just if anyones interested,people monitoring the moon using this lazer have discovered that the moon is slowly moving away from us,at approximately the same rate as an average humans fingernails grow.such is the precise information given to us from these reflectors.respect to the Myhbusters.
That shit is a proper myth, i've seen scientific BS telling it's moving away 2 cm per year while other say it's getting closer 4 cm per year. What kind of an apparatus could EVER messure a diference of 2-3 cm at this distance ?!?
@@4Everlast personal incredulity is not an argument. The accuracy currently is to within 1 inch. A very basic oscilloscope can detect signal delays under a nano second. Using a laser in a classroom with a mirror and an oscilloscope, you can determine the speed of light. (In fact, the speed of light is now used to define the metre). Since the speed of light is known and the time for light from the laser to get to the moon and back can be measured highly accurately, it follows that the distance is going to be accurate. Btw the moon is moving away from earth - I've personally not read anything about it getting closer.
read national geographic december issue 1966 page 876 article titled " the lasers bright magic" it tells that we been bouncing lasers off the moon since 1962.
busa89 I would admit I'm wrong in a second, but until there's real proof nobody is going to believe this garbage. Anyone can shoot a reflective plate onto a planet or a moon.... This isnt any more proof than them saying they've been there, where is the ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF, if weve been there nobody would ever be able to dispute it, and that's not the case, it simply isnt possible to get a human up there.
The mythbusters inspired appreciation and interest on science for a whole generation. They will be missed! They make science easy to understand and enjoyable. My favorite childhood science educators.
@McLovin LOL You flunked science and math too? Proving *27 humans (*3 went twice)visited the Moon is no different than proving planet earth is a oblate spheroid orbiting the sun.Yep,renew that library card,your children will thank you..
@@Godscountry2732 And moonlanding proved, that the sun is a fusion reactor. What does that have to do with that or that landing on the moon proved at long last, that earth is a sphere ? Is it the old boring flatearther-Story, that you recount in eternity ? Are this all your trumps? Wow.
Actually, what's on the moon is a "retroreflector"--not just a "reflector." It's also called a "corner cube." This device requires no adjustment. By its nature, any laser aimed at it from any angle will return precisely 180 degrees, back to the exact point the laser came from. That is the genius of the thing. No simple mirror or other reflective surface does this.
@@TheHardTruthTV no such material has ever been found. It would need to replicate the shape with extreme precision. There's no way that happened naturally. It's more believable that aliens left them than that they're natural which is still a way less likely explanation than it being man made.
Yet it don’t prove anything. Her big ass laser couldn’t pick up the light bouncing back. Yet in 1963 I believe Massachusetts tech. As well as the Soviets in 1967 were able to bounce a laser light off the moon and back. But she couldn’t do it with her big ass laser! lol😂 By the way this still don’t prove man has been in the moon. If indeed those things are there. It just proves man made objects are there. Just like other agencies have said to place and leave things in the moon. But yet we are the only ppl to have not sent an unmanned rover. Or so said. Which is actually false cause in 1970 an unmanned rover was said to have been sent to the moon!
+TapesNstuffS It's actually pulsed. The light beams would have lasted in microseconds. Divide a billion with million, the laser would have needed at least a thousand watt.
The reflectors were put on the moon to measure the distance from the earth to the moon, which is growing every year. The earth's gravity is loosing it's grip on the moon and it's slipping away at about 3 centimeters a year. Effecting tides, weather patterns and so on.
@PegasusWings11, keep in mind that what is shwn in this video isn't only done at the Apache Pt. Observatory. It's done at lunar laser ranging stations in Australia, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, France, Poland & a few other places. Anyone with the equipment can do this. You might say it's pretty "public" (like the launches) & you'd be surprised how common lunar laser ranging is. Do a little Google searching.
@@kishorevenugopal6191even if you tried and it failed (which it would) they'd just say you're pointing at the wrong spot and they wouldn't tell you the actual coordinates and info and such.
Elizabeth Swims. Yes, a small RR attached to a rover, lander. Unfortunility for the hoaxers, the Apollo 15 retroflector is very large and sitting by itself at distance from the LEM. The evidence is just too good to deny. One moron went as far as writing an elaborate scientific paper claiming none of the RR's left by the Americans are on the Moon. How ignorant and dumb can intelligent humans be.? The paper was rejected by everyone.LOL The Apollo 15 RR has been a favorite target for many countries including China for its first-ever Laser range finding experiments. We also have 100s of photographs, which match Soviet, Chinese, Japanese, Indian views of the Moon. Unless everyone faked multi-hundred million dollar Moon flights, the hoaxers will need to renew their library cards.
@Elizabeth Swims Yes, in 1970 the Russian unmanned space mission, Luna 17, released a rover called Lunokhod 1 which had a retroreflector on it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_17
Whoa whoa whoa...now I get to this videos comments and people have abandoned the "there is no outer space", "nothing can leave the firmament" argument? Which is it? Are we in a globe nothing can leave or not. If you can send an Earth object out of the atmosphere then we can leave the atmosphere. There is no argument beyond that.
Today, I had a moment of lapse when I was reading about the Van Allen Belt and the low rem readings from the dosimeters of the Apollo astronauts. Then I remembered the Lunar Retroreflector Array. Thank-you Buzz and Neil, for your foresight of naysayers.
Have you seen the video of the astronauts being told about the Van Allen belt, and they never hurd about it, so they just accept wha the jurnalist said other astronauts told him, so hey quickly adopt what he just said and started explaining HIM what it's like going throe it even though it's the first time they hurd about it, besides the Don Petit and the Massimo guys comming up wit ha lie about seeing, not seeing stars it's just priceless and makes anyone with half a brain wonder why the FUCK would they blatantly lie about a minor detail let alone something big.
Then you discovered that laser lunar ranging was achieved in 1962, years before the supposed landing. What now? Louis D. Smullin & Giorgio Fiocco (30 June 1962) "Optical Echoes from the Moon". Nature 194, (1267) doi:10.1038/1941267a0 The New York Times (5 November 1963) "Soviet bounces light beam off moon in a laser test" Thomas Maloy, Howard Sochurek (December 1966) "The Laser's Bright Magic". National Geographic 130, (874-6)
@@4Everlast LOL, you guys are so funny to read, the only reason I keep coming back to troll you morons. Yes, they never 'hurd' about it. How in the hell could they, since as far as I know, hurd isn't even word, at least not one with any relation to receiving sound. Your credibility just SOARS with statements like that. The astronauts never heard about it. Go read some literature from the time moron.
@@4Everlast Nobody lied about anything regarding the Apollo program..Out of context quotes, forgotten memories, half-truths, and pseudoscience haven't changed the historical and scientific accomplishments of Apollo. If you're unable to separate pseudoscience from science, you only have yourself to blame.NASA made 9 flights to the Moon,6 of those flights landed on the surface. There has never been any authoritative sourced evidence pointing to a hoax. Period. It is complete and utter nonsense.
Perhaps we have been to the moon, but you can't blame anyone for questioning the government. Someone who questions is smarter than someone who blindly follows.
People did in fact go to the moon. This has been demonstrated proven and recognized. Some scientist have even said its easier to send people to the moon that to fake the entire records and blueprints along with the hundreds of thousands of worker witnesses who worked on the project. Millions around the world were tuned in to watch the rocket Blast off. It is still a very memorable event.
Blind disbelief is not more intelligent than blind belief. It is less intelligent, because in order to incredulously deny scientific consensus the underlying assumption is that the conspiracy theorist believes they know better than scientists. As Socrates once said “I know nothing, and therefore I know more than those who don’t know they know nothing.”
-The man never went to the moon! We had no such technology back then! -Erm... We have retroreflectors that prove otherwise... -Drones! -Wait, so you're saying we had perfect precision equipment to go there, and place an expensive equipment that would most certainly be more expensive and risky in case of failure instead of sending a human back there? -...What?
***** , No, we were in a space race with the USSR. Place a retroreflector was easy once we got there. Far more precise than asking a 1969 "drone" to do it. Most definitely the technology existed then. It was done 7 times.
+LunarTuner 6 times, apollo 13 didn't land (i know i am nitpicking, but i can't help it). also, if we are only talking about circumlunar fly-by, arguably the ussr also had the technology for that, though they never did a manned mission (zond 5 sent some turtles and flies arounf the moon and back to earth).
+pizda matii I was referring to trips to the moon. Actually, I could add Apollo 8 and 10. Since landing on the moon is little more than "docking" with it, which has been a demonstrated ability 1,000s of times in earth orbit, the transit to the moon (through the VABs) is the most questioned factor. But to say "we had so such technology back then" is abject ignorance.
LunarTuner yes, you are right, the "radiation during transiting the belts would have killed them" seems to be the most common objection, though some people go as far as to say that "rockets would not work in the vacuum of space because there is no air to push against". i do not know how do they explain the gps satellite networks or the iss.
+LunarTuner I'm more curious as to why people are so insistent that everyone _believe_ we went to the moon. I really have no way to confirm for myself whether anyone went there or not. Real and fake are both plausible hypotheses And it is not something that affects my day-to-day life. As for the space race, it _would_ give our government incentive to fake a landing. But the "you must believe" attitude concerns me. _Why_ do authorities want me to believe? The government is not exactly trustworthy. Is this a test of their ability to manipulate public perception?
I love how she can't just say "O.K., let's see how it looks when we shine the laser at the reflector." She has to go all Star-Trek and say "Initiating Laser!" lol But that was pretty cool of her.
In 1969, yes it was impossible. We didn’t have the technology to robotically install sensible scientific equipment on the surface of the moon. That could only have been done by highly trained astronauts.
@@mcgrathfilms soviet placed 2 more, and then india place one. That's what general belief. But there are more lies about this. Moon believers said everyone can test its existence. Turn out it's also a lie. Mythbuster tried to test it themselves. Turn out they have to go to special giant laser to test it, and the test result can be fake... .so no proof it actually exist.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Lunokhod 1? Yeah, it turns out it was near impossible. It was roof mounted on a Russian rover and they lost it in 1971. It was only rediscovered last year. And like I said, US scientists started using the one placed by Apollo 11 in 1969, so it was definitely put there by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
The main hurdle is the gravity well on Earth. Bringing the needed mass to orbit required a buttload of "dineros". Approximately 280 billion USD for the whole Apollo program, if you adjust for inflation.
There's a conspiracy theorist on UA-cam that claims that landing the Spacex Falcon 9 core on the barge was faked because the barge did not ride lower in the water after it landed. Using info easily obtained on the internet, I calculated that it would ride 8mm lower in the water with the rocket aboard, there's no way anyone would ever notice that. I wonder if he deleted my comment?
I'm not from US but I'm still very proud of what you guys accomplished in 1969. It was a remarkable achievement that deserves all praise it raises. It is a deep shame when such an amazing accomplishment is not even recognized by a portion of the population who prefers to try to diminish the whole work of a genius team of scientific heroes, just because they have an agenda to discredit the government for whatever reasons possible.
an agenda to discredit the government??????? WOW you're using the projection tactics that they are. hahahahahaahha good try you fooled 12 people to like your content. keep it up demon
If you truly believe they are precisely locating a reflector the size of a laptop from earth then there’s no hope for you and your brain. You have to go to the observatory and use all their equipment so that their computers can tell you what’s happening but you can’t physically see the laser reflect back so no evidence of that. You can’t physically see the lunar reflector so there’s no evidence of that. The evidence is going to the liars themselves and trusting that their graph on a computer means anything at all as they blast a laser into the air. Is there any image of the retro reflector from a high powered telescope used to locate it? No. Why not? Because it doesn’t exist. Can you see the laser reflecting back? No, they just say it reflects back in a perfect line so you can’t even tell it’s reflecting back. This entire video is based on zero empirical evidence zero visual proof or any proof for that matter. It’s all about appealing to authority. Go to the laser place that claims to do this then when they can’t give you a single shred of proof for their claims but just tell you that the line on the computer means everything they’ve said is true wow that’s so great I’m glad we know we went to the moon now because their computer displayed a line on a graph that’s crazyyyyyyy
A simpler way would probably have been to actually see the landing site maybe or be able to see this retroreflector? Besides in the "videos" from the landing, we don't have equipment that is high powered enough to see it?
Jay Mase Because of Dawes Limit no current earthbound telescope is capable of resolving any of the Apollo hardware. LRO has photographed all of the sites though.
I just looked up how a cornercube reflector works. It is surprisingly simple and can easily be explained with stuff we learned in physics lessons when I went to school a long time ago. But what I find fascinating is the precision engineering used to make them work from such a distance, something akin to the Hubble mirror. (yes hoaxies, I know the Hubble is a totally different thing but it still needed precision engineering)
As a french guy I find the number of moon landing deniers in the comments unbelivable. And anyway why would anyone deny one of the greatest achievements of mankind if it was done by their own country?
On the contrary. This just proves that the Moon landing was a hoax: I takes the beam 2.5 seconds to do the round trip. Because of the earth rotation, the location of the emitter/receiver will have moved by over 1,500 feet by the time the beam gets back. This doesn't even account for the fact that the moon is not on a geosynchronous orbit, adding an additional 1,500 feet to the original location of the emitter/receiver by the time the beam makes it back, making it impossible for the beam to strike the location from which it was sent.
@Trebor Do the maths, but the time any photon gets back the telescope has moved 1.2km due to the earth's rotation. Are you saying the return beam is 3000ft wide? If not - how wide do you think it was?
@Trebor It's just another issue with your RR theory. There is no artificial RR, we clearly see a strong RR effect in the photos: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg Dust builds at 1mm per 1000 years so there will be inches of dust over the ground and rocks (except there isn't as it was all faked on earth), so any meteor strike can cause an RR area to be formed. This natural RR will be a small localised highly reflective spot, and sit there waiting for NASA to claim it as a landing site. It's all rather pathetic really, NASA has spent 50 years covering this lie and go exactly nowhere, and people like you try to defend that. Don't you ever get tired of their excuses to never go above the VAB? Do you think pretending they went in 1969 really helps progress manned space flight? Really?
@Trebor No, that's pretty much the truth. Don't worry, I do expect it to look very odd to someone of faith like yourself, just bear it in mind as you look at the photos, listen to the excuses and keep wondering why the consistent accusations of fake have lasted for half a century. BTW a retroreflector is merely a collection of glass beads, of which many have been claimed to be on the moon. www.roadvista.com/reflective-glass-beads/
@Trebor It's the truth, sorry. Your belief in your government telling you the truth didn't stop them lying to you at every opportunity. Yes, the Apollo corner RR is better than the natural glass bead RR per square unit area. Perhaps it's even 10x better? But the Apollo RR is only 0.2m2 whereas the laser dot is 6.5km across and so accesses 10562500 m2, some 52160494 x the area. So it doesn't matter.
