Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: Signals from the Lunar Lander

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    Everytime I tune into one of the "We never went to the moon!" debates, I laugh my socks off. However, no matter how many times it has been proven that we did indeed go there, and land and walk about, a hundred new 'doubters' are somehow spewed out of the more stagnant depths of the gene pool. Time to speak up I guess. My proof is astoundingly simple. Anyone who understands 'basic radio' can understand it too. What amazes me is that virtually no one bothers to mention it anymore.

    During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base. Not only were high gain directional arrays pinpointing the source of the signals as the moon, they had also signal-tracked the spacecraft all the way from earth, tracking it accurately and with the interest and zeal typical of the radio amateurs across the globe. Further, no secondary signal sources were detected during that entire decade of moon landings - therefore no signal repeating ('bouncing' from earth to moon and back) could have been taking place. The reason that secondary, earth-originated sources were even monitored for is that the amateurs closely listed to all NASA transmissions as part of the enjoyment and the requirements of the hobby. Add these several thousand amateurs, who I might add were absolutely rapt over such an historic event, to the several thousand professional scientific research facilities and University Astronomy departments who were also monitoring these wonderful events, and you have what's known as 'reality'.

    Additionally, if you think that the above persons could be so easily fooled, just go and try to pass an Advanced Class Radio Operator license test - or better yet grab a PHD in Astrophysics or Radio Astronomy.

    I guess that the only people that might want to butt up against this little piece of golden proof are those bean-brains that couldn't grasp a weeny little clue as to how a simple radio works if their reputations depended upon it (er...Doh!).

    What astounds me the most is that there appears to be one hell of a lot of these bean-brains, and it appears that no matter what sort of evidence you slap them in the kisser with, they will cling to such idiotic assumptions as if their very lives (or egos) - (or bank accounts) - really DID depend on it.

    Well, lets say that if there are so many of these fools floating around, and there is nothing you can do or say to convince them all of the simple truth, then why shouldn't anyone with the time and desire write a book of 'Space Conspiracies' and charge them all each a few dollars for a copy and get rich? Is there anything inherently wrong with making a fortune off the stupidity of a hysterical mass of absurd, little-minded, genetically deficient morons? Apparently, this has indeed been done - successfully too!

    I have seriously thought about it, - I could use a million bucks for sure - but the reason I have not - so far - is that to do so would merely perpetuate all this embarrassingly stupid tripe and, as well, I don't want all the 'Flying Saucer People' (you know - the ones who live under the giant face on Mars) to know how blatantly stupid some of our fellow humans can be.

    Determining that human life is too dumb to be of any real worth, the Aliens might just wipe us out like so many bothersome fungi spores and raid the earth for something inherently more valuable - like an essentially perfect place to live that also has a lot of valuable water and a wealth of natural resources. OR - they might figure that by removing whatever miniscule amount of useful gray matter we have they could turn us into slaves to carve more ugly faces on airless planets to tease all those other dumb races with. Who can say? This is my main worry...

    I bet the old geezer who started all of this 'Fake Moon Mission Stuff' is kicking back on his yacht in the Bahamas and giggling up a storm while sipping pina colodas and frolicking with a couple of island cuties as his publication royalties exponentially multiply. I mean - this guy, shameless as he is - has no worries about anything for the rest of his life! Can you really blame him?

    And for all those fans of mine out there - Don't forget to pick up my latest book "The Pope is a Zombie", wherein I describe in minute detail how colonies of collectively intelligent flatworms took over Pope John Paul's body several years ago and, though still somewhat clumsy at it (as can be noticed if you look at him), are about to declare war on Rhodesia. I then launch into detailed speculation on the reasons why they even bother..

    All The Very Best! (yawn)
    S




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    320
    On 2001-10-26 02:16, saj wrote:

