File: IMG_5095 (1).jpg (3.05 MB, 1290x2254)

3.05 MB JPG

>>39246598
well there are definitely entities on the moon, if you have 20/10 vision this becomes easily apparent. I have trained my eyes to see the parts of fields and other sources of light that are not from the suns reflection. Something is emanating from it. Even without good vision, you can even find these grid-like patterns in the emanations (and some clouds here on earth) through just your phone camera's post processing tools. Crunch with the contrast, sharpness, and hue/saturation elements and repeat 3-5 times. You will see the truth. Stars in the sky will typically fit in the grids as well. Unnaturally too well.

>>39246663
to add on to my post, the actual exploration by humans on the moon is probably a half truth. We probably got close to orbit. But something chased us out.

I did the experiment in college as part of the lab series for my intro to modern physics course. laser pulses to measure the time and calculate distances. This was about 20 years ago so I have no reason to believe I still have my lab packets, so i realize it's just my word without additional proof. Went to university to see if they still offered the course and I might be able to see the lab series info. Course not currently offered. Pretty fun and conclusively proved to me those laser reflectors are where they say they are.

Second favorite part of the class. First day at lab, don't know anyone in my course. Find an open seat in the back of the room, don't really notice the giant pile of concrete cinder blocks beside me. Lab TA introduces himself, talks about various things for the labs we were going to be doing that session, points to me, "yeah over there is our neutron source", see several students change positions

>>39246598
They've been bouncing lasers off the moon for decades from the McDonald observatory in an ongoing experiment by University of Texas in Austin.

The moon landing happened but they faked a bunch of the footage because of what they found. Anyways it wasn't NASA it was a bunch of grad students shooting lasers at the reflector left by the Apollo mission.
>>39246689
They cut the funding in Texas around 2010. No amount of evidence will ever convince flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers (usually the same subhumans).

>>39246758
Well they could've just set up a mirror on the firmament just how they set up the Jame web sun simulator

Why do you need a reflector

>>39247110
>know how fast light travels
>shoot pulse of light at something reflective
>measure time for it to return to you
>use known speed of light to measure distance to reflector
>thus anyone can verify the distance from the earth to the moon by shooting a laser at the reflectors left by the apollo missions and doing the math

>>39247120

And what makes you think that the thing reflecting the light is, in fact, "the moon"?

>>39247120
But do you know the exact location of these reflectors, and if they are still intact?
What if the moon landing was fake and there are no reflectors?

It all comes down to "dude trust me". It just does, no matter how many words you use.

>>39247110
Its possible to just bounce the pulses from the bare lunar surface but the returns are less precise since you dont know where exactly the photons are reflecting from, and photons returning from several locations of differing distance etc can screw up the averages. Remember, the beam width is around 7km, depending on conditions and equipment.

>>39247943
>But do you know the exact location of these reflectors, and if they are still intact?
from all indications, yes to both. The russian retros were not located very well at all for quite a while because of general soviet reluctance to share, but have since been mapped and used regularly.
>What if the moon landing was fake and there are no reflectors?
the retros are not really a great proof that men landed on the moon anyway, since the russian items were placed using robotic rovers. But, there is no real reason to believe the manned missions were faked and everything points to them being genuine.

>>39247950
well, i can understand how it can seem that way to some. Even if you could go to one of the observatories carrying out LLR and watch the process, all you'd see would be the results being shown in the software they use. Because of your likely nonexistent knowledge of how it all works you wouldn't be able to know if anyone was lying to you.

So in that sense, yes, you'd have to accept what others tell you is going on. However, what basically anybody can do themselves is bounce VHF radio off the moon, either back to your own antenna for a round trip measurement, or to other people who also have their antenna pointed at the moon.

The round trip signal will give you a reasonably accurate distance to the moon....so long as you trust that the speed of light isn't being significantly altered along the way. You could imagine and invent some ways in which that could occur, but naturally you would want to prove that its actually happening too.

>>39248076
Just giving you props for being one of the few posters here with some fucking sense and logic, also empathy or however its spellt

>>39248076
It's not about if they are "lying", it's if what they are saying is accurate to the "truth", whatever the fuck the "truth" is. Classic platos cave shit.

>>39248417
if you can show that the tools they are using and the assumptions they are making as they use them as false, or even just inaccurate, then you will taken a step towards the truth. But you have to remember that the people carrying out LLR have spent considerable time and effort in mastering various areas of study and experimentation.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't possibly tumble across something they missed or that you can't ask meaningful questions. What it does mean is that you need to be realistic about what you dont know, and be willing to spend some time getting to know a bit about what's going on and how things work.

