ARE saying is this:

Since it is possible to put reflectors on the moon using robotic vehicles, as proven by the Lunokhods, the existence of the reflectors on the moon are not by themselves proof of manned missions to the Moon, but they are part of a large body of evidence that does prove Apollo.

You've picked the right fight but the wrong opponents.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

Do you get my point now?

turbonium you are being dishonest here. You said the following:

Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

It doesn't matter what modifier they used. You made a claim, that claim has been proven wrong, plain and simple.

Now as for your new claim that they didn't use the correct words to describe the stars, that is really the worst case you have ever put forward.

I know your knowledge is lacking, but I would have thought even you would have realised that astronauts were selected for their flying skills and engineering/scientific capabilities NOT for their poetic abilities.

You are claiming that because not all the astronauts used the same subjective terms that this is somehow evidence. That is total nonsense. A subjective description is precisely that. If an Apollo astronaut had said "the sky is full of those hideous stars I despise so much" it would be no less a valid description of stars that another man describing them as beautiful.

[monk 56]

Hi Waspie_Dwarf,

Just because the Russians put two robots on the Moon that had retroreflectors, we know where they are, have pictures of them and have Latitude and Longitude, my dispute is there is no history that any can find that USA put robotic moon rovers on the moon, other than by astronauts, unless any would wish to say that USA and USSR were in a conspiracy together, which is extremely unlikely regarding the SPACE RACE going on at the time.

There are differences between myself and Czero101/Obviousman, you are not reading properly what i'm writing, 3 reflectors are on the Moon, put there by astronauts, and USA NEVER HAVE HAD ROBOTS ON THE MOON, so unless you want to say that the American reflectors were put up there by Russian robots, you don't get any other answer other than they were placed there by astronauts, being a logical answer!

[Czero 101]

* facepalm *

I give up...

Cz

[Waspie_Dwarf]

* facepalm *

I give up...

Cz

I know what you mean, but I'm going to give it one more go.

Read this VERY carefully monk 56.

I do not believe that the Apollo reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.

Hoax believers DO believe that the Apollo reflectors were put there by robots.

Since the technology existed to place reflectors on the moon by robotic lander in the Apollo period it is possible that the US could have done this (I repeat; here I do not believe this. There is no evidence to support this, but hoax believers do believe it).

Now the part you seem to have real difficulty with.

Since it is POSSIBLE for the US to have placed the reflectors on the moon without a manned mission the reflectors ARE NOT PROOF of a manned mission.

I repeat again, I do not believe Apollo was faked, CZero 101 does not believe Apollo was faked and Obviousman does not believe Apollo was faked.

turbonium does believe Apollo was faked.

What CZero 101, Obviousman and myself do understand is what constitutes proof. We know that belief is not enough. The laser reflectors are not proof, however they are evidence in a huge body of proof that shows that beyond any reasonable doubt Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.

To summarise:

Apollo happened. Apollo placed the reflectors there. Apollo is not the ONLY possible way that the reflectors got there, therefore the reflectors do not constitute irrefutable proof of Apollo.

Have you got it yet? Please say you've got it.

[monk 56]

Hi Czoro101,

I only dispute you on one thing, the Retroreflectors are proof of a manned Moon landing!

1) Apollo 11 landed on 20th July 1969, within a month it was sending back information by laser that was detected by several observatories, link below:-

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2010-7/articlese1.html

2) Lonokhod 1 landed over a year later which was the first robotic moon rover on 17th November 1970 that had a retroreflector fitted on it.

3) U.S.A. never landed a robotic moon rover in history, apart from that the American retroreflector was working more than a year before the Russian rover landed.

4) we know the location of Lonokhod 1 and 2., USSR only left two retroreflectors on the Moon, USA left three.

5) The American retroreflectors are proof of manned Moon landing in itself, and Apollo 11 left one that was working before Lonokhod 1.

[monk 56]

No one disputes that Lonokhod 1 was the first Moon robotic rover, if any can find evidence that the Americans left one on the Moon, i will take your point, there is no evidence, thus retroreflectors are proof, which you deny.

I'm not looking for maybe, find evidence that isn't an American astronaut passanger rover but a robotic one!