    During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base. Not only were high gain directional arrays pinpointing the source of the signals as the moon, they had also signal-tracked the spacecraft all the way from earth, tracking it accurately and with the interest and zeal typical of the radio amateurs across the globe. Further, no secondary signal sources were detected during that entire decade of moon landings - therefore no signal repeating ('bouncing' from earth to moon and back) could have been taking place. The reason that secondary, earth-originated sources were even monitored for is that the amateurs closely listed to all NASA transmissions as part of the enjoyment and the requirements of the hobby. Add these several thousand amateurs, who I might add were absolutely rapt over such an historic event, to the several thousand professional scientific research facilities and University Astronomy departments who were also monitoring these wonderful events, and you have what's known as 'reality'.
    Having researched this fairly carefully, I'll dispute that there were 'thousands' of hams who did this. Please check out the thread "Let's see if this works". If you have any additions to the table, I'd like to know about them.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    2,400
    ...collectively intelligent flatworms took over Pope John Paul's body several years ago and, though still somewhat clumsy at it (as can be noticed if you look at him), are about to declare war on Rhodesia. I then launch into detailed speculation on the reasons why they even bother..
    These flatworms aren't too up on current events. Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe - has been since 1979...

    CJSF

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    Christopher - Duh.. Exactly my point - Even collectively, them flatworms ain't that smart... er.. Maybe I should have said 'Swaziland'.. ??

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: saj on 2001-10-26 08:04 ]</font>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    Karl..

    Thanks for pointing that out Karl. I didn't bother to read your post prior to my post because of its rather vague title...

    As a Ham in the USA at the time, I remember the phrenetic gabble that went on for weeks during each mission on every amateur band - many seeking transmission data and antenna design info.. Living in China now for many years, I can tell you that there are a hell of a lot more logs than you seem able to copy/verify - and if one can allow oneself to be less US-Centric, in that there really are (and were then) other peole besides Americans living on planet earth at the time, one might imagine that worldwide there may have been many more than that - the equipment not being particularly hard to obtain.. maybe upwards of 20,000 here in the PRC alone, let alone Europe and the rest of the world. However, since I cannot copy them and forward to that thread, let's all agree that at least your summary seems to enhance the point.. K?

    (Sheesh..)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2001-10-26 07:58, saj wrote:
    However, since I cannot copy them and forward to that thread, let's all agree that at least your summary seems to enhance the point.. K?

    (Sheesh..)
    Sheesh?

    I'm not going to agree that Karl's summary "enhances" your point. It does what Karl says it does, detracts from your point. Unless you have evidence and are willing to provide it, I'd stick with Karl's assessment. Perhaps you have access to a published article that makes the same claim?

    That does not mean that Karl (nor I) are moonhoaxers. I think just the opposite, that Karl's evidence was put forth to counter moonhoaxers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    wow - when something intended to be mostly humorous and light-hearted elicits such rather pedantic critique, it makes me wonder that maybe the subject is taken far more seriously than it deserves. Did I step on a toe or tickle a sensitive nerve?

    The fact remains, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that many, many amateur radio operators and general shortwave radio listeners throughout the big wide world copied those signals. You might try to understand that many of them, at this point in history, may be dead or may have adopted another hobby or speak an entirely different language. Heaps never kept any logs at all. I know I don't have any from then from my radio - lots of SWL's don't bother..

    Even so, please feel free to 'correct' my little diatribe to indicate 'several' or 'a few' or 'only those that Karl knows about' rather than 'thousands', and then comtemplate how equally silly that might sound... But, if you insist... lol

    So, I'll leave you all to it.. Have fun! (?)73's and so forth..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,516
    I bet the old geezer who started all of this 'Fake Moon Mission Stuff' is kicking back on his yacht in the Bahamas and giggling up a storm while sipping pina colodas and frolicking with a couple of island cuties as his publication royalties exponentially multiply. I mean - this guy, shameless as he is - has no worries about anything for the rest of his life! Can you really blame him?
    First, Bill Kaysing-- credited in general for starting this whole nonsense-- is practically penniless, and lives in a trailer in California. He has no books or movies that have made him money from this garbage, so at least there is that justice.

    Second, even if he were rich, I can blame him. Think about this: I have a history with NASA (though indirectly). I am a published astronomer, with a few papers as first author, and a dozen more as second or more author. I worked with Hubble for ten years.

    If I were to approach, say, Fox TV or the Weekly World News and say that I believe NASA faked the Moon missions, how much do you think I could ask as a lump sum? A million? Well, maybe not now, but before the terrorist attacks this would have been big news, for a short time at least. I could have made a fortune, and it would be me in the Bahamas.