Did you really think there is just some photon that they send? A simple LED lamp can produce million of photon each seconds, and yes of course that laser just send some photon.
Exactly. Good observation. Out of 200 quadrillion photons (200,000,000,000,000,000) only 1 to 3 return. Not a reasonable DOE. And look at the graph of the scatter representing reflection from random surface (non-reflector site) at 3:22 it is the same scale as the "spike" observed at the reflector site. And how do you hit a one meter target on the moon? The lab coat scientist did not explain that.
Who has more credibility? These conspiracy theorists, or Neil Armstrong, one of the finest pilots ever, and by every account a man of the utmost integrity. There is no way he would have gone along with the ruse, much less risk his life training for it.
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were unwittingly dragged into the hoax. NASA intended to visit the Moon but by the late 60's it was looking to be impossible. If any of the crew broken silence the Fed Govt would have taken retribution through their families.
Markus Camenzind Correct, they were placed in 1969 but the results from it were substantially lower from these experiments. science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr
-park- i know that Just saying that the placement of reflectors is no proof I believe they went to the moon but we need better arguments to explain it to disbeliefers
Lol. So in the footage there was actually more than one light source which doesn’t make sense because the only source of light was the sun. Another thing is that there were no visible stars in the background footage and if you were to speed up the footage by 2x it is clearly people running at a regulated pace and when slowed down looks like a surface with less gravity. Much evidence of doctored footage and photography has been provided such as the crosses in the camera lens appeared to be under certain objects like the flag which be impossible if these images were true. We had every reason to fake the moon landing due to the space race. The technology tests prior to the actual mission were never successful. When they landed on the moon they used jets to propel them selfs slowly to the surface However in the footage there was no sign of a disrupted surface underneath the Apollo. The flag was waving although no wind and the gravity would not permit that movement. how did they come out with photos so crisp but footage so blurry. An overhead view of Area 51 shows major resemblances to the surface in the footage. Even craters that have proven to be practically identical( from the moon and Area 51). There is a layer of radiation between us and the moon and it was and is simply impossible for us to have had the technology to penetrate and live through this layer of radiation especially after all the failed tests before the mission. There’s your research.
@Autumn Sears Don't know where you got that multiple light sources stuff, but its wrong, all shadows are parallel. Speeding up also doesn't work, the may fall slowly but their hands and other movements are natural human speed, very in multiple videos of astronauts just falling down and getting back up or in the famous hammer vs feather video, speed that up and it just looks super weird and fast hand movements. The stars are really easy to debunk and understand. Lets see, why don't you see stars in the day? seriously whats the big difference? the atmosphere is exactly the same at day or night isn't it? And if you take a picture in the day would you see stars or no? It might seem like nightime in the moon footage but... thats just because there is almost no atmosphere which gives the sky its blue coloring when light passes trhough, if there is no light then you see space as it is. Black. For the astronauts the moon landing was in the day, even if the sky is black, the sun was shining just as much as in a day on earth, the exposure ratio of the camera has to beadjusted to the light and so... in the same way you don't see stars on the day, you can't see stars there either, at least not through a camera. It kind of baffles me how you pick and choose the scientific discoveries that agree with your theory but everything else are lies. How do you know about that radiation? what do actual scientists say about it? If you investigate you will find that they think it would be dangerous only over long exposures, and that satellites that pass through only turn off their sensors to avoid damage (spacecrafts don't have any sensors to damage btw), it doesn't just randomly fry their circuits. And latter apollo missions bipassed the belt entirely, and yeah it was a known hazard even back then. But what? All of this scientist are lying but... also telling the truth? It seems quite literally like you just heard "there is a dangerous radiation belt between the earth and the moon" but blocked yourself from any other information, even if the information comes from the same scientists that talk about the Val Allen belts in the first place
Lets create a simple thought experiment just like Einstein would... If it takes light 1.3 seconds to go from the earth to the moon. and 1.3 seconds to return. Then if both the earth and the moon are hurtling through space around the galaxy and we are NOT geo stationary with the moon. As we are both rotating and the moon is also getting out of alignment with respect to any spot we choose to view through a telescope on the moon. Then it is guaranteed that whatever spot on the moon we view to point the laser will lagg behind by the time a laser gets there by thousands of feet. Since it will have moved 1.3 seconds. Even if you attempt to lead your target by 1.3 seconds then on the return trip of the laser (to earth) it will be off again by an additional 1.3 seconds of travel. Even if you compenstated for all of this. You still have the issue that we are hurtling and rotating and orbiting thorugh space. The laser light would still be traveling in a rectilinear fashion RELATIVE TO ITS LAST STATIC POSITION. If you want to say that the light will keep it's inertia and travel in sync with the earth's speed. Then you have to claim that light has MASS to have momentum. and that light will inherit the starting speed when it leaves the laser. So in short, it should be impossible for you to align a laser and hit a distance target of a moving object. Because what you see in your viewfinder is ALREADY 2.6 seconds late!!!!! And you have to physically hit the reflector to get a return signal from it!!!!!!!
+Open Your Eyes Not only that, but the reflector itself can't lead ahead at all to compensate for this. It could only reflect towards the *apparent* position of incoming light. Completely impossible for this hoax of an experiment to work.
+Strider VM The emitter itself doesnt need to reach the Speed of light to be off target. All it takes is to move the earth or the moon enough (in 2.6 seconds) to be off the this little reflectors target. Because these NASA numskulls claim to use a focused colminated light. They actually PROVED they never did this. If they just claimed they shot a wide beam at the moon itself and saw the reflection, it would be better for them. But instead they are claiming they hit this tiny little reflector. So think about it. Does light inherit the starting speed of the emitter? NO. This is a fundamental law of light. This goes for sideways motion also. So with that in mind Imagine a photon of light leaving a laser from a moving object hurtling sideways at some ungodly speed. (such as the earth rotating around the sun that is 93 million miles away, yet we make this rotation once a year!!!!!) Then imagine the trail (beam) it will make. It will have to be rectilinear! And it will NOT slide sideways to match the inertia of the emission. This means that any observer will see the laser light beam apparently rush away from the viewer. And on the return trip 2.6 seconds later it will bounce back to empty space! Because we are long gone from here. There are many more serious implications here, which I am not prepared to get into but for now being that this laser test is impossible.
Open Your Eyes Exactly! Earth orbital velocity is said to be 30 km per second. The location of the observatory, telescope and detector would have moved ~78 km away from the spot the beam returns to - nowhere near the 10 km radius of the reflected beam. BOOM! Another Satanic Space Hoax Lie is DEAD
It would take a photon approximately 1.2844 seconds to reach the moon and roughly the same amount of time to return based on what we are told is the distance to the moon. If the Earth is spinning at 1040 mph as is generally taught, then the spot from which the photon was fired will have rotated roughly 3,918 feet away when the photon returns. Particle diffraction would in fact enlarge the photon pulse to around 6.5 kilometers wide by the time it hit the moon. Of those photons, only a small percentage would strike the actual reflector and be sent back in the general direction of the origination point. The same diffraction would occur from the moon back to earth, therefore, particle detection (though weak) is still possible. For every 10^17 photons aimed at the reflector only 1 will return to be detected even on the best day and under ideal circumstances. 1040 mph & 3,918 feet rotation obviously assumes the origination point to be somewhere along the equator. Any deviation north or south would result in lower rotation speed and distance commensurate with the globe model.
freemind You're forgetting that we are also told the earth has an orbital velocity of ~30km per second. In the ~2.6 second roundtrip time, the point laser was fired from would have moved ~77km. OOPS!
There are actually 5 LRRR's on the moon, 2 were added by the Russians during their Lunar robot mission. (LRRR = Long Range Retro Reflector) due to the cup shaped mirror pattern on the surface, it makes the laser go back the exact same angle that it was hit with. Hence the half sphere conical indentations on the surface. This is how we were able to accurately determine that the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 2.5 inches per year.
Now if that were true then 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been forming and after it formed, If that's really the way the moon was formed,, it would have been about a 120,000 miles closer than it is now.. I think they've neglected to mention that.. Or the fact that nobody really knows where the moon came from or how it was formed but bridges keep forming and disappearing on the moon and there's no atmosphere no water so how is that happening
Nah.. we all know the moon is made of cheese, and that rockets are powered by animal manure. That the Earth is flat because almost everything is straight and level, and the heavens are just one gigantic dome placed there by God. And I can change myself into anything like a Chocobo .
Paul, you are wrong. I'm a Trump supporter. And I'm pretty sure we launched a rocket off a round Earth, went to the moon, and then returned to our planet, which is several billion years old.
there is a setup kit you can buy to do this in backyard , it not as fancy as the observatory they go to , it basically a hinged laser platform , and can only do it on a clear night with no clouds and it uses two lasers on meter separation 10 foot mirror receiver , surprised they didn't make one of them
You're not gonna get anything on any reasonably priced kit. You need very powerful pulsed lasers and sensitive photomultipliers with precise filters. Otherwise, the return light will be entirely lost in the background noise.
Laser retroreflector Problem 1: ------------------------------- Reflecting the 'beam' photons would need supernatural accuracy. Retroreflectors rely on a perfect angle, over 250,000 miles the manmade reflectors in the 200C and -125C of the lunar surface are not perfect so the return photons would miss the small telescope pointing toward it waiting for those photons. Even if the telescope was 10 metres across, the moon is 384.4e6 metres away, that angle is therefore around aSin (10/384.4e6) = 0.0000015 degrees. The retroreflectors are not made that accurately especially with temperature variations. Laser retroreflector Problem 2: ------------------------------- Too small to make any difference: After 250,000 miles the laser spreads out to a 6.5km wide dot. 6.5km dot, area = Pi.r^2 = 3.14 x 3250 x 3250 = 10562500 m2 0.45m x 0.45m reflector = 0.2025m2 Albedo = 12% or 0.12, assume mirror is 100% or 1.0, giving an elevation of 0.88 over the surface reflection. Area = 0.2025 / 10562500 = 0.00000002. Multiply by the 0.88 = 0.000000017 So in percentage terms the phantom reflector would make 0.0000017 % difference to the reflected laser. Laser retroreflector Problem 3: ------------------------------- At the speed of light the laser takes 2.5s to make the round trip. This is enough time due to the lunar orbit around the earth for the returning photon to miss the telescope. Laser retroreflector Problem 4: ------------------------------- The alleged reflector for AS11. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5952.jpg Look between the reflector to the horizon. Look at the terrain and the depth of field. The focus of the rocks and the LEM. That horizon is only about 30' away from the reflector: So it's not on the moon, it's in a studio.
@@Profile2.5 They do rely on that perfect angle, dummy, not the angle of presentation, manufacturing angles internal. They are also too small to make any difference (the dot size km) and will now be opaque from the radiation damage. Don't blame me for your own refusal to think.
First time i saw someone make in depth analysis about this. Another thing that they lie is that aint they say anyone can do this in their backyard without big ass laser machine
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Thanks! I'm look at the date I posted this - 4 years ago, before the rona. I could actually write stuff then, and YT wouldn't delete it! :)
Some of us actually think before we make up our mind. The thing that concerns me most are the technical aspects of landing on the moon (and coming back) with equipment from the 60s. And that´s coming from many modern astronauts. How can that be "pathetic"?
yxmordarbert Some of us read facts and come to a conclusion based on available evidence before making up our mind. Moon Conspiracy theorists don't. Why not engage with this piece of evidence? It's not just TV that's telling you, anyone can do it.
Kyle Malice We definitely did have colour TV back in 1969 - just because *you* didn't doesn't mean it wasn't there. Which is the point - you've proved you're not qualified to come to the conclusion you have. Why not engage with the evidence and really 'do reasearch' instead of shouting 'hoax/fake/BS and other meaningless emotive fluff?'
umm... did anyone actually see the lasers come back? all I saw was a computer saying that they detected a laser. because that couldn't be faked, right? just saying, that isn't really proof, and if that is the best proof you've got I am not impressed.
Ante Omnia Libertatem yeah but have you explain all the independent observatories that have bounced lasers off of the retroreflectors from other countries (because like, they have, you know.. but then you knew that.)
The retro reflectors are designed to reflect light back to the source......the problem is that by the time the light reflects light back to earth the source of the light on earth has moved by many kilometers. They also do not mention laser beam refraction or beam spread by the time the laser reaches the moon.....it must be again several kilometers wide...so how can they know they are hitting a suit case sized object after 250, 000 miles with a beam spread of several kilometers? Are we to be believe these retro reflectors are in pristine condition after 50 years on the moon.....surviving solar storms, extreme temp swings, dust storms, micro meteorites etc etc?? No way.
You mention two correct points which compensate for each other: The light reflects back to the point it was emitted while the emitter has moved. And the beam is at that point several kilometers wide. Which again included the new position of the emitter. They know they hit a target because they get back more photons than when not hitting it. So all they need is a search until they hit the reflector. There is nothing destroying the reflectors - they are pretty much immune to the effects of temperature changes and radiation. A problem however is a an effect by charged particles which end up on the reflector. They were detected on the solar powered instruments, but at some point they will diminish the returning light of the reflector as well.
@@Schmidtelpunkt 1. You have no idea what condition the alleged retro reflectors are in.....common sense tells us that with solar dust storms, micro meteorites that pelt the moon and extreme temp swings that it would be a miracle that the mirrors would be in pristine condition after 50 years. There is nobody up there to clean them. 2 Tell me what the beam divergence is when it hits the moon?? And what is the beam divergence on the return?? 3.There are other velocities not being accounted for. For one, the earth is not only rotating, it is also orbiting - and this positional change is 108,000 km/h or about 30 km per second. Velocities cannot be added to light. The trajectory and return of the beam will always be relative to the exact spot it was emitted from at the instantaneous moment of emission...Therefore after a 2.6 second round trip for the laser.....light would be bounced back to where the source WAS and not where it is. 4. MIT and also the Russians concluded tests in 1962....way before the Apollo missions successfully bouncing a laser off the moon. They are simply bouncing a laser of the moon surface....which had already been done in 1962. Its absurd to think they can pinpoint an suitcase size object 250, 000 miles away ....thats also moving.
@@fredbates46751. The conditions are well known and observed. There is always the change of a mirror getting hit, but the probability that this happens within a few decades is low. 2. About 6.5 kilometers, which is also the spread of the photons towards earth. 3. "For one, the earth is not only rotating, it is also orbiting - and this positional change is 108,000 km/h or about 30 km per second." So is the moon as it is in earth's orbit. Photons have a momentum vector in special relativity. 4. Yes, that is possible but the quality of the results is hugely inferior to those achieved using the mirrors. "They are simply bouncing a laser of the moon surface....which had already been done in 1962." Wrong, as in that case they would get the same results. They don't. "Its absurd to think they can pinpoint an suitcase size object 250, 000 miles away ....thats also moving." It is moving in a predictable manner known from centuries of moon observation and it is hit by a light cone with a six kilometer diameter in a location which can be identified close enough to limit the search to a specific area. While this is clearly an elaborate experiment which requires an impressive level of expertise and the development of very specific solution for every part of the experiment, it would be silly to just dismiss it because you personally can not imaging accomplishing something similar at all after looking at it for mere minutes.
