S band weapon against Apollo HB's

[Webbo]

That is incorrect and I really cannot fathom how you could make that claim

The shape on the graph shows doppler effects as the LM descends. In terms of Earth distance, effectively increasing as it moves to the surface from orbit. If the craft tracked across the Moon, there would be mild doppler as it came around and mild opposite doppler as it disappeared back in its orbit. There would be no signs of the maneuvre Armstrong performed.

The maneuvers could just be part of the preceding calibration errors. Actually if you look closely, if they are maneuvers, then prior to landing it looks like the LM briefly went underground or descended into a valley and had to ascend back out. Sounds dangerous. Did that happen? We would be able to work out more detail if they provided some scales or axis labels.

More likely is that this is picking up the CSM. Luckily the amateurs had one for comparison;

[Webbo]

The video mentions only amateur attempt. There were several successful ones, not all of which were limited in this way.

I think the point is that you need independent amateurs evidence otherwise HB's will just say they are part of the conspiracy.

[JayUtah]

I think the point is that you need independent amateurs evidence...

...which we have...

...otherwise HB's will just say they are part of the conspiracy.

...which is an unsubstantiated affirmative rebuttal. That's how the conspiracy game is played, but that's not how the real history game is played.

[Jeff Root]

Satellite at L1, adjustment of time and frequency according
to the script.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[R.A.F.]

Satellite at L1, adjustment of time and frequency according to the script.

Nope....wouldn't fool an informed amateur let alone scientists all over the world.

[Jeff Root]

Why wouldn't it fool the amateur? What did I leave out?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Clanger]

Why wouldn't it fool the amateur? What did I leave out?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

The libration of the Moon for one. The instability of L1 caused by this and the Sun's gravity.

The line of sight would always be moving, plus you just wouldn't get a direct line from say, Australia through L1 and the landing site, at the same time as Madrid through L1 and the landing site.

[R.A.F.]

Why wouldn't it fool the amateur?

Would a HAM radio operator be "fooled" into thinking the signal was coming from the Moon's surface, when it could only be "found" by looking directly at L1??

It's as Clanger posted...the "line of sight" is all wrong.

[Jeff Root]

I don't see why the amateur radio operators wouldn't be
fooled, since the antennae they used were not sufficiently
directional to distinguish between L1 and a location on
the Moon's surface. My understanding is that they could
only point their antennae to within about 1/2 degree --
the Moon's diameter.

[R.A.F.]

Don't know where my head is at.

I concede that could have fooled amateurs, but not professional scientists.

[molesworth]

...Actually if you look closely, if they are maneuvers, then prior to landing it looks like the LM briefly went underground or descended into a valley and had to ascend back out. Sounds dangerous. Did that happen? We would be able to work out more detail if they provided some scales or axis labels.

I think you're misunderstanding what doppler shift represents, or what it tells us in that graph.

It's not a measurement of height above the lunar surface, or velocity relative to it. It tells us the velocity of the transmitter relative to a receiver at one particular point on the earth's surface.

[Webbo]

...which we have...

But not enough to dispel the accusation that man didn't land on the moon due to the amateur reception of S-band comms. As explained previously they just didn't have the accuracy (according the the amateurs in the OP anyway).

...which is an unsubstantiated affirmative rebuttal. That's how the conspiracy game is played, but that's not how the real history game is played.

I never said it was the correct thing to do. I just said it was what HB's would do.

[Webbo]

I think you're misunderstanding what doppler shift represents, or what it tells us in that graph.

It's not a measurement of height above the lunar surface, or velocity relative to it. It tells us the velocity of the transmitter relative to a receiver at one particular point on the earth's surface.

And if (as claimed in the link - see below) it is the LM then the transmitter represents a point on the surface of the moon afer the wiggles end.

These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground. The signal then becomes a straight line when the Eagle finally lands on the Moon's surface.

[molesworth]

I think you're misunderstanding what doppler shift represents, or what it tells us in that graph.

It's not a measurement of height above the lunar surface, or velocity relative to it. It tells us the velocity of the transmitter relative to a receiver at one particular point on the earth's surface.