    The fact that I have not done this speaks for itself.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    930
    "I could have made a million [by selling out...]" Exactly! And that's one reason my adrenalin starts flowing when some barstid does sell out--like Hoagland, like Van Flandern--and abuse the scientific knowledge they have gained. Now I don't think Hoagie was ever a scientist--wasn't he a NASA publicist or something?--but for Van Flandern, who was a scientist, to be claiming to see all sorts of Martian "cities" and such sensationalist garbage just lights my wick.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2
    Back off man - We're Scientists!

    hehehe [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] I understand your post and it made me laugh too. Don't let all these puppies ruin your day. I think there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to qualify that thousands really did tune into the missions. Hell, even our local TV Weatherman had his dish pointed up and it was a big deal on the local station in our little upstate town. In memory there was a lot more than just us.

    Trouble is that most junior scientists these days refuse to believe that the 60s and 70s ever really existed! Unless they have a printout on it. hehehe

    As for the millionair, were you talking about that British dude who made a fortune over there on his fake moon mission book? He really did make a bundle and also a movie.. I don't know who that other dude is.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    320
    On 2001-10-26 21:59, saj wrote:
    wow - when something intended to be mostly humorous and light-hearted elicits such rather pedantic critique, it makes me wonder that maybe the subject is taken far more seriously than it deserves. Did I step on a toe or tickle a sensitive nerve?

    The fact remains, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, that many, many amateur radio operators and general shortwave radio listeners throughout the big wide world copied those signals. You might try to understand that many of them, at this point in history, may be dead or may have adopted another hobby or speak an entirely different language. Heaps never kept any logs at all. I know I don't have any from then from my radio - lots of SWL's don't bother..

    Even so, please feel free to 'correct' my little diatribe to indicate 'several' or 'a few' or 'only those that Karl knows about' rather than 'thousands', and then comtemplate how equally silly that might sound... But, if you insist... lol

    So, I'll leave you all to it.. Have fun! (?)73's and so forth..
    Pedantic or accurate??

    Given the available technology in the late 60's tracking Apollo S-band signals to the moon required a minimum 12-15ft dish and a parametric amplifier. Hardly technology available to 'thousands'. Low earth orbit VHF, pre-lunar injection possibly, but not trans-lunar. I've been in conversation with a number of the hams who actually did it.

    If the object here is to convince the skeptical, what is the point of producing unverifiable claims?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10

    Why would thousands have had to personally own the correct systems, dishes or other equipment? Many heard it on 'other' peoples radio gear! We had more than thirty just in our little neighborhood drop by and listen -totally fascinated. We were just one IN THOUSANDS of amateur radio listening posts all over the world!

    A well-respected friend of mine - an amateur extra-class operator and International Emergency Radio volunteer in Sydney, Australia actually re-broadcast all of his receptions on 11 meters for all the CB buffs (legal for him in Oz at the time)..

    Let's look at an example of where your type of logic can lead:

    THe Apollo Missions:
    Most humans who were alive and conscious during the Apollo Missions remember all the broadcasts, newspaper articles, interviews, commentary, photos, video clips, etc.

    World War I
    Any alive from that period also saw many newsreels, articles, photos, interviews, commentary, movies, about THAT little episode in history - yet, according to YOUR formula, it could remain disproved today! This is the same mentality that refuses to believe that the holocaust ever took place.

    It IS humorous that people don't want to believe these things and it is SILLY to take such pains to prove to someone that they are hopelessly gullable and maybe even pathetically stupid.

    What is even funnier is that you, who appears to be a somewhat rational, informed person, would take this to task so seriously! I really mean it - you are cracking me up!

    An equally inane endeavor for you to follow up on would be to try and document and therefore 'proove' that the WTC bombing really happened, to some jerk thirty years from now that is saying the videos were all faked and the buildings were really miniatures in a hollywood studio and all the people in NYC were brainwashed.

    I can predict your reaction: You would be quite angry that such a very real tragedy was being made such a mockery of, or you would laugh at the bozo and recommend he see a shrink..

    Exactly how I feel about it - and indicated the same in my initial post - I have adopted the latter stand in this case.

    Lending such credence to these twits as to go and cite log books for them as 'proof' ... Good Grief son..

    (and Karl - don't take any of this personally - I love a good debate..)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    18
    Saj, I agree with you, but your statement:

    "During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not
    only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base."

    Needs a bit of editing. Perhaps you were referring to "Tranquility Base"

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,836
    Folks

    Thanks for the info.

