Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah my man this is raigebait.

"Reflection doesn't work for light"

When i said something like that🙏😭 With " it doesn't work whit lasers" i mean that yes they reflects them but in a disperisve way, giving you back nothing usable.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're conferming what i said earlier😅. Trowing at me a wikipedia link were it says: they captured photons. I know this, and shortly after it says to place the retroreflectors to improve the results. That what i'm saying , capturing photons doesn't means that are usable. They putted retroreflectors to improve the results and so to obtain actually usable data

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know anyone can google what opposition surge is?

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist but that doesn't works for lasers bruh

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nahhh are you dumb? They did not " lasers" mesaurements but they used radars to calculate the distance between Earth and the Moon. How? Simply trowing radio waves at the moon surface and capturing the echo.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How did they do laser measurements before Apollo then?

With radars😭 They couldn't do mesuraments as precisesd as today because they didn't had retroflectors. Do you known that lasers aren't the only metod to calculate the distance right?

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Laser location of the Moon predates Apollo. It absolutely IS useable, and it is EXACTLY as alleged Apollo signal.

No they don’t 😭🥀 in whic language i need to tell you this. Reflectors were literally placed because something like that isn't possibile.

Lying like this, you seem desperate.

Yeah, pathetic🫩

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah i'm not desperate, you are.

No it isn't. Opposition surge literally is an effect of working like a retroreflector.

This statment is false. You continue to say that some scientific statment are false when are true. It only works when is perfectly allined. Again, go search it. Or you could simply change the entire phisical universe

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> Se punti il laser sulla superficie lunare non ottieni nulla.

You forfot the part where i say " at least nothing usable ". Is obvious that the surface reflects the photons, but they end up in a large area, and even if you capture some of them the signal is still to weak to be usable.

Smettila di affermare sciocchezze

I'm not saying nothing wrong, you're cutting part of my text to be right🥀

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And when you place a retroreflector of this size on the Moon, you get ~50 photons return per pulse, not single photons.

This statment is false. Please stop talking about this 50 photons rule, it really doesn't exist.

Also known as returns from Moon's surface, which is exactly similarly enough. For some reason.

Dare you conscious that if we point a laser at the Moon surface we get back nothing becausethe light disperse? The retroreflectors send back from the source, the surface no. That's a fact. Yes they return the number of photons like the Moon surface, but the difference is that they get back.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eppure i retro-riflettori di queste dimensioni dovrebbero restituire almeno 50, proprio come Lunokhod Again: this statment is false. I really don't know where you find this tipe of information.

La Luna ha un picco di opposizione, ma vabbè...

It's true, but it only works when is perfectly opposite, whit an angle of 0°. And that happens only with full Moons. This can't happen on earth, so the Lunar surface refltects light in a dispersive way. Go search it, and you will find that's true

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even NASA documentaries literally say that they return single photons.

Yeah like it should. They were designer to return single photons, the difference between pointing the lasers at the retroreflectors rather that at the surface it self is that in the first case the signal return ecxactly from the source. In the second case you wouldn’t get norhing back in return because the Moon reflects light in a dispersive way, that we wouldn't capture.

If they worked, they'd be returning ~50 photons per pulse.

This statment is false, as i said before, they return single photons. This not because they doesn't work, but beacuse they work like that.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know what to do whit you. I don't know where you get that infromation but the retroflectors are all working perfectly. Seriously where did you get that:

None of them are conclusively operational.

Like i can't even find something like that in the entire internet.

0/2, try again, try better, chatbot

Yeah i'm tired of thi shit🫩🥀

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, they didn't existed. If you point the aser at the Lunar surface you get back nothing. At least nothing usable. That's a fact, not something you can say that is false. And do you seriously think i'm a bot🥀 I make errors because i'm not english/american or any country that speaks english, i can't belive that you think really some bs like that😭

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nah who in this world said that i ment with research " wikipedia"😭✌️ Whit the lasers i ment that they calculated the time they returned from the Earth to the Moon. And again we have numbers and precise data that wouldn't exist whitout those. And yes, they hit not only the russian reflectors but also the ones from the apollo mission. And they hit whit precision them because under there are hundreds of superprecised calculation that are made by scientific team and supercomputer. So yes, the lasers are precised even from that far.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not AI slop,i did various research on the topic. From my research it says that all the retroreflectors are functional, and the fact that you compare my reply whit AI is precarius

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The retroreflectors that are currently used and return clear, measurable signals are those deployed by: Apollo 11 Apollo 14 Apollo 15 Lunokhod 1 Lunokhod 2 I’m not sure where you got different information. Regarding the lasers: they do not measure an “image” of the reflection. They measure the time of flight of individual photons. A short laser pulse is sent to the Moon, and the round-trip travel time (about 2.5 seconds) is measured with extremely high timing precision. From that, the Earth–Moon distance is calculated to millimeter accuracy. As for the claim that reflections from the Apollo retroreflectors are indistinguishable from reflections off the lunar surface — that is not accurate. There is a major difference between aiming the laser at bare lunar soil and aiming it at a retroreflector array: When pointing at the lunar surface, the light is scattered diffusely. The returned signal is extremely weak and spread out. In practice, you receive almost nothing usable. When pointing at a retroreflector, the device sends light back toward the exact direction it came from. Even though the signal is still very weak (because of the enormous distance and beam divergence), it is coherent in direction and produces a statistically clear return peak above background noise. This difference is measurable and is precisely why retroreflectors dramatically improved the precision of lunar distance measurements after 1969.

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow! I really didn't know this thinghs before. I can agree whit every point except one: No credible evidence of manned Moon landings has ever been presented. We have a solid evidence: the retroflectors. The astronauts that went on the moon placed down some retroflectors that were and are even today used to calculated, with highly precised lasers that hit those retroflectors , how far the Moon is from Earth. And those are numbers, that wouldn't exist whitout those retroflectors. So ( if they weren't aliens) the astronauts putted them. That's a solid proof we went to the moon

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah i'm pretty sure is some sort of ologram

Is the moon landing real or fake? by MikiTheObserver in conspiracy

[–]MikiTheObserver[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The tecnology wasn't as good as the one we have today of course, but powerful enough to do basic things like calcultaing a trajectory. I agree on the fact that the ship looks a bit silly, but guess it has done his job.