Eric, let me remind you that any time anything is launched--even if it's launched from an underground cave in the Pacific Ocean--it is seen. If it's not seen by fishing boats or a passing airliner, it's signature is caught by seismometers and it will be tracked by any country with any interest in long range missiles (that would have been about a dozen countries in 1969).
I do believe in moon landing but knowing this part done so easily just makes me come up to a confusion. Doesnt the moon revolve and rotate? If it does, the why is it so easy to shot the lasser without ensuring in what position the moon is at that moment? Or is just coincidentally in facing the earth position? Just asking...
Nah it always faces earth, but that alone raises red flags, its exactly the distance away and rotates the perfect amount different to earths rotation, that it always faces us, never changing a fraction of degree, absolute absurdity coincidence. Almost as absurd as the sun and moon coincidence, Then theres the billion proofs that the ground is level and stationary, just as it seems. You don't have to believe the moon landing, because they keep telling you to. I haven't looked into this one but look at the video on my channel. It's all a big big big big deception, I know why. They needed it to spin more than it to be a globe, to hide the big secret, what the northern lights really are.
I believe we went to the moon. I'm not a flat earther. But telling someone who already doesn't believe any science to "watch this spike on a graph" and expect them to believe it is just... Not happening.
Ok now i have a question: If we think about the lens effect that the atmosphere has on the moon observed from earth, and if we imagine that this lens effekt never lets us see the moon in its actual position. How can we point on these reflectors if we not even see the real position of the moon?
@@Cjx0r The laser beam is so wide that even if you point straight at it you will hit the reflector. You will improve your return ratio if you compute the leading angle but it's not critical.
@TheFarciarz777 The laser beam is too wide in fact, that's the problem. The ruby lasers the soviets used long before anyone went to space, let alone the moon, had a far less significant intrinsic divergence and yet they too still had success. Pointing this thing at the moon and flashing it with SUB-ARCSECOND pulsed photons and catching a couple back doesn't demonstrate the presence of any sort of reflective object on the moon. That is of course a couple, out of the three times ten to the seventeenth photons that were fired. All at a speed of 20Hz and their own software diagram output indicating over 2000 pulses as we are watching it. What the fuck do you think this is substantiating my guy?
@Trebor so you're sure you are aiming somewhere near a 2 sq foot box sitting on a barren planet roughly 27% the size of earth, are you? Lol. I know the laser beam is wide at that range, but..... Keep in mind that we've been bouncing laser pulses off the moon since about 1962 or so. Not to mention work with radio waves, satellites in geosynchronous orbit and many other things of this nature. All of which existed Long BEFORE Apollo or even NASA.
@Trebor check your facts bud. The beam is about 4 sq miles wide. On a surface as big as Asia and the Atlantic ocean put together. Throw in the Coriolis effect of not only the target, but also the shooting platform and it most definitely is hard. Some scientists have likened it to shooting a dime with a rifle at over 2 miles. And planets do not always move i an exact, predictable path along their elliptical orbit. The speed up, slow down, wobble. It is NOT strictly retrograde orbit. So, you go ahead and try it. Let me know how you make out.
@@RodCalidge They can easily identify the area they have to look at as the moon is mapped. The result is significantly smaller than Asia. Within that areas they move the laser systematically until they get spikes in returning photons.
@@Schmidtelpunkt yep, I know. A little box as tiny as the smallest flat screen tv in an area roughly the size of Asia. It's a good thing that the rest of the moon is perfectly symettical and smooth so the wouldn't get spikes off of anything else.
@@RodCalidge There are no flat reflecting surfaces on the moon, so, nope, they would not get a spike but just the noise until they hit the reflector. Because, what you might not know: that is the point of the reflector. Reflecting light back to earth. And, as I mentioned before but apparently in too many words for you to understand: They don't have to search the whole earth facing side of the moon. They know where they places the mirror. So they only have to search an area for which the optical resolution becomes too low to identify further details. At that point it is just a matter of time, as they simply scan it using the laser, which has a width of several kilometers when its photons arrive at the moon.
Much as I appreciate MythBusters for tackling this hoax, do you honestly believe that anyone who buys in to every conspiracy theory will believe anyone who proves them wrong?
@@rporta but according to the myth busters, retro reflectors are proof of a manned mission, and since the Russians have two retroreflectors on the moon, they must have sent men twice. I'm just using their logic. My point is that these retroreflectors can be put on the moon by an unmanned craft.
@Tiberiusduck, Astronomers from the Soviet Union and US (MIT) tried this in the 60s. It was so ridiculously hard to get even one photon (from millions) that they asked their respective space programs to put retroreflectors on the moon. True, the laser beam widens. Upon hitting the lunar surface, photons scatter WILDLY! To get one to return 180 degrees is almost miraculous. What we do know is retros give exponentially more returns than the surrounding terrain.
@@Alastair510 that's very funny. Maybe the soviets did just that with their Lunokhod reflector missions. They sent a guy on a one way trip inside of a rover body and told him to plant them "robotically."
in what way was this proof? They just said what they were doing and that the spike on the screen was from the moon... this video literally proved nothing.
A dome shaped reflector scatters the light in all directions. It has to be as concentrated as possible to travel all that way and still be able to detect. Even with the cornercubes, a very few of the reflected photons reach the detectors. The scientists know what they are doing, contrary to the amateurs... :)
Let me just say this: I am not disputing whether or not astronauts landed on the moon. I don't care. We haven't done it since, and we currently don't have any reason to do it again. However, I do have an issue with the premise that the presence of retroreflectors means that astronauts landed on the moon. Here's why: there are two Russian retroreflectors on the moon, and they were placed by unmanned craft (Lunokhod 1 and 2). Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Apollo retroreflectors were also placed by remote. I'm not necessarily saying that they were, just bringing up the possibility. The bottom line is this: the presence of retroreflectors on the moon does not confirm that astronauts were ever on the moon.
+The Muspelheimr You’re right that reflectors alone on the moon doesn't prove men were there, but it’s part of the evidence that supports the moon landings. Remember, the reflectors were used within days of being placed on the surface during Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Therefore if they were not placed there during the Apollo missions, then an explanation is needed for how and when the reflectors got there (we can't send spacecraft to the moon in secret). What craft was used to place them there? Who designed and built the craft? Why hasn't that information surfaced (not even as a rumour)? In other words, if it's a hoax, then a viable alternative explanation/theory will be needed to explain how the 3 Apollo retro-reflectors got there. :-)
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 - So how could the Saturn V rockets take spacecraft to the moon during Apollo 11, 14 and 15, landing successfully on the surface, when ALL conspiracy theorists claim the same Saturn V rockets only took the astronauts into low Earth orbit and that's where they remained until it was time to return to Earth? :-)
@@MTMind2 no astronaut ever in the rocket. All apollo is fake. No man ever leafe earth orbit. All rocket fell into the ocean nearby. That is why rocket trajectory is curve. They want it to fall far from people eye
I can totally understand this point of view, but in this video she clear states that she’s pointing the laser at the Apollo 15 site (26.1334°N 3.6285°E). The Lunokhod reflectors are at 38.315°N 324.992°E and 25.830°N 30.914°E respectively. If she’s lying about the location she’s pointing the laser, then you’d have to assume this third party laser pointer is also in on the conspiracy.
Then get a laser strong enough, direct it at those coordinates and if you just get back random noise you have proven Nasa wrong. But wait - it is so much easier to just invent some wild conspiracy on the fly than trying to follow up on those claims. So everything is just CGI, everybody has this app in their telescope and all of this is done on some dark budget.
How can it be measured? The laser would have to be dead spot on perpendicular to the surface of the mirror in order for the laser to come right back. Even a single degree off would result in the laser coming back thousands of miles away.
This is why the reflectors are in the triangle shape, it makes sure they reflect the laser exactly at the same spot it's coming from. It's not a plane mirror. Just google "Corner Cube Mirror" if you're interested to find out more.
I'd like to know a lot more about that laser and the photon decor l detector. Does anyone know when the laser was installed, updated, what type of laser ,who the manufacturer was and all the same questions apply to the photon detector.
I hate to inform you that this is classified information. We all know what classified information is, don't we? No Information. Myth Busters is hardly scientific at the best of times but this particular sketch is beyond hilarious.
just google it, they even have a spec sheet, and several papers describing how it functions in detail, electronics in details diagrams, and base build included i even found some dude describing how you could build your own! if you had the space and budget.
question: when the lazer is sent it needs to be aimed considering the moons relative movement to the earth right? because light is fast but it still needs a little more than a second to reach the moon during which the moon moves forward. it then is reflected to earth at the exact angle at which the mirror was hit. so roughtly 2 seconds later the light beam will (re)reach earth. the video stated we send tons of photons there but due to lack of concentration of the light we only get like 4 photons back if we are lucky. so considering earths rotation speed, at the apache point observatory (30k kilometers circum/(24h*60min*60sec)*2sec) the station would have moved ~700m before the light would come back. how are they catching that photon? its not that i dont believe in the moon landing. i mean we have a space station (ISS) obviously we could go to the moon but im just curious how they catch that light beam which was reduced to a few photons.
Booce von Derpington There are geostationary satellites that are fixed in the same position over the earth. Are you saying that the moon is also geostationary, because if you are, that is clearly incorrect.
Sailor Man I know that its wrong to say I didnt know the correct word for it (sorry Im german) what I meant is that the Moon rotates synchronous with Earth so that let#s say you're in Germany there is only one side of the moon that you see, same for the USA.
youbetu18 "light is fast but it still needs a little more than a second " no in definitly take less than a second to reach and come back, there is nothing faster than light.. the only thing that could make it take longer is the instrument they are using to shoot the laser(the time it takes until it shoots)
@@G-ra-ha-m Better check your math, there's actually a fair bit of it in that problem. Scatter, reflectivity, and a good bit more. And it had to make VERY little difference actually, just get a handful of photons back onto the receiver.
I recall a TV broadcast shortly after Apollo 11 that featured the Apollo 11 retroreflector in use by an observatory. People who think we did not land on the moon are either crazy or poorly educated. They need help, not just angry criticism.
OK here's a math for you 4.5 billion times 1.5" means that the moon used to be A 106000 miles closer than it is now... If my math is correct. They neglected to mention that
It does not aim perfectly. The laser spreads over a huge area on its own and this area is further moved in a search pattern until the returning photons are detected. From there on all movement is predictable.
@@Schmidtelpunkt so you have no idea if the one photon returning is bouncing off the reflector or they are getting lucky and its bouncing back off the moon like it always has before apollo
@@levelearthhanifa9121 They have a pretty precise idea about that because as soon as the retroreflector is inside the beam, the number of returning photos rises significantly and creates a peak. You know, like in that video you just watched before commenting. This is what it is about.
They got about 1-2 photons back. The graph is misleading. They probably attempted once on the other area of the moon and fired multiple rounds on area where the so called retroflector is. Eventually you will get a return like they did before
@@levelearthhanifa9121 The photons returned are always measured within some duration. All they have to do is to choose a duration which makes the two conditions distinguishable.
exactly! Best part was "initiating laser reflective run from Apollo 15".. BWHAhA. These guys are good at knowing what their audience wants to hear. that's for sure
Why does this prove that man was on the moon?? All this proves is that a piece of man made equipment is on the moon... It could be left there by a probe/robot
That is how one displays photons. Sorry if that is too abstract for you to comprehend. But then the problem is not the evidence, but your reluctance to understand it.
@@Schmidtelpunkt ok so like i couldn't produce the same sht on my own computer just showing some graph fluctuating? Would that prove thst there is reflectors on th3 moon?
@@aapp953 No, because your claim is not that a graph can be faked but that nobody can reflect a laser from those coordinates, and yet several different facilities have done exactly that.
@@zacharytaylor190 i dont know maybe you and i should play pencil fight but with our male appendages or penis for the late man to see whos will break first ya?
But if the moon is constantly moving at fast rate , how could you point a laser at such a small object without latency problems? Is there any video proof of this phenomena?
Off of that computer screen it does, you can clearly see the difference in returns from the generic location on the moon vs the return from Apollo 15 landing site
The moon reflects sunlight, earthlight when in eclipse, radio waves, as radio hams have been using this for years, the moon when lit by laser light reflects laser light, independent of any man made reflectors on the moon.
Yes, but you can easily tell if it bounced off a reflector or a rock. Take a flashlight into your bathroom, shine it on the wall then the mirror. See the difference?
As lopers mentioned, diffuse 'general' light occurs when pointing a laser at the general surface of the moon. Science dictates and can predict the exact type and frequency of light that would be returned from the use of the reflectors left on the moon's surface. This is of course the exact light that is returned when lasers are directed at the reflector.
Yes it does, but not in the same direction as a retro-reflector. All that laser light that the moon would reflect, would not be readable as anything else than background light or simply noise. And as you saw in the clip, they showed what that looked like when measured by the device, and what it measured when they hit the reflector.
T Est com' on man, get over it. nothing biological can survive harsh radiation of outer space: gamma rays, cosmic rays and the extremely dangerous VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELTS. com'on man, mythbusters are just two comedians who have nothing to do in their spare time.
The computer screen at 3:50 shows a diagram with a spike, supposedly the reflected laser light. The laser light is not a thin ray when hitting back to earth, but a huge "spot", kilometer wide. How is this represented as a spike? Video quality is baddest of bad.
The display is showing the measurable spectrum of light in, what I assume is, nanometers. The "spike" denotes an increase in measured light within a very small range on that spectrum. Based on the color (green) of the laser, the spike is probably somewhere between 560-520 nanometers, which is the wavelength range for what we perceive as green light on the visible spectrum. If they know the wavelength and frequency of the light emitted by the laser (which they most certainly do), then they just have to compare the spectrum of reflected light to the known light from the laser. Since the moon doesn't shoot green lasers, if the light signal received matches, it's a sure bet that it's from the reflector.
It's just so everyone should know that the laser could be reflecting back, and hit them in the eyes. Just like on hospital, when they use defibrillation and says "clear":
It's protocol. That is one powerful fucking laser, it's to announce to everyone present that the laser is engaged. A laser that powerful, without eye protection, could blind you.
The moon is actually a large laser tag center for the galaxy. It's called Laser Moon. It's been out of commission after Alderaan was accidentally destroyed by someone redirecting Laser Moon's power out its core. There's a 1970s movie that documents these events.