    Iím the President of the Canberra Skeptics, and one of the jobs we do is try to educate people about skeptical ways of thinking, by handing out pamphlets on various topics. One of our pamphlets is about the Moon Landings, and how we know they werenít faked. Itís always good to be able to update them with something we didnít know before, like the ham radio people tracking the Apollo missions.

    And just to confirm that youíre saying what I think youíre saying, does this mean the hams were able to listen in on conversations between Houston and the space craft in real time? Out of interest, do people do this with Space Shuttle missions these days?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    Matthew Ota -

    Oops - I certainly apologize - It was indeed Tranquility Base, not 'Trinity' (where'd I get that from?? lol)..

    Thanks..

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    Peter B -

    Yes, you are correct. These days however, the transmissions are largely encrypted and in digital format with unique, complex modulation characteristics. The Shuttle comms transmissions are also quite weak relatively speaking - relying more on the sensitive receiving dishes and satellite relay systems in place to augmnet their transmissions. Even so, these can still be copied and logged, and I understand that many telemetry signals can be decoded now as well (heart rate, body temp, internal atmosphere, etc.), though it takes a dedicated effort and some rather sophisticated gear.

    Also, often both Shuttle and Space Station crew members will broadcast on the amateur bands for enjoyment and to interact with the vast number of Hams and SWL's who may not be able to indulge in a hobby that is a growing, but complex, expensive hobby - using some pretty sophisticated computer software as well. When scheduled, these can be easily received by any of a plethora of good shortwave receivers tuned to the 10, 20, 40, 80 and even the 160 meter (longwave) bands - and it's fun too!

    For further, more detailed info in your neck o' the woods', there is a fellow in Sydney named Sam Voron, who I think still runs a Ham Club there. His number is in the book - just tell him 'Steve The Yank' said "Hi Hi"..

    Also, the NASA Home Page has links to the exact transmission times, frequencies and mod-demod data for all except the military-purposed missions.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    375
    On 2001-10-28 23:00, saj wrote:
    Peter B -

    Yes, you are correct. These days however, the transmissions are largely encrypted and in digital format with unique, complex modulation characteristics.
    True, but I wish it wasn't. I find encription difficult to justify. No doubt it will encourage many to feel that NASA are indeed covering something up.

    The process will also make it more difficult to debate transmissions such as the STS video; Sts 75 stills

    The images seem to show an object passing behind the tether. I have heard a claim that this is actually an optical illusion from the camera (which I am inclined to believe purely on balance of probabilities). Another arguement sited is that if it were a UFO it would be 1 mile long and visible from Earth. Whilst that may be true there are two logical faults with that argument;

    1.) The tether was over 20 miles long and could not be seen from Earth.

    2.) If it was a UFO then given this would be unknown advanced technology we have no way of knowing if the vehicle would allow itself to be seen from below.

    Whilst I accept the arguements that the object was a camera artifact I feel we are better for being able to examine the evidence for ourselves rather than have the data encrypted and kept away from the public gaze (sanitised).

    The same thing goes for all images from Mars. They are now encrypted and sent to a private company (Malin Space Science Systems) where the company owner maintains full control. Worse than that people are now claiming that when the images are eventually released they show signs of tampering (sound familar? Tampered image claims have been one reason why the moon hoax theory has been as popular as it has).

    Personally I suspect that "some" images from both the Moon and Mars have been tampered by "some" individuals. Rather than removing clear signs of artificiality I believe that object which mearly suggest artificial may have been altered to look less artificial for purely political reasons.

    The following URL image from Malin Space Sciences Website;
    In you face image

    This image is an example of the attitude towards the controversial "face" image. It would seem that Malin wants to discredit claims that this may be an artificial structure. Well, from the images we have seen it would appear natural, but the argument would be a lot stronger if;

    1. The images received were released at the first opportunity, and completely free from any form of alteration (a high pass filter hardly improves image quality).

    2. NASA presented a more open policy, removed image encryption, and handled the images themselves rather than passing them on to private individuals (and therefore not as legally accountable).

    I suppose no matter what NASA do to improve their credibility with the general public their efforts will constantly be undermined by lies/deceptions routinely given out by the political establishment (how many "official" versions of the Roswell crash have there been ? I can recall at least 4).

    Jeff

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2001-10-29 03:24 ]</font>

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    I agree with your statement about tampering with the photos. Consider though (as they claim) that these images must be 'cleaned up' - I think to have such things as noise and other unwanted artifacts from the transmissions require some filtering.