[Czero 101]

Monk...

Again, what you are saying is true.

I know it.

Obviousman knows it.

Waspie knows it.

Pretty much everyone here knows it.

The problem is that you are still not getting the idea that the LRRR's at the Apollo sites are not sufficient evidence by themselves to say conclusively that Man was there since it can be proven that other Retroreflectors were put there by means not involving a human presence.

They add to the body of evidence, but by themselves do not prove Man's presence there.

The fact that the US did not have a robotic moon rover program in the works at the time doesn't change the fact that it was still technically possible to land an unmanned spacecraft on the Moon. The Surveyor program proved that the US had the capability to soft-land a spacecraft on the Moon fairly precisely.

Please try to understand the logic behind that.

Cz

Edited February 18, 2013 by Czero 101

[monk 56]

This is zany, i'm a conspiracy theorist trying to help the other side, who want to hold on to official reports. If the other side can not get debate going i have to leave it to you!

1) i was talking about Moon Robotic Rovers, now dispute is about soft landings and Surveyor Program, please find a conspiracy theorist that says any of them had a retroreflector on this forum, i might be wrong but find any evidence, link below:-

http://en.wikipedia....urveyor_Program

2) The official line is that Retroreflectors started in 1969 with Apollo 11, well conspiracy theorists if the other side can not be united regarding official reports, and i am an astronomer/Conspiracy theorist trying to help them, they have no clarity in debate, very worrying!

3) Do they ever update information on this forum, obviously the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site Was imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbitter in 2012, actually the latitude and longitude of image is 0.67408* North Latitude, 23.47297* East Longitude on the Moon, retroreflectors have to be struck precisely by a laser beam, they then reflect the beam in a parallel path back to the source by laser and it is by this measure that we find that by how much the Moon is moving away from the Earth each year, how scientists are able to calibrate this is knowing exact location of retroreflector on the Moon by Apollo 11....Image location and how we fire lasers for the first retroreflector by Apollo 11 location is the same, please note Moon walk left by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin shown below by 2012 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbitter:-

http://www.space.com...-sites-lro.html

If those that follow official reports have difficulty with me being a conspiracy theorists trying to help them but am an accurate astronomer, well they need help in debate, and have problems!

Hell i have to leave some zany English humour, it wasn't Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin that did the first "Moon Walk" it was Bill Bailey in 1955, please wait for final seconds of video Ha Ha!

[media=]

[/media] Edited February 19, 2013 by monk 56

[psyche101]

A view of stars () from the lunar surface is not relevant to my point. It has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison. So drop it already.

Again, people can see 'amazing' stars while in space....

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528

"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).

Apollo is being compared while in LEO, and while en route to the moon, and during its return to Earth NOT FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE!!

Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

Well, your point seems to have gone down like a lead balloon.

This is what you are left with is it? Man did not go to the moon because the Astronauts were clearly not descriptive enough during the flight whilst seeing stars in space?

Also, these men were test pilots, and had been through X15, Mercury and Gemini missions. Why do you think Apollo was the first time man had seen that altitude? Why would something they have seen before become remarkable to report to people who were concerned with technical problems?

Seriously, you question the integrity of these heroes based on that bit of crap? Or do you still fall for the waving flag nonsense CT?

[DONTEATUS]

It does get really old ! Why one cannot see the Facts,and Actual Proof ? Apollo HAppened,We walked upon the Moon,We will return soon !

Look up a little more at night at our Moon. See Its Real,We Walked on it !

[Eluus]

It does get really old ! Why one cannot see the Facts,and Actual Proof ? Apollo HAppened,We walked upon the Moon,We will return soon !

Look up a little more at night at our Moon. See Its Real,We Walked on it !

I didn't have any significant knowledge about the Apollo missions and I was curious at first about the truth. I read the thread before this one and been following this since it's start.

