Freud would have a comment about that.....

I know this comment was addressed to Jay but what I find surprising is that he reads so much into a completely factual description of Apollo Hoax theorists. They theorize about a conspiracy theory, hence they are conspiracy theorists.

__________________
Spread the Love!

... if there were wind on the Moon.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Well, lakes imply an atmosphere... Water lakes...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

They cancelled that whole laser reflector project a couple of months ago. I wonder why?

References?

And if really, they may have cancelled measurements. The LRRR are still available. It is nothing special that scientific experiments are cancelled. Maybe we now have a theory of lunar movement which fits and predicts distances with an accuracy better than the accuracy of the measurements. Until we can't get more precise measurements, it doesn't make much sense to continue measurements.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-laser-funding

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-laser-funding
It is really getting on my nerves that currently it is hard to find some news reference about Apollo that didn't mention the moonhoax, giving those loonies much more credit than they deserve.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Here's more information on the laser ranging process, with some graphs of the return signal:
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy...rst_range.html
http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy...ighlights.html

It's even worse referencing Apollo videos on the internet. Try googling for an Apollo video, and you're likely to get a video by that Jarrah character...which really infuriates me because he is such a dope. (can I say "dope" )

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Although it should be noted that only one of the Lunokhod mirrors gives any return at all.

Project Diana. My grandfather worked on the project. Wikipedia has a short article here.

__________________
I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. -- Jimmy Hoffa

Lunokhod 2's position is well lnown and is often targeted. Lunokhod 1's reflector was used during the mission but ceased to give a return by the end. The reason for this is not known. Maybe LRO will shed some light on its fate.

Jon

Whats cool to me is that we are counting only the 10's of protons returned per pulse.

Whats cool to me is that we are counting only the 10's of protons returned per pulse.

I think you mean photons.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Oh, I never thought of that! What a mouth watering proposition!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Right, note to self, do not leave BAUT thread unattended for two days as you will then have to do a huge reply in one.

SpitfireIX
Was "truther" his term? I'm curious because in conspiracist and debunker circles a "truther" (or "twoofer") is someone who purports to attempt to uncover the "truth" about the September 11 attacks.

It was indeed. He put it in quotation marks. I did think it was odd, but the entire email was odd...

JayUtah


The word 'amateur' is mighty useful sometimes, and if used, should be backed up by expert opinion.

Yes. I have no problem with people calling themselves amateur space historians, or even armchair engineers. The problem is when their conclusions butt up against the commonly accepted views. If all the qualified engineers believe that the LRRR would work, and one "amateur historian" mounts some pseudo-technical rationale for why it wouldn't, then the parsimonious resolution to that controversy is that the lesser-educated guy doesn't know what he's talking about -- especially if his errors can be demonstrated as was done here.

The reason I said about his "theories" surprising me is because it does. I'm a history writer, specialising in the Tudor period, and I learned a valuable lesson while I was a student: if it isn't written down by someone who knows/knew, it doesn't exist. If you don't know yourself, you need to piece it together - but you need to judge the value of the evidence presented.

Now, say I was him. I hear about retroflectors. I think, jeesh, that sounds odd - one tiny bit of light reaching the moon? My next move would never, never be to post a blog trying to convince people of my sudden burst of inspiration. I'd go and see what the experts had to say. And as some of you have pointed out, if he'd just watched Mythbusters he'd've had his answer.

This kind of, well, non-thinking, baffles me and goes against everything I've ever known. What he's done is elevate his own thinking above that of someone who is experienced and knowledgeable. I just can't understand it.

Various: my general ignorance to conspiracy theorists' and their ways

Trust me, I'm learning.

I saw Apollo 13 when I was nine years old, and I loved it. I read 'A Man on the Moon' when I was 12. I became an Apollo fan, basically, and sought to learn more. Not through any scientific interest (God, that'll get me beaten off this forum) but through the majesty of what Apollo achieved, the poetry of it.

Maybe I should have focused on the science, because I can admit that when I saw the Fox documentary, I was blown away. Because, to someone who isn't scientifically-minded (I failed all sciences and maths, passed anything to do with the written word with merit - science + me = not good friends is about the only equation I can understand), that documentary was convincing! I didn't know any better! So I watched it and I felt sad, like I'd had something taken away from me. That hurt so much I set out to "debunk" for myself, by reading and reading and reading, even forcing myself to understand scientific radiation explanations. In this, I'm still an amateur, but if you want to know something about an astronaut's feelings, emotions or experiences... I'm a very good amateur.

So yes, the conspiracy theorists still surprise the hell out of me. I don't understand why they do it, and why they seek to back themselves up with such flimsy nonsense.I appear to have come across as naive, which I'm not... I'm just not immune to feeling actually hurt by what these people say. I believe this is because I came to Apollo from an emotive rather than scientific perspective to begin with.

Still, give me a few more months on these forums and I'm sure you will all have shaken that out of me

I know! After high-res images of the Apollo sites, the Lunokhod traverses are really going to be something to look forward to. There will be the landinf stage, near 50 kn of tracks, and the final resting places of the rovers themselves.

Jon

You would probably enjoy hearing or reading Gene Cernan, who, in my opinion, is the most eloquent in this regard. His comments on the DVD of the brilliant movie "For All Mankind" are excellent.