The retroreflector "left on the moon by astronauts" is an array of 10 by 10 reflective cells mounted on a support of 46 cm by 46 cm (18.11"). This reflector is not even 1/2 meter (1.5') wide but it works MIRACULOUSLY well! Lets be serious. In order to find the retroreflector, the laser beam must be aligned with the precision of almost a nanoradian!! A nanoradian is one billionth of a radian (0.0000000001). The laser beams can hardly be adjusted with a precision more than 1/10th of a microradian. So, laterally the laser beam will have much difficulty finding the little retroreflector. But, even if it manages to be aligned with it laterally, it must also find it vertically, and there is also little chance that it can find it vertically. So, saying that the retroreflector works "extremely well" is a joke. A fairy tale for grown ups! In fact, a retroreflector is not even needed to bounce a laser back to earth. There are silicates on the moon and if the laser encounters those it will reflect back the laser just as well. The Mythbusters are factually incorrect to claim that it is impossible to bounce lasers off the moons bare surface, because MIT and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory BOTH succeeded in bouncing lasers off the moon and back to the earth without retroreflectors long before Apollo 11. "Four years ago a ruby laser, considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment." --"The Lasers Bright Magic" Thomas Meloy. National Geographic - 1966. Mythbusters suck at their propaganda.
Oops...... "The moon moves across the sky with an angular motion of about 14.5 degrees each hour, and the moon has an average diameter of 31.7 arcminutes. So it moves about 27.5 lunar diameters each hour, 0.45 diameters per minute or 0.0076 diameters each second. They say the moon's diameter is about 3476 kilometers, so that's about 26.4 kilometers (0.0076 * 3476) of lunar surface moving past each second from a fixed spot viewed from earth. Light from the moon's surface takes ~1.3 seconds to reach earth, so any given spot a telescope is aimed at is actually behind the true position by about 34.32 kilometers (1.3 * 26.4) due to lightspeed delay. If a laser is aimed there, it will also take ~1.3 seconds to reach the moon's surface and miss the spot it was aimed at by double that amount - 68.64 kilometers. Note that not one single description of the LLR experiments mentions taking this distance offset into account. But lets go ahead and pretend they do and the laser is aimed ahead with the appropriate offset. There is still a problem. A BIG and insurmountable problem! The retro-reflector cannot aim light back towards earth at an offset - it can only reflect back at the exact angle the light was received, so the reflection will be aiming exactly at the apparent position of the light source at the moment it is received - and by that time the apparent position will be 34.32 km off from the true position on earth's surface, and the light will therefore be 68.64 km off from that position when it is reflected back to the earth. It is claimed the reflected beam has a diameter of 20 km (an absurdly low divergence, but let's pretend it's true) when it reaches earth (see www.lpi.usra.edu/.../apollo_15/experiments/lrr/ ) - but it would hit a spot on earth's surface nearly 70km away from the observatory, which means no portion of it's 20 km beam diameter area would come anywhere near the observatory's telescope!" Get it? The whole damn thing is impossible and it's proven so with their own numbers.
They will eventually find an explanation around that time/ distance offset you're pointing out. Besides, how are these supposed retroreflectors kept clean and functional. They'll probable say there's no dirt on the moon, contrary to what they've shown in the past. Or, claim that the low moon gravity will keep things clean and clear. The fact still remains that their own claims and physical laws contradict their own experiment. An experiment that can only be done by them at their conservatory.
Punanismugler Lol If Nasa goes back, they will just say the second mission was fake as well. What you need is a strong enough telescope to spot the bleached out flag on the moon to put the nail in the coffin.
They wont be able to say is fake with all the camera's we have in HD. They can do it live.Why not give this generation something to talk about in 20 years.
Luther Paul what nail? do you really believe Neil Armstrong was walking on the 250 degreesF moon surface? come on man wearing a lousy space suit of 1969? surely he was not stupid. water boils at 60 degrees celcius, you tell me Neil Armstrong was walking at 250 degF!!! wow what a miracle. AMERICAN TAX PAYERS MONEY WAS WASTED FOR A JOKE OF A LANDING.
Ha ha ha ha! I am not incoherent at all. I am closing on at NASA! someone must point a finger directly at NASA and say, "you are cruel, you are a disgrace ". MANNED MISSIONS! WHAT MANNED MISSIONS??? HA HA HA HA! Hasselblad commented on Aldrin's picture on the lunar surface saying it looks like he is standing on the spotlight. One thing for sure, NASA will have to answer one day for the cruel sin committed in 1969. That day will come.
That's not what it does, it returns the light yo it's source regardless of the angle of incident. Normally light bounces off a reflector at the same angle as it encounters it. This is why mirrors can be used to look round corners and why if you look into a mirror at an angle you can't see yourself.
This is not at all convincing. The moon is highly reflective as we can see the reflected light of the sun coming from it all the time Also we can see by eye that some areas are way more relfective than others, so shining a laser at it and you will expect to get reflected light back and it will be expected to vary with location - no big deal. Some areas will reflect better than others depending on many factors such as type and size of rock and the angle of the land. What she should have come clean about was what area the laser beam was at the point of hitting the moon's surface since over such a vast distance, despite being a laser the beam will have diverged to an area way larger than the alleged reflector.
Well lunar regolith is considerably more reflective than earth so "highly" is a reasonable term to use. Fact is that we can see on earth in otherwise complete darkness by the reflected light from the moon. Hence all the songs about moonlight!.
OK I was too general. Lunar regolith has variable reflectivity and the high reflectivity areas are more reflective than soil or vegetation on earth. Incidentlaly this high reflectivity is the reason cited for the backlighting effect in lunar photos but that is another matter. The point is that it is easy to see that certain areas of the lunar surface are more reflective than others hence if you aim a laser at thse areas you will get back a larger signal, laser reflector or no laser reflector. Hence the experiment was flawed. For a valid experiment they should have aimed the laser at say 100 randomly selected areas and then aimed it at the alleged laser reflector. If the latter gave back a significantly greater signal than all of the other areas then this would be strong evidence that the alleged laser reflector was giving rise to the higher signal, otherwise this is junk science with an agenda to get to a desired conclusion..
I have a question: if light travels one second forward to the moon and another second back from the moon, in those 2 seconds the place of the mirror have to be slightly different since 2 seconds ago because of the rotation move of the Earth. For those kind of magnitudes, 2 seconds of movement have to be enormous, isn't it? I mean, if the laser beam backs to the exact place where it were emitted, then 2 seconds after ( when the beam is back ), the laser isn't any more in "that place" where emerged the beam. Please I appreciate a good answer to this non sense.
From a Quora reply "The relative alignment between the outgoing beam and the receiver may not be an obviously variable parameter. But one must intentionally point ahead of the lunar reflector - to where it will be in 1.25 s - while looking behind the "current" position of the reflector - to where it was 1.25 s ago. At the transverse velocity of the moon (∼1,000 ms−1) , this translates to approximately 1.4′′ of intentional misalignment between transmitter and receiver. But because the telescope mount is driven on altitude and azimuth axes, the offset direction rotates relative to the instrument depending on where the moon is in the sky. Additionally, the earth rotation (∼400 ms−1) changes the magnitude of the necessary offset. Because these effects are comparable in magnitude to the divergence of the beam (∼1′′) and to the field of view of the receiver (1.4′′), they must be accommodated in an adjustable manner."
In 1962 a team from MIT succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. So what does this mean?, it means this whole episode of mythbusters is garbage. I would have thought they (the sodbusters) would have known this. It just proves that the ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, that measures the distance between Earth and the Moon using laser ranging, was not the first time we bounced Lasers on Earth off of the moon and were able to read the pulses and determine distance from time. The retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15) were a big improvement over the bare surface. we still use the retroreflector from Apollo 15 today as it is 2x bigger than the Apollo 11, 14 reflectors. On a side note Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (Soviet lunar rovers) both carried reflectors along with a ton of other experiments. It landed on November 17, 1970 and lasers were bounced off of t shortly after many firsts were completed by Lunokhod 1 but contact was lost and the last contact the Russians had with it was September 14, 1971 and it's retroreflector was forgotten over time. Lunokhod 2 is still alive and active. A team from University of California San Diego rediscovered the Lunokhod 1 reflector in 2012 after looking at some new LRO pictures.
okay let's be serious we all know it was the Galactic empire who placed them there under Lord Vader's command which happened thousand of years before humans existed
In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon's surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 1960s, the scientists realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon's surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years before Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon's surface to provide an accurate measurement of the precise distance from Earth to Moon, without any reflector being on the Moon's surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962, albeit with a much more powerful laser. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?
Love that 5 years later your theory stands undisputed on here… yeah, that’s what she did in the first test (measuring the low level reflected light from the surface). When pointed at the landing site, she gets that plus the higher signal reflection from the “mirror”. You can be right and wrong simultaneously
Long before the Apollo missions.. 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]
Being a Retired Data Analyst , I would say a great deal if not all of the space program is a Fraudulent. Answer this for Me. Where is the Apollo missions Telemetry Data ...
No I did not. But can you just tell Me where the Telemetry Data for the Apollo missions can be found......? I'll help you. You can not produce enough Fake data for a mission that never happened. Thus the lost tapes. 14,000 Reels....
144p?
I guess 240p was just too high quality?
They uploaded by bouncing the upload off the moon mirrors... This video is ultimate proof! O_O
Fake people do that
@@parvindersingh444surely if someone uploaded this Mythbusters episode in higher quality then you would accept it 🙄
That's the old "Potato Quality" video we remember from UA-cam 15 years ago.
@@JustWasted3HoursHere No. Even 15 years ago youtube still had 360p.
just if anyones interested,people monitoring the moon using this lazer have discovered that the moon is slowly moving away from us,at approximately the same rate as an average humans fingernails grow.such is the precise information given to us from these reflectors.respect to the Myhbusters.
That shit is a proper myth, i've seen scientific BS telling it's moving away 2 cm per year while other say it's getting closer 4 cm per year. What kind of an apparatus could EVER messure a diference of 2-3 cm at this distance ?!?
@@4Everlast personal incredulity is not an argument. The accuracy currently is to within 1 inch. A very basic oscilloscope can detect signal delays under a nano second. Using a laser in a classroom with a mirror and an oscilloscope, you can determine the speed of light. (In fact, the speed of light is now used to define the metre). Since the speed of light is known and the time for light from the laser to get to the moon and back can be measured highly accurately, it follows that the distance is going to be accurate. Btw the moon is moving away from earth - I've personally not read anything about it getting closer.
How can the moon be in free fall towards the Earth (according to physics. Newton especially) but also moving away (according to the same physics)?
@@DouglasR1B tidal acceleration
@@DouglasR1B Universe expanding?
Some people will never be satisfied with an answer because then they have to admit they were wrong and then have nothing else to complain about.
read national geographic december issue 1966 page 876 article titled " the lasers bright magic" it tells that we been bouncing lasers off the moon since 1962.
I'm stealing this
busa89 I would admit I'm wrong in a second, but until there's real proof nobody is going to believe this garbage. Anyone can shoot a reflective plate onto a planet or a moon.... This isnt any more proof than them saying they've been there, where is the ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF, if weve been there nobody would ever be able to dispute it, and that's not the case, it simply isnt possible to get a human up there.
Also, the hypothetical retro-reflectors on the Moon would not provide any meaningful precision return.
@@toordog1753
So I guess the Moon is a giant mirror now?
The mythbusters inspired appreciation and interest on science for a whole generation. They will be missed! They make science easy to understand and enjoyable. My favorite childhood science educators.
@McLovin LOL You flunked science and math too? Proving *27 humans (*3 went twice)visited the Moon is no different than proving planet earth is a oblate spheroid orbiting the sun.Yep,renew that library card,your children will thank you..
@@Godscountry2732 And moonlanding proved, that the sun is a fusion reactor. What does that have to do with that or that landing on the moon proved at long last, that earth is a sphere ? Is it the old boring flatearther-Story, that you recount in eternity ? Are this all your trumps? Wow.
Bill Nye the Science Guy was better.
@@ILJtheFirst Bill Nye used to be cool, but he's a sellout now.
Actually, what's on the moon is a "retroreflector"--not just a "reflector." It's also called a "corner cube." This device requires no adjustment. By its nature, any laser aimed at it from any angle will return precisely 180 degrees, back to the exact point the laser came from. That is the genius of the thing. No simple mirror or other reflective surface does this.
@McLovin which is what we have
little spheres do this, they are in the reflector material in clothing
What if there is a natural retro reflector rock mineral on the moon? This is why I am not convinced at all
@@TheHardTruthTV no such material has ever been found. It would need to replicate the shape with extreme precision. There's no way that happened naturally. It's more believable that aliens left them than that they're natural which is still a way less likely explanation than it being man made.
Yet it don’t prove anything. Her big ass laser couldn’t pick up the light bouncing back. Yet in 1963 I believe Massachusetts tech. As well as the Soviets in 1967 were able to bounce a laser light off the moon and back. But she couldn’t do it with her big ass laser! lol😂
By the way this still don’t prove man has been in the moon.
If indeed those things are there. It just proves man made objects are there. Just like other agencies have said to place and leave things in the moon. But yet we are the only ppl to have not sent an unmanned rover. Or so said. Which is actually false cause in 1970 an unmanned rover was said to have been sent to the moon!
lol 0.21 more gigawatts and they can travel back in time!
+TapesNstuffS It's actually pulsed. The light beams would have lasted in microseconds. Divide a billion with million, the laser would have needed at least a thousand watt.
The lightning strike in Back to the Future was > 0.21 GW, and lasted for probably 10^-6 s. So, TapeNstuff's right..... Innit...
They'd also have to push the observatory along at 88mph...
pavling Caster-wheels
Not without the Flux Capacitor
spare a thought for people living up there. just minding there own business when some jerk shines a laser on them.
Maybe that's why the hive have awakened.
@@anhilliator1 That one was golden! LOL
Trash too.Even on mars and a asteroid
The reflectors were put on the moon to measure the distance from the earth to the moon, which is growing every year. The earth's gravity is loosing it's grip on the moon and it's slipping away at about 3 centimeters a year. Effecting tides, weather patterns and so on.
@PegasusWings11, keep in mind that what is shwn in this video isn't only done at the Apache Pt. Observatory. It's done at lunar laser ranging stations in Australia, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, France, Poland & a few other places. Anyone with the equipment can do this. You might say it's pretty "public" (like the launches) & you'd be surprised how common lunar laser ranging is. Do a little Google searching.
Would be great to know the location of lunar retroflectors, so that anyone with doubts have the opportunity to try this!
@@kishorevenugopal6191even if you tried and it failed (which it would) they'd just say you're pointing at the wrong spot and they wouldn't tell you the actual coordinates and info and such.
I’m not denying that man went to the moon, but to play devils advocate, could you get a retro reflector up there without sending humans?