It took me a dozen pages to see that NASA did land those men on the moon. I kept reading it because it was full of new information for me and I did have a lot of time. The information alone could keep me reading these threads. However after reading a lot of turbonium's posts I kept reading the threads because I couldn't believe the type of arguments turbonium kept coming up with, his tactics and wanted to see how other people would react to them. I must say that I learned a lot from the frequent posters of the thread, especially from M.I.D. Not only the science/facts of Apollo missions but more importantly how to patiently try to deal with people who behave like the CTs in this thread. I can't believe how patient he was. Though even he couldn't manage to help some posters.

In the end, I am still undecided if

1) turbonium knows that he is wrong but still keeps going for some reason

2) His ego is making him blind to the obvious

This has been puzzling me since the moon hoax thread before this one.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Eluus

[Philthy]

I propose that the existence of the reflectors ARE proof of men on the moon all by themselves. If they were placed by robotic devices, they would have to get there somehow. The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches. There is no evidence of any other launches with robots aboard. This means that YES, the Apollo reflectors DO prove that the Apollo landings were are actual fact.

Phil

Edited February 20, 2013 by Philthy

[Czero 101]

I propose that the existence of the reflectors ARE proof of men on the moon all by themselves. If they were placed by robotic devices, they would have to get there somehow. The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches. There is no evidence of any other launches with robots aboard. This means that YES, the Apollo reflectors DO prove that the Apollo landings were are actual fact.

Phil

How many "covert" launches were there last year?

Its practically an unknowable number.

So unfortunately your "The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches" is not only factually incorrect since there were other unmanned launches during that time period (link to a page showing all documented launches, globally, during 1969), it is also a bad example to judge by since, if there were "covert missions to put robotic landers on the Moon to help facilitate the Moon landing hoax" the chance of those launches showing up in any historical documentation is fairly slim... practically nil, actually.

Again... the presence of the LRRR's certainly does add to the considerable evidence that proves that Man went to the Moon as history recorded, but on their own do not constitute sufficient evidence to say conclusively that Man was there since it can be shown that the technology to send a robotic mission to the Moon existed at the time.

Cz

[Philthy]

I still say the US reflectors prove the manned landings. The only launches that had them on board was Apollo 11.'

I do understand what you are saying, and I agree, somewhat.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The landings happened, it's a recorded, documented, historical fact.

Nitlpicking about the reflectors isn't accomplishing anything.

Phil

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I still say the US reflectors prove the manned landings.

You can say what you like, it doesn't make you right.

The only launches that had them on board was Apollo 11.'

And Apollo 14 and Apollo 15, but that is immaterial.

You claim that the reflectors are proof of Apollo because only Apollo had reflectors. You are resorting to a logical fallacy here as you are using a circular argument.

Nitlpicking about the reflectors isn't accomplishing anything.

On the contrary, the way to defeat illogical, false and deceptive claims such as the Apollo hoax nonsense is with evidence, logic and, above all, honesty. If that involves pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those who agree with you then so be it. Honesty involves openness. You may think that is nitpicking but I don't. It isn't those that believe in Apollo that have to hide their mistakes.

[Philthy]

WOW!!

I know for an actual fact that Apollo landed on the moon.

Are we really quibbliy about this?

Really?

Phil

[Czero 101]

WOW!!

I know for an actual fact that Apollo landed on the moon.

Are we really quibbliy about this?

Really?

Phil

Well, to be precise, we're not "quibbling" over whether or not they landed on the Moon. We do know this to be a fact.

What we are discussing is what constitutes proof that Man landed on the Moon.

In the case of the LRRR's, their presence at the Apollo sites certainly add to the mountain of evidence that proves undeniably that Man was there, but on their own they do not constitute undeniable proof since it can be shown that there are other ways to put a retro-reflector at those locations.

Whether or not those methods were used is another issue entirely and there is far more than sufficient evidence to show that those other methods were not used in the case of the Apollo 11, 14 & 15 LRRR's.

If there were no other facts, no other evidence, just the presence of the LRRR's, that would not be enough to undeniably say that Man was there, just as if the only evidence found at a crime scene was one single human hair, that is not enough proof to undeniably say that the person who shed that hair was the person who committed the crime.

Cz

Edited February 22, 2013 by Czero 101

[postbaguk]

On the contrary, the way to defeat illogical, false and deceptive claims such as the Apollo hoax nonsense is with evidence, logic and, above all, honesty. If that involves pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those who agree with you then so be it. Honesty involves openness. You may think that is nitpicking but I don't. It isn't those that believe in Apollo that have to hide their mistakes.