Believing that you dismiss entire branches of solidly support science and foundational, known laws of physics in a single sentence as you express some gottcha you came up with within 2 minutes of hearing about something is absolute arrogant retard behavior. Be on the watch for that because it can happen to anyone.

>>39246598
How in the world can some guy with a laser hit this small of a target on the Moon lmao

>>39248802
aimed through a large telescope at a known coordinate, beam divergence and effect of atmosphere lead to a circle about 7km in diameter on the lunar surface, and they do need to scan around a little bit when first acquiring a particular reflector. Also a skill issue.

>>39247892
It's not, it's your laser reflecting off the reflectors on the moon. Did you read a word I wrote?
>>39247943
Yes obviously dumbass because people do this experiment all the time.

>>39246598
Bump

>>39246758
>No amount of evidence will ever convince flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers (usually the same subhumans)

hmm, really

>>39246598
Yes, universities and private observatories all over the world have used the laser reflectors. This would have taken you 2 seconds to learn about if you'd done a search before posting.

>>39247892
>And what makes you think that the thing reflecting the light is, in fact, "the moon"?
Aim laser at moon. Get back some reflection. Target where the reflectors were left, get a stronger reflection, meaning you can measure with a less expensive laser and get a more precise measurement. Noen of this stuff is secret, learn about it.

>>39247943
>But do you know the exact location of these reflectors, and if they are still intact?
Yes. They know exactly where they landed, if you target those sites with a laser you get a signal bounced off of the reflectors. That's how you know they are still intact.

>What if the moon landing was fake and there are no reflectors?
Then you would not get the reflection when you aim a laser at them. But you do, so...

>>39246663
>Crunch with the contrast, sharpness, and hue/saturation elements and repeat 3-5 times. You will see the truth
no you'll see jpeg artefacts, and, if you're on meth, demons

>>39247101
The firmament would be much closer to the observer than the moon is to earth. To create light delays that would happen between the moon and earth, you'd have to somehow control and manipulate the speed of light to be whatever you want it to be for every instance of someone measuring it.

File: meds.jpg (37 KB, 1000x579)

37 KB JPG

>>39246663
know what else fits in grids?

>>39250993
Retard can u read? Op wants results from non nasa shills

hey all you free thinkers tm

this is what critical thinking is
>>39247120

these are not
>>39247892
>>39247943

>>39246598
deathbed NASAbro here. god, zoomers are really gullible and dumb. yeah, there are mirrors on the moon, but astronauts didn't place them there, they were dropped automatically by orbiters. the moon rock samples we lent out were just a bunch of rare meteorites that the government has been collecting for ages. many of them didn't even have the same mineral compositions lol

>>39249208
>>39251021

The reflection has no bearing on the object (or lack thereof).

>>39253515
try reading some reports made by research geologists. theres no doubt in their mind that lunar samples they examined can't be found on earth.
They've also examined meteorites too you know, so there is that.

>>39249208
>Yes obviously dumbass because people do this experiment all the time.
So Redditfags like you insist, yet never prove

>>39246598
>small mind can't comprehend technology
back to the crayons for you

>>39253793
how would you like it to be proved? what would you accept?

>>39246663
meds

>>39249045
Wouldn't the laset be scattered in the ionosphere?

>>39246663
For me the tell was to notice the change in the sun's colour and noticing no change in the moonlight's colour.
>what did it tell you
That the moon doesn't reflect as much sunlight as it produces. Think lighthouses. Small light source, giant focused reflector blocking half of its line of sight so all the light is beamed in a single direction.

>>39253907
there is an effect. its part of the overall losses.

>>39253962
>For me the tell was to notice the change in the sun's colour and noticing no change in the moonlight's colour.
if there was any change in the color of the sun that you're seeing, it is almost certainly due to a change in the atmosphere and so wouldn't mean anything to what the moon receives.

>>39254097
Precisely.
If the atmosphere changed the colour of sunlight, it should change the colour of moonlight as well.
It doesn't.

>>39254145
the difference in moonlight would be very very much less detectable because its so much less bright.

never seen anything but unsupported claims about sun color changing anyway.

>>39253962
>>39254145
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/26780/why-is-moon-light-not-the-same-color-as-sunlight