Yes
@Patrick Eddy then how would you get readings dating back to the day after the moon landing
Elizabeth Swims. Yes, a small RR attached to a rover, lander. Unfortunility for the hoaxers, the Apollo 15 retroflector is very large and sitting by itself at distance from the LEM. The evidence is just too good to deny. One moron went as far as writing an elaborate scientific paper claiming none of the RR's left by the Americans are on the Moon. How ignorant and dumb can intelligent humans be.? The paper was rejected by everyone.LOL The Apollo 15 RR has been a favorite target for many countries including China for its first-ever Laser range finding experiments. We also have 100s of photographs, which match Soviet, Chinese, Japanese, Indian views of the Moon. Unless everyone faked multi-hundred million dollar Moon flights, the hoaxers will need to renew their library cards.
@Elizabeth Swims Yes, in 1970 the Russian unmanned space mission, Luna 17, released a rover called Lunokhod 1 which had a retroreflector on it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_17
Whoa whoa whoa...now I get to this videos comments and people have abandoned the "there is no outer space", "nothing can leave the firmament" argument? Which is it? Are we in a globe nothing can leave or not. If you can send an Earth object out of the atmosphere then we can leave the atmosphere. There is no argument beyond that.
How can you be sure it wont blow up?..
thats why I'm here ajahha
haha and then sheldons reaction
Cisco who the hell is sheldon!
Cisco na im just messin with you man :)
:)
OMG, 3:47 "initiating laser run reflector from Apollo 15" right out of a Spielberg movie! Ths is so funny
Today, I had a moment of lapse when I was reading about the Van Allen Belt and the low rem readings from the dosimeters of the Apollo astronauts. Then I remembered the Lunar Retroreflector Array. Thank-you Buzz and Neil, for your foresight of naysayers.
@Luna EB what kind of signal?
Have you seen the video of the astronauts being told about the Van Allen belt, and they never hurd about it, so they just accept wha the jurnalist said other astronauts told him, so hey quickly adopt what he just said and started explaining HIM what it's like going throe it even though it's the first time they hurd about it, besides the Don Petit and the Massimo guys comming up wit ha lie about seeing, not seeing stars it's just priceless and makes anyone with half a brain wonder why the FUCK would they blatantly lie about a minor detail let alone something big.
Then you discovered that laser lunar ranging was achieved in 1962, years before the supposed landing.
What now?
Louis D. Smullin & Giorgio Fiocco (30 June 1962) "Optical Echoes from the Moon". Nature 194, (1267) doi:10.1038/1941267a0
The New York Times (5 November 1963) "Soviet bounces light beam off moon in a laser test"
Thomas Maloy, Howard Sochurek (December 1966) "The Laser's Bright Magic". National Geographic 130, (874-6)
@@4Everlast LOL, you guys are so funny to read, the only reason I keep coming back to troll you morons. Yes, they never 'hurd' about it. How in the hell could they, since as far as I know, hurd isn't even word, at least not one with any relation to receiving sound. Your credibility just SOARS with statements like that.
The astronauts never heard about it. Go read some literature from the time moron.
@@4Everlast Nobody lied about anything regarding the Apollo program..Out of context quotes, forgotten memories, half-truths, and pseudoscience haven't changed the historical and scientific accomplishments of Apollo. If you're unable to separate pseudoscience from science, you only have yourself to blame.NASA made 9 flights to the Moon,6 of those flights landed on the surface. There has never been any authoritative sourced evidence pointing to a hoax. Period. It is complete and utter nonsense.
Perhaps we have been to the moon, but you can't blame anyone for questioning the government. Someone who questions is smarter than someone who blindly follows.
People did in fact go to the moon. This has been demonstrated proven and recognized. Some scientist have even said its easier to send people to the moon that to fake the entire records and blueprints along with the hundreds of thousands of worker witnesses who worked on the project. Millions around the world were tuned in to watch the rocket Blast off. It is still a very memorable event.
Blind disbelief is not more intelligent than blind belief. It is less intelligent, because in order to incredulously deny scientific consensus the underlying assumption is that the conspiracy theorist believes they know better than scientists.
As Socrates once said “I know nothing, and therefore I know more than those who don’t know they know nothing.”
That's dumb statement. Someone can be questioning and absolute dumbass.
Someone who blindly questions is no smarter than someone who blindly follows
Not when they ignore all the evidence, that's just ignorance.
-The man never went to the moon! We had no such technology back then!
-Erm... We have retroreflectors that prove otherwise...
-Drones!
-Wait, so you're saying we had perfect precision equipment to go there, and place an expensive equipment that would most certainly be more expensive and risky in case of failure instead of sending a human back there?
-...What?
***** , No, we were in a space race with the USSR. Place a retroreflector was easy once we got there. Far more precise than asking a 1969 "drone" to do it. Most definitely the technology existed then. It was done 7 times.
+LunarTuner 6 times, apollo 13 didn't land (i know i am nitpicking, but i can't help it). also, if we are only talking about circumlunar fly-by, arguably the ussr also had the technology for that, though they never did a manned mission (zond 5 sent some turtles and flies arounf the moon and back to earth).
+pizda matii I was referring to trips to the moon. Actually, I could add Apollo 8 and 10. Since landing on the moon is little more than "docking" with it, which has been a demonstrated ability 1,000s of times in earth orbit, the transit to the moon (through the VABs) is the most questioned factor. But to say "we had so such technology back then" is abject ignorance.
LunarTuner
yes, you are right, the "radiation during transiting the belts would have killed them" seems to be the most common objection, though some people go as far as to say that "rockets would not work in the vacuum of space because there is no air to push against". i do not know how do they explain the gps satellite networks or the iss.
+LunarTuner
I'm more curious as to why people are so insistent that everyone _believe_ we went to the moon. I really have no way to confirm for myself whether anyone went there or not. Real and fake are both plausible hypotheses And it is not something that affects my day-to-day life. As for the space race, it _would_ give our government incentive to fake a landing.
But the "you must believe" attitude concerns me. _Why_ do authorities want me to believe? The government is not exactly trustworthy. Is this a test of their ability to manipulate public perception?
Any true conspiracy theorist can see that all four of you are in on it, Jamie, Adam, Russet, and the invisible alien standing behind the camera.
Keep asking Santa clause, he'll bring you a braincell one day.
I love how she can't just say "O.K., let's see how it looks when we shine the laser at the reflector." She has to go all Star-Trek and say "Initiating Laser!" lol But that was pretty cool of her.
Habitual protocol.
I couldn't say it without doing an Austin Powers impersonation 🤣
Unmanned spacecraft could have placed retroreflectors. That's not impossible is it?
In 1969, yes it was impossible. We didn’t have the technology to robotically install sensible scientific equipment on the surface of the moon. That could only have been done by highly trained astronauts.
@@mcgrathfilms so impossible that soviet placed it in 1970
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266Yes it’s impossible. It was tested and used in 1969.
@@mcgrathfilms soviet placed 2 more, and then india place one. That's what general belief.
But there are more lies about this. Moon believers said everyone can test its existence. Turn out it's also a lie. Mythbuster tried to test it themselves. Turn out they have to go to special giant laser to test it, and the test result can be fake... .so no proof it actually exist.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Lunokhod 1? Yeah, it turns out it was near impossible. It was roof mounted on a Russian rover and they lost it in 1971. It was only rediscovered last year. And like I said, US scientists started using the one placed by Apollo 11 in 1969, so it was definitely put there by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin.
"For now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It wasn't a miracle, we just decided to go." -Jim Lovell
The main hurdle is the gravity well on Earth. Bringing the needed mass to orbit required a buttload of "dineros". Approximately 280 billion USD for the whole Apollo program, if you adjust for inflation.
There's a conspiracy theorist on UA-cam that claims that landing the Spacex Falcon 9 core on the barge was faked because the barge did not ride lower in the water after it landed. Using info easily obtained on the internet, I calculated that it would ride 8mm lower in the water with the rocket aboard, there's no way anyone would ever notice that. I wonder if he deleted my comment?
There ya go, trying to discredit hoaxers with facts and data....gonna tell ya, won't work. :-)
I even doubt elon nowaday. Is there real life people watching them from nearby shore?
I'm not from US but I'm still very proud of what you guys accomplished in 1969. It was a remarkable achievement that deserves all praise it raises.
It is a deep shame when such an amazing accomplishment is not even recognized by a portion of the population who prefers to try to diminish the whole work of a genius team of scientific heroes, just because they have an agenda to discredit the government for whatever reasons possible.
an agenda to discredit the government??????? WOW you're using the projection tactics that they are. hahahahahaahha good try you fooled 12 people to like your content. keep it up demon
They did not go
@@gmain1977 this video proves you wrong
You always get a refelection back, " I Need more power Scotty" :)
flat earthers and conspiracists don't like this video
That’s why they all come here to say it’s fake because they can’t afford it.
If you truly believe they are precisely locating a reflector the size of a laptop from earth then there’s no hope for you and your brain. You have to go to the observatory and use all their equipment so that their computers can tell you what’s happening but you can’t physically see the laser reflect back so no evidence of that. You can’t physically see the lunar reflector so there’s no evidence of that. The evidence is going to the liars themselves and trusting that their graph on a computer means anything at all as they blast a laser into the air. Is there any image of the retro reflector from a high powered telescope used to locate it? No. Why not? Because it doesn’t exist. Can you see the laser reflecting back? No, they just say it reflects back in a perfect line so you can’t even tell it’s reflecting back. This entire video is based on zero empirical evidence zero visual proof or any proof for that matter. It’s all about appealing to authority. Go to the laser place that claims to do this then when they can’t give you a single shred of proof for their claims but just tell you that the line on the computer means everything they’ve said is true wow that’s so great I’m glad we know we went to the moon now because their computer displayed a line on a graph that’s crazyyyyyyy
A simpler way would probably have been to actually see the landing site maybe or be able to see this retroreflector? Besides in the "videos" from the landing, we don't have equipment that is high powered enough to see it?
Jay Mase Because of Dawes Limit no current earthbound telescope is capable of resolving any of the Apollo hardware. LRO has photographed all of the sites though.
I just looked up how a cornercube reflector works. It is surprisingly simple and can easily be explained with stuff we learned in physics lessons when I went to school a long time ago.
But what I find fascinating is the precision engineering used to make them work from such a distance, something akin to the Hubble mirror. (yes hoaxies, I know the Hubble is a totally different thing but it still needed precision engineering)
nasa- going to the moon no problem.
me- then go to the moon
nasa- we don't know how
NASA in Hebrew means "to deceive."
and they did go to the moon? what's the problem? "we don't know how" 💀
no point in going there if we've been there enough times to get what we needed
@@goldenpluckeryeah and the Easter bunny is real
As a french guy I find the number of moon landing deniers in the comments unbelivable. And anyway why would anyone deny one of the greatest achievements of mankind if it was done by their own country?
I'm french too. I think a lot of them are into religious stuff.
because the truth is more important than national pride. Buzz Aldrin has admitted several times to it being a hoax.
On s’en fout de ta vie et on s’en fiche de cet exploit qui n’en est pas un. C’est surtout un mensonge ultra protégé
On the contrary. This just proves that the Moon landing was a hoax: I takes the beam 2.5 seconds to do the round trip. Because of the earth rotation, the location of the emitter/receiver will have moved by over 1,500 feet by the time the beam gets back. This doesn't even account for the fact that the moon is not on a geosynchronous orbit, adding an additional 1,500 feet to the original location of the emitter/receiver by the time the beam makes it back, making it impossible for the beam to strike the location from which it was sent.
That's interesting, I hadn't thought of that additional issue!!
@Trebor Do the maths, but the time any photon gets back the telescope has moved 1.2km due to the earth's rotation.
Are you saying the return beam is 3000ft wide? If not - how wide do you think it was?
@Trebor It's just another issue with your RR theory. There is no artificial RR, we clearly see a strong RR effect in the photos:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg
Dust builds at 1mm per 1000 years so there will be inches of dust over the ground and rocks (except there isn't as it was all faked on earth), so any meteor strike can cause an RR area to be formed.
This natural RR will be a small localised highly reflective spot, and sit there waiting for NASA to claim it as a landing site.
It's all rather pathetic really, NASA has spent 50 years covering this lie and go exactly nowhere, and people like you try to defend that. Don't you ever get tired of their excuses to never go above the VAB?
Do you think pretending they went in 1969 really helps progress manned space flight?
Really?
@Trebor No, that's pretty much the truth.
Don't worry, I do expect it to look very odd to someone of faith like yourself, just bear it in mind as you look at the photos, listen to the excuses and keep wondering why the consistent accusations of fake have lasted for half a century.
BTW a retroreflector is merely a collection of glass beads, of which many have been claimed to be on the moon.
www.roadvista.com/reflective-glass-beads/
@Trebor It's the truth, sorry. Your belief in your government telling you the truth didn't stop them lying to you at every opportunity.
Yes, the Apollo corner RR is better than the natural glass bead RR per square unit area. Perhaps it's even 10x better?
But the Apollo RR is only 0.2m2 whereas the laser dot is 6.5km across and so accesses 10562500 m2, some 52160494 x the area.
So it doesn't matter.
1 to 3 photons back if we were lucky ? What's the error limit of the sensor ? How lucky were the mythbusters were ?
Did you really think there is just some photon that they send?
A simple LED lamp can produce million of photon each seconds, and yes of course that laser just send some photon.
Exactly. Good observation. Out of 200 quadrillion photons (200,000,000,000,000,000) only 1 to 3 return. Not a reasonable DOE. And look at the graph of the scatter representing reflection from random surface (non-reflector site) at 3:22 it is the same scale as the "spike" observed at the reflector site. And how do you hit a one meter target on the moon? The lab coat scientist did not explain that.
Who has more credibility? These conspiracy theorists, or Neil Armstrong, one of the finest pilots ever, and by every account a man of the utmost integrity. There is no way he would have gone along with the ruse, much less risk his life training for it.
Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were unwittingly dragged into the hoax. NASA intended to visit the Moon but by the late 60's it was looking to be impossible. If any of the crew broken silence the Fed Govt would have taken retribution through their families.
@@paulanderson79 proof for this claim?
1962 was first time they reflected laser of moon as far as i remember
who put that reflector up back then ?
Markus Camenzind
Correct, they were placed in 1969 but the results from it were substantially lower from these experiments.
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr
-park- i know that
Just saying that the placement of reflectors is no proof
I believe they went to the moon but we need better arguments to explain it to disbeliefers
NASA is not the only one to confirm this, please do some more intelligent research before you call this a hoax or conspiracy.
ua-cam.com/video/4O5dPsu66Kw/v-deo.html
3:39
Lol. So in the footage there was actually more than one light source which doesn’t make sense because the only source of light was the sun. Another thing is that there were no visible stars in the background footage and if you were to speed up the footage by 2x it is clearly people running at a regulated pace and when slowed down looks like a surface with less gravity. Much evidence of doctored footage and photography has been provided such as the crosses in the camera lens appeared to be under certain objects like the flag which be impossible if these images were true. We had every reason to fake the moon landing due to the space race. The technology tests prior to the actual mission were never successful. When they landed on the moon they used jets to propel them selfs slowly to the surface However in the footage there was no sign of a disrupted surface underneath the Apollo. The flag was waving although no wind and the gravity would not permit that movement. how did they come out with photos so crisp but footage so blurry. An overhead view of Area 51 shows major resemblances to the surface in the footage. Even craters that have proven to be practically identical( from the moon and Area 51). There is a layer of radiation between us and the moon and it was and is simply impossible for us to have had the technology to penetrate and live through this layer of radiation especially after all the failed tests before the mission. There’s your research.