On the other side of the coin, you would probably also enjoy Mike Collins explaining such things, or the lack therof, in true Mike Collins fashion. Bluntly.

__________________
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

No beatings while I'm a moderator!

Actually, that is probably the saddest part of the Hoax Believers. Here we have one of mankind's greatest adventures (at least till now), and not only can they not appreciate the poetry of it, but they belittle it by making it a dark and evil thing. And yes, even the scientists feel the poetry of it too.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

...do not leave BAUT thread unattended for two days as you will then have to do a huge reply in one.

The trick is once you leave it for two days, leave it for months. I took a six-month hiatus from all my online activities a few years ago to care for my father. I just picked up anew. I don't think anything really got left out.


I'm a history writer, specialising in the Tudor period, and I learned a valuable lesson while I was a student: if it isn't written down by someone who knows/knew, it doesn't exist.

And even then it's iffy. The documentary record of Apollo can be inconsistent, as is all documentary history. But in my case I have dozens of contacts, to any of whom I can send and email or make a phone call to get more information that helps resolve a conflict or question. If the documents list different dimensions, for example, for the LM forward hatch, there are people at the Cradle of Aviation museum, for example, who will cheerfully go measure LM-13's hatch. Or in that case, point out that it's difficult to determine which "edge" to use as the top of the hatch. Imagine if you had only the documents to go from.

If you don't know yourself, you need to piece it together - but you need to judge the value of the evidence presented.

And that really never goes away. In my role as a forensic investigator I have to perform an historical piecing-together, but for events that may have happened only hours ago. It's difficult to avoid allowing your emerging hypothesis to be the "filter" that determines the value of evidence: hey, this doesn't fit my theory so I'm going to discard it.

This is why we investigate in teams, where possible. We want to shake out prejudices. And this is the modus operandi in academia too. We review each other's work to make sure it hasn't been preconceived.

I'd go and see what the experts had to say....
This kind of, well, non-thinking, baffles me and goes against everything I've ever known. What he's done is elevate his own thinking above that of someone who is experienced and knowledgeable. I just can't understand it.

Right; it takes a while for the seasoned scholar or researcher to wrap his mind around the conspiracist mentality. Naturally you're projecting your methods and motives onto them and then wondering why it doesn't fit.

Conspiracists aren't seeking a deeper understanding or an assurance of correctness. They are seeking a validation for belief. Pseudo-scholars tend to define themselves as "true" researchers, and to define the mainstream as a stagnant, largely self-serving system. They really don't see any legitimate value in educating themselves, because they define formal training or education as little more than indoctrination. They consider themselves naturally and inherently "in tune" with the universe, often precisely because they haven't been contaminated by "closed-minded" mainstream thought. Consequently often they'll throw around terms like "common sense" to indicate that the mainstream is allegedly so out of touch with reality that even the untrained layman can see it.

Pseudoscientists and pseudo-historians tend to work alone. They don't benefit from peer review. In fact, they eschew it. To the pseudo-historian, peer review among mainstream scholars is just a way to homogenize research and do away with any radical ideas.

The psychological reasons for this appear to be many and varied. Ego-reinforcement appears to be a common motivator. The pseudo-scholar wants approval and recognition for his skill, but for whatever reason cannot achieve that within the ordinary scheme of scholarship.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sometimes a probe is just a probe.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Hey, not all of us are exactly experts on the science. I was an English major in college myself, and I am not exactly ignorant of the Tudor period. I have reached the point where I can explain the science of some of the basics--though, irritatingly, I was having a hard time explaining the concept of "the mirror isn't big enough" to someone a couple of weeks ago regarding Hubble--but by and large, I'm a "majesty and poetry" person myself.

In fact, I was walking home last night under a beautiful, golden, waxing gibbous Moon, and all I could think was, "It is totally amazing that, forty years ago this summer, there were men up there." I told the friend walking me home about the Lovell thumb, and he agreed it was pretty cool. I can't cite you figures on radiation or engine thrust. I'm the wrong person to talk to about cameras and telegrammetry. But I can talk for days about sheer scope. Apollo 11 was seven years before I was born (which doubtless makes some people cringe the way the age you were when you saw Apollo 13 made me), but I am still in awe of it. Even if we go back, the awe will never go away for me.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Every get that feeling of a flushed face when you say something stupid and have to think back on it? I did mean photons.

He's apparently not thinking about the fact that Hubble is totally unable to track a fast moving object, which the Moon is.

Hubble can't take images of the largest craters on the Moon, so why expect it to take images of the landing site.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Feynman said it very well that scientists don't lose sense of the majesty of things, they know of even more majesty to be awed by.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

That's not correct, Henrik. Hubble can and has imaged the Moon on several occasions.

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Checking further, it looks like I was wrong.
I stand corrected.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Debunking in a nutshell...very well done! If only the HBs had the personal drive you have. All us amatures (aka interested in the subject) can keep learning from the pros here.

Slightly off-topic, so I apologize. Does this mean we were bouncing radio waves off the moon for communication? Sort of like Echo I, but natural and on a much larger scale? If so that's pretty darned cool.

More on topic, the whole issue of precision aiming is pretty silly. Even aside from the laser beam spreading, does your correspondent have any idea of how astrophotography is carried out? Maybe some reading on it would bring him some much-needed perspective.