"Moon" walks in perspective . .

In message , Rich
writes


Alan Erskine replied:
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

Hey stooopid, who put the corner cube arrays at every Apollo site for
25+ years of worldwide Nordtvedt effect testing?


The Lunakhod vehicle had one of these and it was unmanned.

How do you know they did?

Because the French researchers who installed it got reflections from it.
Idiot.
OK, it's quite possible that all the Russian landers were faked as well,
but that doesn't explain how Jodrell Bank got a facsimile transmission
from the Moon in the 1960s.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight replied:
In message , Rich
writes



Alan Erskine replied:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

Hey stooopid, who put the corner cube arrays at every Apollo site for
25+ years of worldwide Nordtvedt effect testing?

The Lunakhod vehicle had one of these and it was unmanned.


How do you know they did?


Because the French researchers who installed it got reflections from it.

You don't believe NASA when they say this, why do you believe the Russians?

Idiot.

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

OK, it's quite possible that all the Russian landers were faked as well,
but that doesn't explain how Jodrell Bank got a facsimile transmission
from the Moon in the 1960s.

http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrah...l/jodrole1.htm

Later, in the early 60's, there was not only the need to support
US space probes, but also to help monitor the USSR space probes
from an intelligence-gathering point of view. In the mid-60's the
United States set up a "Deep-Space Collection" programme with
stations at several points around the globe, including Jodrell
Bank. Whether or not this brought a large financial advantage to
Jodrell Bank is not known, but it probably did not work to its
disadvantage.

In a sense, the USSR also used the capabilities of Jodrell Bank.
In many circles the first Soviet lunar probe, Luna 1, launched on
2 January 1959, was simply not believed to have existed (See "Why
the West did not believe in Luna 1" at this Web site and (8). This
must have annoyed the Soviet authorities enormously, despite the
fact that the transmission frequencies were announced directly
after launch. For their second successful launch they decided to
try to engage Jodrell Bank as a source of independent verification
of any claim of success. Therefore the USSR sent detailed
instructions to Jodrell Bank how to find their second lunar probe,
Luna 2, that was launched on 12 September 1959 and hit the moon the
next day. Jodrell Bank provided scientific proof that Luna 2
actually reached the moon, and the USSR continued to provide
pointing and frequency data to Jodrell Bank for a number of years.


I don't see why you believe the US about Luna 1, but disbelieve the
US about Apollo. Can you explain this to me?

And this says nothing about the corner reflectors.

Rich

In message , Rich
writes


Jonathan Silverlight replied:

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

Well, enough independent labs have done so that it's not really in doubt
that _someone_ landed reflectors.


OK, it's quite possible that all the Russian landers were faked as
well, but that doesn't explain how Jodrell Bank got a facsimile
transmission from the Moon in the 1960s.

http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrah...l/jodrole1.htm

Later, in the early 60's, there was not only the need to support
US space probes, but also to help monitor the USSR space probes
from an intelligence-gathering point of view. In the mid-60's the
United States set up a "Deep-Space Collection" programme with
stations at several points around the globe, including Jodrell
Bank. Whether or not this brought a large financial advantage to
Jodrell Bank is not known, but it probably did not work to its
disadvantage.

It's fairly well known that it kept Bernard Lovell out of jail ! IIRC,
he was facing personal liability for the cost over-run on the big
telescope at Jodrell Bank.


In a sense, the USSR also used the capabilities of Jodrell Bank.
In many circles the first Soviet lunar probe, Luna 1, launched on
2 January 1959, was simply not believed to have existed (See "Why
the West did not believe in Luna 1" at this Web site and (8). This
must have annoyed the Soviet authorities enormously, despite the
fact that the transmission frequencies were announced directly
after launch. For their second successful launch they decided to
try to engage Jodrell Bank as a source of independent verification
of any claim of success. Therefore the USSR sent detailed
instructions to Jodrell Bank how to find their second lunar probe,
Luna 2, that was launched on 12 September 1959 and hit the moon the
next day. Jodrell Bank provided scientific proof that Luna 2
actually reached the moon, and the USSR continued to provide
pointing and frequency data to Jodrell Bank for a number of years.



That relationship was probably strained when Jodrell Bank scooped the
Russians with the first picture from their Luna 9 soft lander!

I don't see why you believe the US about Luna 1, but disbelieve the
US about Apollo. Can you explain this to me?

I think we may be at cross purposes here, and if so I'm sorry I was
rude. I'm one of the people who know the US sent men to the Moon! I saw
one of their spacecraft, for instance.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article , lid says...

In message , Rich
writes


Jonathan Silverlight replied:

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

Well, enough independent labs have done so that it's not really in doubt
that _someone_ landed reflectors.


Reflectors reflectors reflectors. OK now I am getting suspicious.

Are you trying to say that their are bright visible lights coming
from the moon, that cannot be explained by any means at our disposal,
except to pretend that we have scattered reflectors all over the
moon, such as on the edges of craters etc?

I mean it is clear for anyone who looks at the Clementine images
that there are bright lights all over the moon.

Reflected sunlight would bathe the moon in light and it does,
but what are all those very bright areas?

And again what about the Tychos crater, which is not a natural
crater. It is a covered hole in the ground like some sort
of James Bond secret installation. The crossmembers, the
geometric framing of the cover can be clearly seen.

Show me one example in nature anywhere, where the ground is
honeycombed.