@Autumn Sears
Don't know where you got that multiple light sources stuff, but its wrong, all shadows are parallel. Speeding up also doesn't work, the may fall slowly but their hands and other movements are natural human speed, very in multiple videos of astronauts just falling down and getting back up or in the famous hammer vs feather video, speed that up and it just looks super weird and fast hand movements. The stars are really easy to debunk and understand. Lets see, why don't you see stars in the day? seriously whats the big difference? the atmosphere is exactly the same at day or night isn't it? And if you take a picture in the day would you see stars or no?
It might seem like nightime in the moon footage but... thats just because there is almost no atmosphere which gives the sky its blue coloring when light passes trhough, if there is no light then you see space as it is. Black. For the astronauts the moon landing was in the day, even if the sky is black, the sun was shining just as much as in a day on earth, the exposure ratio of the camera has to beadjusted to the light and so... in the same way you don't see stars on the day, you can't see stars there either, at least not through a camera.
It kind of baffles me how you pick and choose the scientific discoveries that agree with your theory but everything else are lies. How do you know about that radiation? what do actual scientists say about it? If you investigate you will find that they think it would be dangerous only over long exposures, and that satellites that pass through only turn off their sensors to avoid damage (spacecrafts don't have any sensors to damage btw), it doesn't just randomly fry their circuits. And latter apollo missions bipassed the belt entirely, and yeah it was a known hazard even back then. But what? All of this scientist are lying but... also telling the truth? It seems quite literally like you just heard "there is a dangerous radiation belt between the earth and the moon" but blocked yourself from any other information, even if the information comes from the same scientists that talk about the Val Allen belts in the first place
Was the power of zeros argument too hard for you to understand Craig Daye?
The moon is made up of cheese, Earth is a donut
Lets create a simple thought experiment just like Einstein would...
If it takes light 1.3 seconds to go from the earth to the moon. and 1.3 seconds to return. Then if both the earth and the moon are hurtling through space around the galaxy and we are NOT geo stationary with the moon. As we are both rotating and the moon is also getting out of alignment with respect to any spot we choose to view through a telescope on the moon.
Then it is guaranteed that whatever spot on the moon we view to point the laser will lagg behind by the time a laser gets there by thousands of feet. Since it will have moved 1.3 seconds. Even if you attempt to lead your target by 1.3 seconds then on the return trip of the laser (to earth) it will be off again by an additional 1.3 seconds of travel.
Even if you compenstated for all of this. You still have the issue that we are hurtling and rotating and orbiting thorugh space. The laser light would still be traveling in a rectilinear fashion RELATIVE TO ITS LAST STATIC POSITION.
If you want to say that the light will keep it's inertia and travel in sync with the earth's speed. Then you have to claim that light has MASS to have momentum. and that light will inherit the starting speed when it leaves the laser.
So in short, it should be impossible for you to align a laser and hit a distance target of a moving object. Because what you see in your viewfinder is ALREADY 2.6 seconds late!!!!! And you have to physically hit the reflector to get a return signal from it!!!!!!!
+Open Your Eyes
Not only that, but the reflector itself can't lead ahead at all to compensate for this. It could only reflect towards the *apparent* position of incoming light. Completely impossible for this hoax of an experiment to work.
+Strider VM The emitter itself doesnt need to reach the Speed of light to be off target. All it takes is to move the earth or the moon enough (in 2.6 seconds) to be off the this little reflectors target. Because these NASA numskulls claim to use a focused colminated light. They actually PROVED they never did this. If they just claimed they shot a wide beam at the moon itself and saw the reflection, it would be better for them. But instead they are claiming they hit this tiny little reflector.
So think about it. Does light inherit the starting speed of the emitter? NO. This is a fundamental law of light. This goes for sideways motion also.
So with that in mind Imagine a photon of light leaving a laser from a moving object hurtling sideways at some ungodly speed. (such as the earth rotating around the sun that is 93 million miles away, yet we make this rotation once a year!!!!!) Then imagine the trail (beam) it will make. It will have to be rectilinear! And it will NOT slide sideways to match the inertia of the emission. This means that any observer will see the laser light beam apparently rush away from the viewer. And on the return trip 2.6 seconds later it will bounce back to empty space! Because we are long gone from here.
There are many more serious implications here, which I am not prepared to get into but for now being that this laser test is impossible.
Open Your Eyes Exactly! Earth orbital velocity is said to be 30 km per second. The location of the observatory, telescope and detector would have moved ~78 km away from the spot the beam returns to - nowhere near the 10 km radius of the reflected beam.
BOOM! Another Satanic Space Hoax Lie is DEAD
It would take a photon approximately 1.2844 seconds to reach the moon and roughly the same amount of time to return based on what we are told is the distance to the moon. If the Earth is spinning at 1040 mph as is generally taught, then the spot from which the photon was fired will have rotated roughly 3,918 feet away when the photon returns. Particle diffraction would in fact enlarge the photon pulse to around 6.5 kilometers wide by the time it hit the moon. Of those photons, only a small percentage would strike the actual reflector and be sent back in the general direction of the origination point. The same diffraction would occur from the moon back to earth, therefore, particle detection (though weak) is still possible. For every 10^17 photons aimed at the reflector only 1 will return to be detected even on the best day and under ideal circumstances. 1040 mph & 3,918 feet rotation obviously assumes the origination point to be somewhere along the equator. Any deviation north or south would result in lower rotation speed and distance commensurate with the globe model.
freemind
You're forgetting that we are also told the earth has an orbital velocity of ~30km per second. In the ~2.6 second roundtrip time, the point laser was fired from would have moved ~77km. OOPS!
Some people are so ignorant they will not change their opinion even when evidence is presented.
There was zero evidence in the entire video
There are actually 5 LRRR's on the moon, 2 were added by the Russians during their Lunar robot mission. (LRRR = Long Range Retro Reflector) due to the cup shaped mirror pattern on the surface, it makes the laser go back the exact same angle that it was hit with. Hence the half sphere conical indentations on the surface. This is how we were able to accurately determine that the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of 2.5 inches per year.
Now if that were true then 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been forming and after it formed, If that's really the way the moon was formed,, it would have been about a 120,000 miles closer than it is now.. I think they've neglected to mention that.. Or the fact that nobody really knows where the moon came from or how it was formed but bridges keep forming and disappearing on the moon and there's no atmosphere no water so how is that happening
Nah.. we all know the moon is made of cheese, and that rockets are powered by animal manure. That the Earth is flat because almost everything is straight and level, and the heavens are just one gigantic dome placed there by God. And I can change myself into anything like a Chocobo .
Wark!
Don't know what is worse; 6000 year old Earth theorists, flat earth society, or the moon landing hoax believers.
lol
I know people that are all three combined.
Raminder Singh Samra Don’t know what’s worst: The Brainwashed or The Braindead?
The answer is Trump supporters.
Paul, you are wrong. I'm a Trump supporter. And I'm pretty sure we launched a rocket off a round Earth, went to the moon, and then returned to our planet, which is several billion years old.
there is a setup kit you can buy to do this in backyard , it not as fancy as the observatory they go to , it basically a hinged laser platform , and can only do it on a clear night with no clouds and it uses two lasers on meter separation 10 foot mirror receiver , surprised they didn't make one of them
they probably got sponsored to go to the place and promote the facility, still i did not know they made kits, I'm gonna give it a try!
You're not gonna get anything on any reasonably priced kit. You need very powerful pulsed lasers and sensitive photomultipliers with precise filters. Otherwise, the return light will be entirely lost in the background noise.
Laser retroreflector Problem 1:
-------------------------------
Reflecting the 'beam' photons would need supernatural accuracy.
Retroreflectors rely on a perfect angle, over 250,000 miles the manmade reflectors in the 200C and -125C of the lunar surface are not perfect so the return photons would miss the small telescope pointing toward it waiting for those photons.
Even if the telescope was 10 metres across, the moon is 384.4e6 metres away, that angle is therefore around aSin (10/384.4e6) = 0.0000015 degrees. The retroreflectors are not made that accurately especially with temperature variations.
Laser retroreflector Problem 2:
-------------------------------
Too small to make any difference: After 250,000 miles the laser spreads out to a 6.5km wide dot.
6.5km dot, area = Pi.r^2 = 3.14 x 3250 x 3250 = 10562500 m2
0.45m x 0.45m reflector = 0.2025m2
Albedo = 12% or 0.12, assume mirror is 100% or 1.0, giving an elevation of 0.88 over the surface reflection.
Area = 0.2025 / 10562500 = 0.00000002. Multiply by the 0.88 = 0.000000017
So in percentage terms the phantom reflector would make 0.0000017 % difference to the reflected laser.
Laser retroreflector Problem 3:
-------------------------------
At the speed of light the laser takes 2.5s to make the round trip.
This is enough time due to the lunar orbit around the earth for the returning photon to miss the telescope.
Laser retroreflector Problem 4:
-------------------------------
The alleged reflector for AS11.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5952.jpg
Look between the reflector to the horizon. Look at the terrain and the depth of field. The focus of the rocks and the LEM.
That horizon is only about 30' away from the reflector: So it's not on the moon, it's in a studio.
@@Profile2.5 They do rely on that perfect angle, dummy, not the angle of presentation, manufacturing angles internal.
They are also too small to make any difference (the dot size km) and will now be opaque from the radiation damage. Don't blame me for your own refusal to think.
@@G-ra-ha-m Just google "Corner Cube Mirror" dude.
First time i saw someone make in depth analysis about this. Another thing that they lie is that aint they say anyone can do this in their backyard without big ass laser machine
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Thanks! I'm look at the date I posted this - 4 years ago, before the rona.
I could actually write stuff then, and YT wouldn't delete it! :)
@@G-ra-ha-m also, earth is spinning, moon is spinning and rotating around earth..... will these cause more problem also.
People who believe the moon landing was a hoax are them most pathetic of the conspiracy theorists.
Some of us actually think before we make up our mind. The thing that concerns me most are the technical aspects of landing on the moon (and coming back) with equipment from the 60s. And that´s coming from many modern astronauts. How can that be "pathetic"?
yxmordarbert
also they kinda like was in a race with the soviet on who can reach the moon first.
yxmordarbert
Some of us read facts and come to a conclusion based on available evidence before making up our mind. Moon Conspiracy theorists don't. Why not engage with this piece of evidence? It's not just TV that's telling you, anyone can do it.
Never heard of the flat earthers?
Kyle Malice We definitely did have colour TV back in 1969 - just because *you* didn't doesn't mean it wasn't there. Which is the point - you've proved you're not qualified to come to the conclusion you have. Why not engage with the evidence and really 'do reasearch' instead of shouting 'hoax/fake/BS and other meaningless emotive fluff?'
umm... did anyone actually see the lasers come back? all I saw was a computer saying that they detected a laser. because that couldn't be faked, right?
just saying, that isn't really proof, and if that is the best proof you've got I am not impressed.
Can't see air so it must be fake.
Well he's not wrong. There could be a bunch of donuts inside that machine for all we know.
lol
I cant see you so you must be fake
Ante Omnia Libertatem yeah but have you explain all the independent observatories that have bounced lasers off of the retroreflectors from other countries (because like, they have, you know.. but then you knew that.)
The retro reflectors are designed to reflect light back to the source......the problem is that by the time the light reflects light back to earth the source of the light on earth has moved by many kilometers.
They also do not mention laser beam refraction or beam spread by the time the laser reaches the moon.....it must be again several kilometers wide...so how can they know they are hitting a suit case sized object after 250, 000 miles with a beam spread of several kilometers?
Are we to be believe these retro reflectors are in pristine condition after 50 years on the moon.....surviving solar storms, extreme temp swings, dust storms, micro meteorites etc etc?? No way.
You mention two correct points which compensate for each other: The light reflects back to the point it was emitted while the emitter has moved. And the beam is at that point several kilometers wide. Which again included the new position of the emitter.
They know they hit a target because they get back more photons than when not hitting it. So all they need is a search until they hit the reflector.
There is nothing destroying the reflectors - they are pretty much immune to the effects of temperature changes and radiation. A problem however is a an effect by charged particles which end up on the reflector. They were detected on the solar powered instruments, but at some point they will diminish the returning light of the reflector as well.
@@Schmidtelpunkt 1. You have no idea what condition the alleged retro reflectors are in.....common sense tells us that with solar dust storms, micro meteorites that pelt the moon and extreme temp swings that it would be a miracle that the mirrors would be in pristine condition after 50 years. There is nobody up there to clean them.
2 Tell me what the beam divergence is when it hits the moon?? And what is the beam divergence on the return??
3.There are other velocities not being accounted for. For one, the earth is not only rotating, it is also orbiting - and this positional change is 108,000 km/h or about 30 km per second. Velocities cannot be added to light. The trajectory and return of the beam will always be relative to the exact spot it was emitted from at the instantaneous moment of emission...Therefore after a 2.6 second round trip for the laser.....light would be bounced back to where the source WAS and not where it is.
4. MIT and also the Russians concluded tests in 1962....way before the Apollo missions successfully bouncing a laser off the moon.
They are simply bouncing a laser of the moon surface....which had already been done in 1962.
Its absurd to think they can pinpoint an suitcase size object 250, 000 miles away ....thats also moving.
@@fredbates46751. The conditions are well known and observed. There is always the change of a mirror getting hit, but the probability that this happens within a few decades is low.
2. About 6.5 kilometers, which is also the spread of the photons towards earth.
3. "For one, the earth is not only rotating, it is also orbiting - and this positional change is 108,000 km/h or about 30 km per second."
So is the moon as it is in earth's orbit. Photons have a momentum vector in special relativity.
4. Yes, that is possible but the quality of the results is hugely inferior to those achieved using the mirrors.
"They are simply bouncing a laser of the moon surface....which had already been done in 1962."
Wrong, as in that case they would get the same results. They don't.
"Its absurd to think they can pinpoint an suitcase size object 250, 000 miles away ....thats also moving."
It is moving in a predictable manner known from centuries of moon observation and it is hit by a light cone with a six kilometer diameter in a location which can be identified close enough to limit the search to a specific area. While this is clearly an elaborate experiment which requires an impressive level of expertise and the development of very specific solution for every part of the experiment, it would be silly to just dismiss it because you personally can not imaging accomplishing something similar at all after looking at it for mere minutes.