I totally agree. If we are holding conspiracy theorists to a certain standard with regards to logically sound arguments and evidence, we must also hold ourselves to the same standards. Yes, we know the facts back up our case, so why give give CTs ammunition against the truth by using logically unsound arguments? Best to keep our own arguments sound, and allow them to fall on their swords.

In regards to the retroreflectors, I agree that they aren't in and of themselves proof that men landed on the moon. As pointed out, they are part of the overall body of evidence that we went to the moon. When you look at that body of evidence, it makes a pretty much unimpeachable case in favour of Apollo.

The anti-Apollo case, on the other hand, is laughably inconsistent. On the one hand, you've got the necessity to have a secret programme of robotic landers that returned 300 kg off moon rocks. No evidence for this programme has been unearthed by CTs in 40 years. This programme must have bene in operation for several years prior to Armstrong first setting foot on the moon, yet there is absolutely no mention of it whatsoever. Why would they keep this technology secret? Why not use it to further humiliate the Russians in terms of lunar achievement? In order for the CT case to hold water, you must believe that a decision was made, sometime in the early-mid 1960's, that not only was a manned landing deemed to be impossible, but they had to carry "pretending" to land a man on the moon, at the same time as developing a whole new mission programme, in complete secret, with no details leaking out from either NASA employees or 3rd party contractors, so that in a few years time they'd be able to send the robots to the moon, in total secrecy, with the sole purpose of retrieving 300 kg of rocks, soil samples and core samples, with the sole purpose of lending credence to a manned mission. Why not just say, "OK, we've discovered that it's impossible for men to go to the moon due to the radiation, so instead we're going to send state of the art robots to the moon before the Russians." They wouldn't lose face, because there would be no possibility of the Russians putting a man on the moon first, since it's clearly impossible (in reality of course, the Russians were still developing their manned lunar programme until the early/mid 70s, and Russian scientists produced a paper in 1965 proving that the Van Allen belts weren't a problem in terms of a manned moon shot). They could have refocussed all the energy being put into the LM and the CSM and the spacesuit into the robotic landers.

Instead, they mortgaged their credibility for decades to come by not only faking six moon landings with varying degrees of success (they didn't really fake Apollo 12, they just faked the TV camera breaking in order to save money), and one near disaster Apollo 13). Ever since, successive generations of NASA employees and contractors have agreed to go along with the scam, putting their own reputations and careers on the line by helping to fake images from the LRO mission that comport with the faked Apollo photos and film of the landings and lift-offs. No-one has ever seen fit to blow the whistle on this tremendous scam in over 40 years. Yet this far-fetched and far-reaching conspiracy, effected with amazing efficiency over the last 50 years, all came tumbling down because they decided it would be a really good idea to have a man with a beard hiding inside some contraption that was meant to be the LM, while broadcasting live at the start of Apollo 12, who was startled by a roller-blind suddenly springing open and quickly pulled it back down. Not only did this embarrassing gaff happen (although not a single person out of the millions of TV viewers actually mentioned seeing it at the time), but a red-faced NASA decided in their infinite wisdom, to give the footage out to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asked for it. Not only that, but years later, they decided to put it all online for the whole world to see. A truly spectacular own-goal given the incredible lengths they'd gone to both previously and subsequently to preserve secrecy.

Edited February 23, 2013 by postbaguk

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The anti-Apollo case, on the other hand, is laughably inconsistent.

Yep.

On the one hand, you've got the necessity to have a secret programme of robotic landers that returned 300 kg off moon rocks.

Laughably inconsistent indeed when you consider that one of the major arguments used by hoax believers is that '60s technology wasn't sufficiently advance for Apollo.

Their view would make sense if we lived in a world where piloted planes were just beginning to take over from unmanned drones, where automotive technology was researching cars with drivers to take over from all those driver-less cars on the roads, and where the London Underground was seriously considering their next generation of trains having human drivers to replace the unmanned trains they currently use.

The reality is, of course, the exact opposite.