It is not even covered with enough dust to obscure the supports
that lie beneath the surface.

On the edge of the crater are terraces and weird shapes, which
look like buildings, and even equipment etc, all reflecting light.

So what is all this silly talk about reflectors?

Who cares about the reflectors? What is that in the tychos crater,
and who is on the moon?

You will never prove man went to the moon.

He could have handed off anything at all to an extraterrestrial race,
or merely being trying to cover up their presence with silly
claims of reflectors and vehicles which leave tracks to in essence
cover their tracks.

So what is going on.

Are you ALL pod people or something?


Is there not one single scientist left on earth?

(Who isn't hiding in his bomb shelter afraid to speak that is)

In message yphsb.371965$pl3.7847@pd7tw3no, Rick Sobie
writes


Reflectors reflectors reflectors. OK now I am getting suspicious.

Are you trying to say that their are bright visible lights coming
from the moon, that cannot be explained by any means at our disposal,
except to pretend that we have scattered reflectors all over the
moon, such as on the edges of craters etc?

Just in case anyone is confused by this, we're talking about
retroreflectors (like the cube corners yachtsmen use to reflect radar)
that were placed on the Moon to reflect pulses of laser light fired from
Earth.
Only a very few photons are reflected, far too few to see with a
powerful telescope, but with the right sensor and knowing exactly when
the pulse was sent, you can measure the distance to the Moon to less
than an inch.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight replied:
In message , Rich
writes



Jonathan Silverlight replied:

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

Well, enough independent labs have done so that it's not really in doubt
that _someone_ landed reflectors.

I'm not saying that they aren't there. I'm just trying to find out why
some believe the Russians put a reflector up on the Zond 1 but find the
notion that Apollo (pick a number) left one there fantastic beyond
belief?

OK, it's quite possible that all the Russian landers were faked as
well, but that doesn't explain how Jodrell Bank got a facsimile
transmission from the Moon in the 1960s.


http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrah...l/jodrole1.htm

Later, in the early 60's, there was not only the need to support
US space probes, but also to help monitor the USSR space probes
from an intelligence-gathering point of view. In the mid-60's the
United States set up a "Deep-Space Collection" programme with
stations at several points around the globe, including Jodrell
Bank. Whether or not this brought a large financial advantage to
Jodrell Bank is not known, but it probably did not work to its
disadvantage.


It's fairly well known that it kept Bernard Lovell out of jail ! IIRC,
he was facing personal liability for the cost over-run on the big
telescope at Jodrell Bank.

How handy.

In a sense, the USSR also used the capabilities of Jodrell Bank.
In many circles the first Soviet lunar probe, Luna 1, launched on
2 January 1959, was simply not believed to have existed (See "Why
the West did not believe in Luna 1" at this Web site and (8). This
must have annoyed the Soviet authorities enormously, despite the
fact that the transmission frequencies were announced directly
after launch. For their second successful launch they decided to
try to engage Jodrell Bank as a source of independent verification
of any claim of success. Therefore the USSR sent detailed
instructions to Jodrell Bank how to find their second lunar probe,
Luna 2, that was launched on 12 September 1959 and hit the moon the
next day. Jodrell Bank provided scientific proof that Luna 2
actually reached the moon, and the USSR continued to provide
pointing and frequency data to Jodrell Bank for a number of years.

That relationship was probably strained when Jodrell Bank scooped the
Russians with the first picture from their Luna 9 soft lander!

I don't see why you believe the US about Luna 1, but disbelieve the
US about Apollo. Can you explain this to me?

I think we may be at cross purposes here, and if so I'm sorry I was
rude. I'm one of the people who know the US sent men to the Moon! I saw
one of their spacecraft, for instance.

Yeah, me too.

Sadly, years ago, I had only a few hours to visit the Smithsonian, I went
to the Space exhibit.

Rich

In message , Rich
writes


Jonathan Silverlight replied:
I think we may be at cross purposes here, and if so I'm sorry I was
rude. I'm one of the people who know the US sent men to the Moon! I
saw one of their spacecraft, for instance.

Yeah, me too.

Sadly, years ago, I had only a few hours to visit the Smithsonian, I went
to the Space exhibit.

Drool :-)
I haven't been there (yet?) but I have seen the Apollo CM we have in the
Science Museum.
But I meant I saw one on the way. Apollo 12 was visible to the naked eye
during the first few hours of its flight.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:43:54 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy , Rich
wrote:

Jonathan Silverlight replied:

Because the French researchers who installed it got reflections from it.

You don't believe NASA when they say this, why do you believe the Russians?

Which part of Russia is France in?

Idiot.

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

Have you yourself checked the chemical makeup of your cornflakes ? or
are you just taking someone else's word for them containing corn?




--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html

Mark McIntyre replied:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:43:54 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy , Rich
wrote:


Jonathan Silverlight replied:

Because the French researchers who installed it got reflections from it.

You don't believe NASA when they say this, why do you believe the Russians?

Which part of Russia is France in?

What part of France do you claim the reflector is in?

Idiot.

Have you yourself bounced light off the reflector? Or are you just taking
someone's word that they have?

Have you yourself checked the chemical makeup of your cornflakes ?

No.

or are you just taking someone else's word for them containing corn?

I'm not doing that either.

I also don't eat breakfast cereal so the term "your cornflakes" is
misleading.

Rich