Eric, let me remind you that any time anything is launched--even if it's launched from an underground cave in the Pacific Ocean--it is seen. If it's not seen by fishing boats or a passing airliner, it's signature is caught by seismometers and it will be tracked by any country with any interest in long range missiles (that would have been about a dozen countries in 1969).
0:58 while popping out of the moon he clearly says "a hoax".
Literally put it in your face that it's fake yet ppl still defend it. Crazy
He does lol which it is
3:00 , password input recorded on camera .
I do believe in moon landing but knowing this part done so easily just makes me come up to a confusion. Doesnt the moon revolve and rotate? If it does, the why is it so easy to shot the lasser without ensuring in what position the moon is at that moment? Or is just coincidentally in facing the earth position? Just asking...
Nah it always faces earth, but that alone raises red flags, its exactly the distance away and rotates the perfect amount different to earths rotation, that it always faces us, never changing a fraction of degree, absolute absurdity coincidence. Almost as absurd as the sun and moon coincidence, Then theres the billion proofs that the ground is level and stationary, just as it seems. You don't have to believe the moon landing, because they keep telling you to. I haven't looked into this one but look at the video on my channel. It's all a big big big big deception, I know why. They needed it to spin more than it to be a globe, to hide the big secret, what the northern lights really are.
I believe we went to the moon. I'm not a flat earther.
But telling someone who already doesn't believe any science to "watch this spike on a graph" and expect them to believe it is just... Not happening.
Ok now i have a question:
If we think about the lens effect that the atmosphere has on the moon observed from earth, and if we imagine that this lens effekt never lets us see the moon in its actual position. How can we point on these reflectors if we not even see the real position of the moon?
We will never receive an answer to that question...
Doesn't matter. Light will come back roughly the same way so as long as you fire where you physically see the Moon it will be fine.
@@Ryrzard not when your moving 1000 mph waiting two and a half seconds between firing and capturing
@@Cjx0r The laser beam is so wide that even if you point straight at it you will hit the reflector. You will improve your return ratio if you compute the leading angle but it's not critical.
@TheFarciarz777 The laser beam is too wide in fact, that's the problem. The ruby lasers the soviets used long before anyone went to space, let alone the moon, had a far less significant intrinsic divergence and yet they too still had success. Pointing this thing at the moon and flashing it with SUB-ARCSECOND pulsed photons and catching a couple back doesn't demonstrate the presence of any sort of reflective object on the moon. That is of course a couple, out of the three times ten to the seventeenth photons that were fired. All at a speed of 20Hz and their own software diagram output indicating over 2000 pulses as we are watching it. What the fuck do you think this is substantiating my guy?
Well, for one thing, the moon surface IS reflective. How the eff do you think you see it.?
@Trebor so you're sure you are aiming somewhere near a 2 sq foot box sitting on a barren planet roughly 27% the size of earth, are you? Lol. I know the laser beam is wide at that range, but.....
Keep in mind that we've been bouncing laser pulses off the moon since about 1962 or so. Not to mention work with radio waves, satellites in geosynchronous orbit and many other things of this nature. All of which existed Long BEFORE Apollo or even NASA.
@Trebor check your facts bud. The beam is about 4 sq miles wide. On a surface as big as Asia and the Atlantic ocean put together. Throw in the Coriolis effect of not only the target, but also the shooting platform and it most definitely is hard. Some scientists have likened it to shooting a dime with a rifle at over 2 miles. And planets do not always move i an exact, predictable path along their elliptical orbit. The speed up, slow down, wobble. It is NOT strictly retrograde orbit.
So, you go ahead and try it. Let me know how you make out.
@@RodCalidge They can easily identify the area they have to look at as the moon is mapped. The result is significantly smaller than Asia. Within that areas they move the laser systematically until they get spikes in returning photons.
@@Schmidtelpunkt yep, I know. A little box as tiny as the smallest flat screen tv in an area roughly the size of Asia. It's a good thing that the rest of the moon is perfectly symettical and smooth so the wouldn't get spikes off of anything else.
@@RodCalidge There are no flat reflecting surfaces on the moon, so, nope, they would not get a spike but just the noise until they hit the reflector. Because, what you might not know: that is the point of the reflector. Reflecting light back to earth.
And, as I mentioned before but apparently in too many words for you to understand: They don't have to search the whole earth facing side of the moon. They know where they places the mirror. So they only have to search an area for which the optical resolution becomes too low to identify further details. At that point it is just a matter of time, as they simply scan it using the laser, which has a width of several kilometers when its photons arrive at the moon.
Will the same thing happen if we were to go to Mars???
Much as I appreciate MythBusters for tackling this hoax, do you honestly believe that anyone who buys in to every conspiracy theory will believe anyone who proves them wrong?
Crazies can't admit being wrong
The Russians put two retroreflectors on the moon. I guess that means they've put men on the moon twice? Right?
its just interesting to watch anyway.
@@theconspiracydentist There have been 6 missions where men went to the moon
@@rporta but according to the myth busters, retro reflectors are proof of a manned mission, and since the Russians have two retroreflectors on the moon, they must have sent men twice. I'm just using their logic. My point is that these retroreflectors can be put on the moon by an unmanned craft.
@Tiberiusduck, Astronomers from the Soviet Union and US (MIT) tried this in the 60s. It was so ridiculously hard to get even one photon (from millions) that they asked their respective space programs to put retroreflectors on the moon. True, the laser beam widens. Upon hitting the lunar surface, photons scatter WILDLY! To get one to return 180 degrees is almost miraculous. What we do know is retros give exponentially more returns than the surrounding terrain.
Couldn't a reflector been put there by an unmanned probe?
So you think that in the 60s we had a remote-operated probe that could do this?
Easier to send a capsule with some people in it.
@@Alastair510 that's very funny. Maybe the soviets did just that with their Lunokhod reflector missions. They sent a guy on a one way trip inside of a rover body and told him to plant them "robotically."
@@Domi2gud ?? You’re implying… what are you implying?
it's a joke. I'm paraphrasing a Russian book "Omon Ra" by Pelevin@@yommish
@@Domi2gud Oh my bad :)
in what way was this proof? They just said what they were doing and that the spike on the screen was from the moon... this video literally proved nothing.
A dome shaped reflector scatters the light in all directions. It has to be as concentrated as possible to travel all that way and still be able to detect. Even with the cornercubes, a very few of the reflected photons reach the detectors.
The scientists know what they are doing, contrary to the amateurs... :)
Let me just say this: I am not disputing whether or not astronauts landed on the moon. I don't care. We haven't done it since, and we currently don't have any reason to do it again. However, I do have an issue with the premise that the presence of retroreflectors means that astronauts landed on the moon. Here's why: there are two Russian retroreflectors on the moon, and they were placed by unmanned craft (Lunokhod 1 and 2). Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Apollo retroreflectors were also placed by remote. I'm not necessarily saying that they were, just bringing up the possibility. The bottom line is this: the presence of retroreflectors on the moon does not confirm that astronauts were ever on the moon.
+The Muspelheimr
You’re right that reflectors alone on the moon doesn't prove men were there, but it’s part of the evidence that supports the moon landings. Remember, the reflectors were used within days of being placed on the surface during Apollo 11, 14 and 15.
Therefore if they were not placed there during the Apollo missions, then an explanation is needed for how and when the reflectors got there (we can't send spacecraft to the moon in secret). What craft was used to place them there? Who designed and built the craft? Why hasn't that information surfaced (not even as a rumour)?
In other words, if it's a hoax, then a viable alternative explanation/theory will be needed to explain how the 3 Apollo retro-reflectors got there. :-)
@@MTMind2 easy.
Those 11 14 and 15 carried unmanned craft instead of actornaut , assumijg what u said are true
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 - So how could the Saturn V rockets take spacecraft to the moon during Apollo 11, 14 and 15, landing successfully on the surface, when ALL conspiracy theorists claim the same Saturn V rockets only took the astronauts into low Earth orbit and that's where they remained until it was time to return to Earth? :-)
@@MTMind2 no astronaut ever in the rocket. All apollo is fake. No man ever leafe earth orbit. All rocket fell into the ocean nearby. That is why rocket trajectory is curve. They want it to fall far from people eye
I can totally understand this point of view, but in this video she clear states that she’s pointing the laser at the Apollo 15 site (26.1334°N 3.6285°E). The Lunokhod reflectors are at 38.315°N 324.992°E and 25.830°N 30.914°E respectively. If she’s lying about the location she’s pointing the laser, then you’d have to assume this third party laser pointer is also in on the conspiracy.
This doesn´t prove anything. That is just an app, could have been configured to show that spike when the right coordinates are punched in.
Then get a laser strong enough, direct it at those coordinates and if you just get back random noise you have proven Nasa wrong. But wait - it is so much easier to just invent some wild conspiracy on the fly than trying to follow up on those claims. So everything is just CGI, everybody has this app in their telescope and all of this is done on some dark budget.
How can it be measured? The laser would have to be dead spot on perpendicular to the surface of the mirror in order for the laser to come right back. Even a single degree off would result in the laser coming back thousands of miles away.
This is why the reflectors are in the triangle shape, it makes sure they reflect the laser exactly at the same spot it's coming from. It's not a plane mirror. Just google "Corner Cube Mirror" if you're interested to find out more.
I'd like to know a lot more about that laser and the photon decor l detector. Does anyone know when the laser was installed, updated, what type of laser ,who the manufacturer was and all the same questions apply to the photon detector.
I hate to inform you that this is classified information. We all know what classified information is, don't we? No Information. Myth Busters is hardly scientific at the best of times but this particular sketch is beyond hilarious.
just google it, they even have a spec sheet, and several papers describing how it functions in detail, electronics in details diagrams, and base build included i even found some dude describing how you could build your own! if you had the space and budget.
question: when the lazer is sent it needs to be aimed considering the moons relative movement to the earth right? because light is fast but it still needs a little more than a second to reach the moon during which the moon moves forward. it then is reflected to earth at the exact angle at which the mirror was hit. so roughtly 2 seconds later the light beam will (re)reach earth. the video stated we send tons of photons there but due to lack of concentration of the light we only get like 4 photons back if we are lucky. so considering earths rotation speed, at the apache point observatory (30k kilometers circum/(24h*60min*60sec)*2sec) the station would have moved ~700m before the light would come back. how are they catching that photon?
its not that i dont believe in the moon landing. i mean we have a space station (ISS) obviously we could go to the moon but im just curious how they catch that light beam which was reduced to a few photons.
Because the moon is geo stationary and moves with the earth.
Booce von Derpington There are geostationary satellites that are fixed in the same position over the earth. Are you saying that the moon is also geostationary, because if you are, that is clearly incorrect.
Sailor Man I know that its wrong to say I didnt know the correct word for it (sorry Im german) what I meant is that the Moon rotates synchronous with Earth so that let#s say you're in Germany there is only one side of the moon that you see, same for the USA.
***** Okay thank you.
youbetu18 "light is fast but it still needs a little more than a second " no in definitly take less than a second to reach and come back, there is nothing faster than light.. the only thing that could make it take longer is the instrument they are using to shoot the laser(the time it takes until it shoots)
But... If earth is spinning, how the laser gets exact aiming?
Maths. You may have heard of it, if you ever went to school
@@Sillimant_ and the moon is also moving.1km per second.
They kept mentioning Apollo 15. What about the retro-reflector left from Apollo 11?
It exists. It's even been seen in the LRO photos. It turned out not to be as reliable as the later retroreflectors.
Thankyou, an easily manipulated graph really put my mind at ease!
Do the experiment yourself then. You've made the claim, now back it up
@@Sillimant_ No point, it's mathematically impossible for that tiny reflector to make any difference.
@@G-ra-ha-m Better check your math, there's actually a fair bit of it in that problem. Scatter, reflectivity, and a good bit more. And it had to make VERY little difference actually, just get a handful of photons back onto the receiver.
There is an awful lot of nut bags here.
starting with you
@@Glorioso found a nut bag
Hey you still think the moon landing is fake or nah
I recall a TV broadcast shortly after Apollo 11 that featured the Apollo 11 retroreflector in use by an observatory. People who think we did not land on the moon are either crazy or poorly educated. They need help, not just angry criticism.
I'm sure you haven't been indoctrinated at all
@@DeeplineStyle You must ask yourself the same question, my friend.
OK here's a math for you 4.5 billion times 1.5" means that the moon used to be A 106000 miles closer than it is now... If my math is correct. They neglected to mention that
How is that instrument able to aim at the plates perfectly? We can’t see the plates even with our biggest telescope
It does not aim perfectly. The laser spreads over a huge area on its own and this area is further moved in a search pattern until the returning photons are detected. From there on all movement is predictable.
@@Schmidtelpunkt so you have no idea if the one photon returning is bouncing off the reflector or they are getting lucky and its bouncing back off the moon like it always has before apollo
@@levelearthhanifa9121 They have a pretty precise idea about that because as soon as the retroreflector is inside the beam, the number of returning photos rises significantly and creates a peak. You know, like in that video you just watched before commenting. This is what it is about.
They got about 1-2 photons back. The graph is misleading. They probably attempted once on the other area of the moon and fired multiple rounds on area where the so called retroflector is. Eventually you will get a return like they did before
@@levelearthhanifa9121 The photons returned are always measured within some duration. All they have to do is to choose a duration which makes the two conditions distinguishable.
Did we really go the moon? *computer says yes*
LOL exactly. Just a digital black box automated sim......
exactly! Best part was "initiating laser reflective run from Apollo 15".. BWHAhA. These guys are good at knowing what their audience wants to hear. that's for sure
Damn you guys are dumber than religious nutjobs
Why does this prove that man was on the moon?? All this proves is that a piece of man made equipment is on the moon... It could be left there by a probe/robot
All they showed was a screen with a graph on it not sure how that is absolute proof?
That is how one displays photons. Sorry if that is too abstract for you to comprehend. But then the problem is not the evidence, but your reluctance to understand it.
@@Schmidtelpunkt ok so like i couldn't produce the same sht on my own computer just showing some graph fluctuating? Would that prove thst there is reflectors on th3 moon?
@@aapp953 No, because your claim is not that a graph can be faked but that nobody can reflect a laser from those coordinates, and yet several different facilities have done exactly that.
So what is the gigawatt laser and multi-million dollar observation equipment for? Just a show and waste of money?
@@zacharytaylor190 i dont know maybe you and i should play pencil fight but with our male appendages or penis for the late man to see whos will break first ya?
Mythbusters was such a good programme.
But if the moon is constantly moving at fast rate , how could you point a laser at such a small object without latency problems? Is there any video proof of this phenomena?
the laser moves faster than the moon
reading something off a computer screen doesn't prove much
Off of that computer screen it does, you can clearly see the difference in returns from the generic location on the moon vs the return from Apollo 15 landing site
That’s quite possibly the most moronic statement I have ever read .