And if (as claimed in the link - see below) it is the LM then the transmitter represents a point on the surface of the moon afer the wiggles end.

These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground. The signal then becomes a straight line when the Eagle finally lands on the Moon's surface.

Yes, but not a horizontal line...

Do you now understand why your idea that "the LM briefly went underground or descended into a valley and had to ascend back out" is in fact incorrect? The graph shows that there were changes in the velocity of the LM relative to the earth-based receiver, not that it was ascending and descending erratically.

[JayUtah]

But not enough to dispel the accusation that man didn't land on the moon due to the amateur reception of S-band comms. As explained previously they just didn't have the accuracy (according the the amateurs in the OP anyway).

Asked and answered. The ones in the OP aren't the only ones.

I never said it was the correct thing to do. I just said it was what HB's would do.

Indeed, fair enough.

[Webbo]

Yes, but not a horizontal line...

Who said it would be horizontal?

Do you now understand why your idea that "the LM briefly went underground or descended into a valley and had to ascend back out" is in fact incorrect? The graph shows that there were changes in the velocity of the LM relative to the earth-based receiver, not that it was ascending and descending erratically.

I'm just repeating what the caption states.

In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground. The signal then becomes a straight line when the Eagle finally lands on the Moon's surface. The slowly changing frequency is then just due to the relative velocity between the telescope and that point on the Moon's surface.

If it's misleading maybe you should take the issue up with Jodrell Bank.

[Webbo]

Asked and answered. The ones in the OP aren't the only ones.

No evidence has been presented for these other ones.

[R.A.F.]

While not entirely relevant, I found this very interesting.

[molesworth]

Who said it would be horizontal?

I was trying to point out that your idea that the LM was descending into valleys and climbing back out was mistaken, and the fact that the eventual "steady state" wasn't a horizontal line is relevant to that.

I'm just repeating what the caption states.

The caption explains the "wiggles", but it doesn't say, or even imply, that the LM was below its final level, or ascended at any point.

If it's misleading maybe you should take the issue up with Jodrell Bank.

I don't think it's misleading, but your interpretation of what it shows is incorrect. I was trying to get you to think about what the data represents, and show you where you've misunderstood it.

[NEOWatcher]

But not enough to dispel the accusation that man didn't land on the moon due to the amateur reception of S-band comms.

How do you quantify "enough"?

[R.A.F.]

How do you quantify "enough"?

There never is "enough" for those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

[Van Rijn]

There never is "enough" for those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

And it's a moving standard. Every so often, we'd get questions about orbital photos of the landing sites and remaining hardware. It was really funny when we had someone who apparently wasn't familiar with LRO who said (paraphrasing) "I'd believe the landings were real if there were orbital photos of the LM hardware at the landing sites." So I pointed him to images of the LM hardware at the landing sites. And of course he spent the rest of the thread backing away from his statement and adding numerous additional requirements before he would consider it.

That's just the funniest, (at least to me), but it's pretty common for a MHer to ask for evidence they don't realize does exists.

[Jeff Root]

I'd go along with the hoax believer's logic on rejecting
the LRO images as dependable evidence. The images
could show anything. It is just interpretation as to
whether they show the LM descent stage, a rock, or
five minutes of work in PhotoShop.

To the best of my recollection, I've never asked anyone
what evidence would convince them to accept some idea.
Understanding is too complex to be pinned down that
way. It doesn't and shouldn't depend on any one piece
of evidence. It should come from how all the available
evidence fits together. There will almost always be
some evidence that doesn't fit with the rest, and part
of good judgement is choosing how to deal with it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[R.A.F.]

It was really funny when we had someone who apparently wasn't familiar with LRO who said (paraphrasing) "I'd believe the landings were real if there were orbital photos of the LM hardware at the landing sites." So I pointed him to images of the LM hardware at the landing sites. And of course he spent the rest of the thread backing away from his statement and adding numerous additional requirements before he would consider it.

