The moon landing hoax is so ridiculously flawed, it is really amazing we still have midwit posters on THIS forum that believe any of this happened in 1969. It’s pure delusion.
What is interesting to watch is how in the last 15 years with the increase in the maker communities where the average schmuck could build any thing with MCUs, sensor modules an 3D printers --> people started more aggressively contesting the difficulties in what went "flawlessly" decades prior. So then NASA started having to "replace" or "explain" circumstances more frequently. These pointless lunar landings in the last decade have been redundancies not scientific experiments which preach more to "planting evidence"
Only under remarkable precision, intermittent, inconsistent, for such a fractional amount of time (prism) that you can not confidently claim we had the sort of technological capabilities when created in 67 to 70
Considering physics in the context of what is being argued has a larger % of unknown variables, aym confident you are far too over confident, in your understanding of physics.
Feynman was a joke. Being passionate about a position in physics is not replaceable for replicable consistency. Feynman like many over hyped of his time have failed the fundamentals of tangible proof and the consequence has been adding more to simplicity, the now dogmatic antithetical religion of modern physics.
Where do you want to being? -- bcz it will be a harsh upending of your entire belief system --> for example STANDARD MODEL IS WRONG AND PARTICLE WAVE DUALITY IS FOR IDIOTS who fail to understand that the field defines the mechanisms, not your idiotic "you can not find a particle in any given position so we'll infer as a moment of a wave".
All it would take is for the entire indoctrinated model to be inverted and suddenly you people would realize how it all makes so much more sense. The "industry" of physics is your people bragging about regurgitation from previously or eventually-failed models.
If you need credentials as incentive, since you name drops Feynman like being a student was credibility, 9 months ago ayh was at Princeton speaking with several engineers working on "quantum computing" and discussing how the current physics models are completely broken and how "quantum" is a grant fed larp.
The very premise of using the reflector was based on the fact we reflected laser off the moon.
RE: Mythbusters episode was awful for credibility. Their "lighting the astronaut" bit was entirely inconsistent and yet "busted". They proved nothing and were carefully selective.
The American retro reflectors that were allegedly placed on the moon by NASA astronauts have never worked - laser return signals have always been no different than if the laser had bounced of the bare surface of the moon:
As evidenced by the fact that it was the demonstration of this natural reflection that led to the program claiming to want to place these units on the surface.
they also broadcast LIVE TV from the rover to earth as it drove around the surface
Don’t forget the LIVE phone call from the moon in 1969 with Nixon.
The moon landing hoax is so ridiculously flawed, it is really amazing we still have midwit posters on THIS forum that believe any of this happened in 1969. It’s pure delusion.
What is interesting to watch is how in the last 15 years with the increase in the maker communities where the average schmuck could build any thing with MCUs, sensor modules an 3D printers --> people started more aggressively contesting the difficulties in what went "flawlessly" decades prior. So then NASA started having to "replace" or "explain" circumstances more frequently. These pointless lunar landings in the last decade have been redundancies not scientific experiments which preach more to "planting evidence"
As any one who has dabbled in lasers, reflector, sensors.. to claim accuracy in 1969 - 1986 is just more of the "we simply forgot how"
This is ignorant. A cubical retroreflector doesn't care about angle. It takes in ANY incoming beam and reflects it back to source.
Only under remarkable precision, intermittent, inconsistent, for such a fractional amount of time (prism) that you can not confidently claim we had the sort of technological capabilities when created in 67 to 70
Your comment is kind of ungrammatical, and you may not understand any physics. So I am not clear on what the fuck you're saying.
/face palm/
Considering physics in the context of what is being argued has a larger % of unknown variables, aym confident you are far too over confident, in your understanding of physics.
I'll be blunt: you're an idiot. Richard Feynman was my physics professor. I'll take you on any day of the week.
Deal.
Feynman was a joke. Being passionate about a position in physics is not replaceable for replicable consistency. Feynman like many over hyped of his time have failed the fundamentals of tangible proof and the consequence has been adding more to simplicity, the now dogmatic antithetical religion of modern physics.
Where do you want to being? -- bcz it will be a harsh upending of your entire belief system --> for example STANDARD MODEL IS WRONG AND PARTICLE WAVE DUALITY IS FOR IDIOTS who fail to understand that the field defines the mechanisms, not your idiotic "you can not find a particle in any given position so we'll infer as a moment of a wave".
All it would take is for the entire indoctrinated model to be inverted and suddenly you people would realize how it all makes so much more sense. The "industry" of physics is your people bragging about regurgitation from previously or eventually-failed models.
Let's go..
You are a noxious idiot. Completely. I'd laugh but you're missing a can from the sixpack.
So, no, then?
Your loss.
If you need credentials as incentive, since you name drops Feynman like being a student was credibility, 9 months ago ayh was at Princeton speaking with several engineers working on "quantum computing" and discussing how the current physics models are completely broken and how "quantum" is a grant fed larp.
C'mon.. it was after all you who made the threat.
You can reflect lasers off the moon WITHOUT those stupid reflectors..
Myth Busters used this to prove we went..
But people were already bouncing lasers off the moon before 1969
The very premise of using the reflector was based on the fact we reflected laser off the moon.
RE: Mythbusters episode was awful for credibility. Their "lighting the astronaut" bit was entirely inconsistent and yet "busted". They proved nothing and were carefully selective.
The American retro reflectors that were allegedly placed on the moon by NASA astronauts have never worked - laser return signals have always been no different than if the laser had bounced of the bare surface of the moon:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.05863.pdf
As evidenced by the fact that it was the demonstration of this natural reflection that led to the program claiming to want to place these units on the surface.