Then why do you think the build the big ass observatory
The moon reflects sunlight, earthlight when in eclipse, radio waves, as radio hams have been using this for years, the moon when lit by laser light reflects laser light, independent of any man made reflectors on the moon.
Yes, but you can easily tell if it bounced off a reflector or a rock. Take a flashlight into your bathroom, shine it on the wall then the mirror. See the difference?
*****
Who said they needed reflectors to reflect laser light? lol
As lopers mentioned, diffuse 'general' light occurs when pointing a laser at the general surface of the moon. Science dictates and can predict the exact type and frequency of light that would be returned from the use of the reflectors left on the moon's surface. This is of course the exact light that is returned when lasers are directed at the reflector.
Yes it does, but not in the same direction as a retro-reflector.
All that laser light that the moon would reflect, would not be readable as anything else than background light or simply noise. And as you saw in the clip, they showed what that looked like when measured by the device, and what it measured when they hit the reflector.
T Est com' on man, get over it. nothing biological can survive harsh radiation of outer space: gamma rays, cosmic rays and the extremely dangerous VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELTS. com'on man, mythbusters are just two comedians who have nothing to do in their spare time.
The computer screen at 3:50 shows a diagram with a spike, supposedly the reflected laser light.
The laser light is not a thin ray when hitting back to earth, but a huge "spot", kilometer wide.
How is this represented as a spike?
Video quality is baddest of bad.
The display is showing the measurable spectrum of light in, what I assume is, nanometers. The "spike" denotes an increase in measured light within a very small range on that spectrum. Based on the color (green) of the laser, the spike is probably somewhere between 560-520 nanometers, which is the wavelength range for what we perceive as green light on the visible spectrum. If they know the wavelength and frequency of the light emitted by the laser (which they most certainly do), then they just have to compare the spectrum of reflected light to the known light from the laser. Since the moon doesn't shoot green lasers, if the light signal received matches, it's a sure bet that it's from the reflector.
I miss this show. Used to watch it all the time on Discovery.
Take a picture of the man made equipment on the moon. That would do it.
_"PHOTOSHOP!"_
-the idiots
Wow, the way she says "ENGAGING LASER" to the PC really makes it believable.
It's just so everyone should know that the laser could be reflecting back, and hit them in the eyes.
Just like on hospital, when they use defibrillation and says "clear":
It's protocol. That is one powerful fucking laser, it's to announce to everyone present that the laser is engaged. A laser that powerful, without eye protection, could blind you.
Safety protocols
Dumb ass...smh
The laser is powerful enough to burn a hole through your hand, it does blast photons after all.
The moon is actually a large laser tag center for the galaxy. It's called Laser Moon. It's been out of commission after Alderaan was accidentally destroyed by someone redirecting Laser Moon's power out its core. There's a 1970s movie that documents these events.
The retroreflector "left on the moon by astronauts" is an array of 10 by 10 reflective cells mounted on a support of 46 cm by 46 cm (18.11"). This reflector is not even 1/2 meter (1.5') wide but it works MIRACULOUSLY well!
Lets be serious. In order to find the retroreflector, the laser beam must be aligned with the precision of almost a nanoradian!! A nanoradian is one billionth of a radian (0.0000000001). The laser beams can hardly be adjusted with a precision more than 1/10th of a microradian.
So, laterally the laser beam will have much difficulty finding the little retroreflector. But, even if it manages to be aligned with it laterally, it must also find it vertically, and there is also little chance that it can find it vertically.
So, saying that the retroreflector works "extremely well" is a joke. A fairy tale for grown ups!
In fact, a retroreflector is not even needed to bounce a laser back to earth. There are silicates on the moon and if the laser encounters those it will reflect back the laser just as well.
The Mythbusters are factually incorrect to claim that it is impossible to bounce lasers off the moons bare surface, because MIT and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory BOTH succeeded in bouncing lasers off the moon and back to the earth without retroreflectors long before Apollo 11.
"Four years ago a ruby laser, considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment."
--"The Lasers Bright Magic" Thomas Meloy. National Geographic - 1966.
Mythbusters suck at their propaganda.
Optimus Prime is up there laughing at our weak laser... Transformers 5 is coming: Invasion of the Unicrons!
No, I talked to Shia and it's unicrons or otterbots :)
144p? jesus christ
What happens if that laser hits a plane?
by the logic of this video, there is man made equipment on mars so "we've been there too" !!
Andrew Sansom how do u mean?
But... there is... Wait... I've been wooooshed, haven't I?
He's spitting facts in here tho
Oops...... "The moon moves across the sky with an angular motion of about 14.5 degrees each hour, and the moon has an average diameter of 31.7 arcminutes. So it moves about 27.5 lunar diameters each hour, 0.45 diameters per minute or 0.0076 diameters each second. They say the moon's diameter is about 3476 kilometers, so that's about 26.4 kilometers (0.0076 * 3476) of lunar surface moving past each second from a fixed spot viewed from earth.
Light from the moon's surface takes ~1.3 seconds to reach earth, so any given spot a telescope is aimed at is actually behind the true position by about 34.32 kilometers (1.3 * 26.4) due to lightspeed delay. If a laser is aimed there, it will also take ~1.3 seconds to reach the moon's surface and miss the spot it was aimed at by double that amount - 68.64 kilometers.
Note that not one single description of the LLR experiments mentions taking this distance offset into account.
But lets go ahead and pretend they do and the laser is aimed ahead with the appropriate offset.
There is still a problem. A BIG and insurmountable problem!
The retro-reflector cannot aim light back towards earth at an offset - it can only reflect back at the exact angle the light was received, so the reflection will be aiming exactly at the apparent position of the light source at the moment it is received - and by that time the apparent position will be 34.32 km off from the true position on earth's surface, and the light will therefore be 68.64 km off from that position when it is reflected back to the earth.
It is claimed the reflected beam has a diameter of 20 km (an absurdly low divergence, but let's pretend it's true) when it reaches earth (see www.lpi.usra.edu/.../apollo_15/experiments/lrr/ ) - but it would hit a spot on earth's surface nearly 70km away from the observatory, which means no portion of it's 20 km beam diameter area would come anywhere near the observatory's telescope!"
Get it? The whole damn thing is impossible and it's proven so with their own numbers.
Exactly. Have you ever tried aiming a laser pointer at a wall a couple of dozen yards away? Moon is over 200,000 miles away :D
😳
🤔 maybe the earth sensors are 70km away from the observatory?
They will eventually find an explanation around that time/ distance offset you're pointing out. Besides, how are these supposed retroreflectors kept clean and functional. They'll probable say there's no dirt on the moon, contrary to what they've shown in the past. Or, claim that the low moon gravity will keep things clean and clear. The fact still remains that their own claims and physical laws contradict their own experiment. An experiment that can only be done by them at their conservatory.
@@paulanderson79it’s not a laser pointer it’s way stronger
This proved nothing. A spike on a graph! The usual NASA anti climax!
Something called the firmament which is like glass so can reflect.
There is no firmament
Here's one way to end this debate once and for all. Go back to the moon, surely it would be much easier to go there now in 2015 than in 1969.
I would never say that it did not happen, but I would like to experience such a big event while I'm alive. But I agree with you all the way.
Punanismugler Lol If Nasa goes back, they will just say the second mission was fake as well. What you need is a strong enough telescope to spot the bleached out flag on the moon to put the nail in the coffin.
They wont be able to say is fake with all the camera's we have in HD. They can do it live.Why not give this generation something to talk about in 20 years.
Luther Paul what nail? do you really believe Neil Armstrong was walking on the 250 degreesF moon surface? come on man wearing a lousy space suit of 1969? surely he was not stupid. water boils at 60 degrees celcius, you tell me Neil Armstrong was walking at 250 degF!!! wow what a miracle. AMERICAN TAX PAYERS MONEY WAS WASTED FOR A JOKE OF A LANDING.
Ha ha ha ha! I am not incoherent at all. I am closing on at NASA! someone must point a finger directly at NASA and say, "you are cruel, you are a disgrace ". MANNED MISSIONS! WHAT MANNED MISSIONS??? HA HA HA HA! Hasselblad commented on Aldrin's picture on the lunar surface saying it looks like he is standing on the spotlight. One thing for sure, NASA will have to answer one day for the cruel sin committed in 1969. That day will come.
if a retroreflector reflects light in every direction and they fire a laser at it, does it point lasers at a thousand other places on the earth?
That's not what it does, it returns the light yo it's source regardless of the angle of incident. Normally light bounces off a reflector at the same angle as it encounters it. This is why mirrors can be used to look round corners and why if you look into a mirror at an angle you can't see yourself.
This is not at all convincing. The moon is highly reflective as we can see the reflected light of the sun coming from it all the time Also we can see by eye that some areas are way more relfective than others, so shining a laser at it and you will expect to get reflected light back and it will be expected to vary with location - no big deal. Some areas will reflect better than others depending on many factors such as type and size of rock and the angle of the land. What she should have come clean about was what area the laser beam was at the point of hitting the moon's surface since over such a vast distance, despite being a laser the beam will have diverged to an area way larger than the alleged reflector.
It is and that is why it illuminates earth with reflected sunlight.
Well lunar regolith is considerably more reflective than earth so "highly" is a reasonable term to use. Fact is that we can see on earth in otherwise complete darkness by the reflected light from the moon. Hence all the songs about moonlight!.
OK I was too general. Lunar regolith has variable reflectivity and the high reflectivity areas are more reflective than soil or vegetation on earth. Incidentlaly this high reflectivity is the reason cited for the backlighting effect in lunar photos but that is another matter. The point is that it is easy to see that certain areas of the lunar surface are more reflective than others hence if you aim a laser at thse areas you will get back a larger signal, laser reflector or no laser reflector. Hence the experiment was flawed. For a valid experiment they should have aimed the laser at say 100 randomly selected areas and then aimed it at the alleged laser reflector. If the latter gave back a significantly greater signal than all of the other areas then this would be strong evidence that the alleged laser reflector was giving rise to the higher signal, otherwise this is junk science with an agenda to get to a desired conclusion..
The sun's light is scattered. The laser needs to be precise. Case closed.
I have a question: if light travels one second forward to the moon and another second back from the moon, in those 2 seconds the place of the mirror have to be slightly different since 2 seconds ago because of the rotation move of the Earth. For those kind of magnitudes, 2 seconds of movement have to be enormous, isn't it? I mean, if the laser beam backs to the exact place where it were emitted, then 2 seconds after ( when the beam is back ), the laser isn't any more in "that place" where emerged the beam.
Please I appreciate a good answer to this non sense.
From a Quora reply
"The relative alignment between the outgoing beam and the receiver may not be an obviously variable parameter. But one must intentionally point ahead of the lunar reflector - to where it will be in 1.25 s - while looking behind the "current" position of the reflector - to where it was 1.25 s ago. At the transverse velocity of the moon (∼1,000 ms−1)
, this translates to approximately 1.4′′ of intentional misalignment between transmitter and receiver. But because the telescope mount is driven on altitude and azimuth axes, the offset direction rotates relative to the instrument depending on where the moon is in the sky. Additionally, the earth rotation (∼400 ms−1)
changes the magnitude of the necessary offset. Because these effects are comparable in magnitude to the divergence of the beam (∼1′′)
and to the field of view of the receiver (1.4′′), they must be accommodated in an adjustable manner."
i think the landing was a hoax. because how can the moon be real if scoobidy bap bap boop? god:1, science:0
2spooky
***** i'm convinced
***** Ironically that argument makes more sense than most hoax claims.
This didn't bust anything. Someone pointing at a few waves on a computer screen proved jackshit to anyone except the profoundly gullible.
Clarified...PROFOUNDLY you mean...
^ Coming from a guy who was prob convinced by some random UA-cam documentary of a guy drawing red circles around shadows in a crusty photograph
In 1962 a team from MIT succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. So what does this mean?, it means this whole episode of mythbusters is garbage. I would have thought they (the sodbusters) would have known this. It just proves that the ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, that measures the distance between Earth and the Moon using laser ranging, was not the first time we bounced Lasers on Earth off of the moon and were able to read the pulses and determine distance from time. The retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15) were a big improvement over the bare surface. we still use the retroreflector from Apollo 15 today as it is 2x bigger than the Apollo 11, 14 reflectors.
On a side note Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 (Soviet lunar rovers) both carried reflectors along with a ton of other experiments. It landed on November 17, 1970 and lasers were bounced off of t shortly after many firsts were completed by Lunokhod 1 but contact was lost and the last contact the Russians had with it was September 14, 1971 and it's retroreflector was forgotten over time. Lunokhod 2 is still alive and active. A team from University of California San Diego rediscovered the Lunokhod 1 reflector in 2012 after looking at some new LRO pictures.
thanks
i new i remembert the laser expiriment taking place in 1962
thanks again on additional info
Joel Harris ?
Elaborate
What is your point
okay let's be serious we all know it was the Galactic empire who placed them there under Lord Vader's command which happened thousand of years before humans existed
There is man made equipment on mars, we put that there without walking on it.
Seb Wedgwood Yes. And?
Well the video claims man made equipment on the moon is conclusive proof of us setting foot there.....I am saying it does not prove anything.
It doesn't need to. There's a mountain range of other evidence.
I'm not saying there isn't, I just said they cant use that as proof......I'm open to both sides of the argument.
That's good. McDonald Observatory in Texas detected Apollo 14's retro-reflector just 7 hours after Alan Shepard set it up.
In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon's surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 1960s, the scientists realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon's surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years before Apollo 11 was supposed to have landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon's surface to provide an accurate measurement of the precise distance from Earth to Moon, without any reflector being on the Moon's surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962, albeit with a much more powerful laser. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?
Love that 5 years later your theory stands undisputed on here… yeah, that’s what she did in the first test (measuring the low level reflected light from the surface). When pointed at the landing site, she gets that plus the higher signal reflection from the “mirror”. You can be right and wrong simultaneously
Around five years before the first Apollo landing scientist had already discovered that lasers bounce back from the moon.
Does that mean the laser will bounce off the surface in the absence of a reflector?!
Long before the Apollo missions.. 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]
***** Or So we are told. Did you see the reflectors placed on the "Moon" Did You place them. Data is Easy to Skew...
Being a Retired Data Analyst , I would say a great deal if not all of the space program is a Fraudulent. Answer this for Me. Where is the Apollo missions Telemetry Data ...
No I did not. But can you just tell Me where the Telemetry Data for the Apollo missions can be found......? I'll help you. You can not produce enough Fake data for a mission that never happened. Thus the lost tapes. 14,000 Reels....
***** No Data is Easier to explain than False Data...
That's a 1 Billion Watt laser! With a "B". I bet you could instantly fry a hot dog with that! That's what I want to see.