My favorite example of this "type" of behavior is Hoagland and the "face" on Mars. For years on end, hoagland would "beg" NASA to take higher resolution images of the "face", yet once this was actually done, and the "face" was revealed to be nothing more significant than an eroded hill, hoagland, "changed horses" claiming all manner of idioicy...


...and all to avoid just admitting that he was wrong..."ct's" really have trouble admitting error.

[Gillianren]

To the best of my recollection, I've never asked anyone what evidence would convince them to accept some idea. Understanding is too complex to be pinned down that way. It doesn't and shouldn't depend on any one piece of evidence. It should come from how all the available evidence fits together. There will almost always be some evidence that doesn't fit with the rest, and part of good judgement is choosing how to deal with it.

Perhaps you don't understand the importance of the question, then. The issue is that, frequently, the answer will be something impossible to provide . . . or else nothing will convince them. The goal is generally to find out how much time to spend trying to convince the person. It is generally more a metric of how made up their mind is--or else the information is trivially easy to provide and proves that the person hasn't been doing any research.

[R.A.F.]

I'd go along with the hoax believer's logic on rejecting the LRO images as dependable evidence.

There is no "logic" in rejecting the LRO images...those that do are just being stubborn.

The images could show anything. It is just interpretation as to whether they show the LM descent stage, a rock, or
five minutes of work in PhotoShop.

No...there is no reason whatsoever to think anything of the sort....the images show what they show, the disgarded equipment left right where surface images, indicate.

Those that choose to deny, do so because it "fits" their agenda...

...do you have an agenda, Jeff?

[R.A.F.]

...I've never asked anyone what evidence would convince them to accept some idea.
Understanding is too complex to be pinned down that way.

That's a hoax believer "cop-out".

Are you sure you're not an HB, Jeff? You sure are "sounding" like one...

[Van Rijn]

I'd go along with the hoax believer's logic on rejecting
the LRO images as dependable evidence. The images
could show anything.

Definitely not, especially when you look at them in images with different amounts of shadow, look at the positions of other objects about the LM descent module, the tracks, the matching terrain features that fit the original photos taken by the astronauts, etc.

Anyway, this person made no qualifications before their statement. This person simply claimed they would accept the reality of Apollo if they were shown orbital images of the hardware. Instant backpedal when they were actually shown orbital images. It was very clear they didn't realize those images existed before the statement.

This was after years where every few months somebody would come on with a "there should be images" comment or a question about it, often, I think, because they thought it would prove something other other. Those questions/comments have stopped now.

[Van Rijn]

Perhaps you don't understand the importance of the question, then. The issue is that, frequently, the answer will be something impossible to provide . . . or else nothing will convince them.

Yes, the game is often to ask for a piece of evidence they think can't be provided. Then they ignore the evidence or add conditions when they're wrong and the evidence they ask for is provided. HB statement: "I want orbital pictures of the landing." Response: "What about all these wonderfully detailed pictures taken at the sites?" HB statement: "NO, only orbital pictures will do!" Blah, blah, blah.

[Webbo]

I was trying to point out that your idea that the LM was descending into valleys and climbing back out was mistaken, and the fact that the eventual "steady state" wasn't a horizontal line is relevant to that.

Expecting it to be horizontal is erroneous. After landing it's possible (probable even) that the surface of the moon should continue to maintain a velocity toward or away from the Earth. The only time it may appear to be horizontal is when the moon reaches apogee, perigee etc. or certain other combinations of the orbit orientaion and rotation of Earth. Most of the time the doppler as measured from a fixed point on the moon will be non horizontal profile.

The caption explains the "wiggles", but it doesn't say, or even imply, that the LM was below its final level, or ascended at any point.

No it cant describe that because it quite obviously shouldn't be possible. However, due to the fact that the doppler does have a lower point prior to the supposedly LM landing point tells its own story.

I don't think it's misleading, but your interpretation of what it shows is incorrect. I was trying to get you to think about what the data represents, and show you where you've misunderstood it.

I haven't misunderstood it. I know exactly what the doppler should show and what it does show. What's to interpret. They clearly state the wiggles represent the LM travelling over uneven terrain and the straight line represents the landed LM. You're the one attempting to interpret something different.