    Also, there is the ever present IP situation (Intellectual Property) and issues of publication rights. In fact, the Pentagon is actually 'leasing' satellite imaging time from the private owners of the bird over Afganistan (I forget it's name/designation) for several weeks and , in fact, they had to pay millions to reserve the imaging reception time through the next three months. Of course, this is for an obviously sensitive military intelligence issue, but even NASA will retain IP rights so that it can later sell various STS and other mission images to offset costs.

    Personally I have a problem with publicly funded entities holding IP rights - thereby restricting citizens free access to such however, this is 'modern government' as we are told - and NASA certainly has had its budget problems of late.

    Futher adding to NASA's 'public image problems' is that it must patronize the military and the US government - certainly its largest clients and inherently secretive.

    Larger contributors are the mega-corporations, which insist in their research funding grants that certain elements of their proprietary technology not be revealed (whatever that might entail). Several past (and very recently past) NASA administrators have made statements to the effect that their hands are tied in these instances, but I think they do try to remain as open as possible when allowed.

    If, as a 'died in the wool skeptic', you are attempting to enhance your arguments in the education of all those UFO nuts out there, you can raise some fairly basic common-sense points.

    Personally I think that the question of UFOs will remain open. We just don't know and no one has ever really been able to produce any real evidence for such. Ever.

    Evidence in this case (to a skeptic) must produce - for international public scrutiny - some physical piece of an extraterrestrial technology that can be PROVEN to be extraterrestrial or the conveyance of intelligent information either through long range communications or other scientifically verifiable means.

    However, if one wanted to apply the increasingly popular 'Occam's Razor' principle - If there were alien beings buzzing our missions and our night skies, they would probably have announced themselves to us by now. It's OK to 'believe' that such creatures might want to hide from us for this reason or that, but it is improbable. Occam might ask: "Why would they/should they?"

    As for the 'Area 51' event, for example, there are an equal number of other possibilities as to what the military were doing - even though it is generally excepted that they bungled whatever it was. Many think, rather than an alien spacecraft, that they were trying something amazingly stupid and embarrasing, and at first tried to cover it up with something dumb, then nixed that explanation as being even dumber and then stopped talking (or making any sense) altogther. One of the most recent stories is that the 'alien bodies' they 'discovered' were test monkeys in environment suits - the suits melting into their skin in the crash of a plane or balloon and thus making them appear 'alien'. Who knows? It makes some sense though.

    Many now speculate that we silly human bingles try to 'anthropomorphasize' all other living creatures - that is we give dogs and cats human sounding names and we tend to think aliens will be so involved with our societies and our cultures and so 'interested' in us that they will want to tease and torture us and play hide and seek and swap out their bodies for ours and whisk us away in the dead of night to perform strange surgery, etc. - however - there is an even greater probability that if there ARE alien life forms poppng in here now and then, they:

    *Would just as likely be very very alien, in that they may not even see us, hear us, or even think that we are much more than an indigenous form of fungus that should be disregarded as anything relevant. (think about THAT for a minute.. geez..)

    *Would most probably NOT be using any sort of flying machines, but rather, having realized that shooting around in space in a 'rocket ship' or 'saucer with extra-light warp-inducing ion-displacement drives' might be good for a giggle, but it is needlessly expensive and terribly time consuming and inefficient. To have progressed to the point of being able to navigate through space over incredible distances, they would have found 'machine travel' to be similar to our use of the horse and buggy - way too slow and potentially dangerous. Obviously they would bend time/space and instantly be sipping a pina colada in Key West eh?

    For that matter, we might not be much more than an enzyme in a petri dish for any form of intelligence that is presently capable of flitting about the universe willy-nilly.

    My point here is that, if you want to freak a UFO freak out - get him/het to think about some of the above. I think most of the Flying Saucer Aliens would say: "Space and time? What's that?"


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2001-10-28 15:11, Matthew Ota wrote:
    Saj, I agree with you, but your statement:

    "During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not
    only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base."

    Needs a bit of editing. Perhaps you were referring to "Tranquility Base"
    He also seems to have changed his mind about whether it was hams, or maybe just neighbors of hams.

    Questioning someones numbers doesn't make the questioner into a moonhoaxer, nor someone who would deny that world war I happened.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2
    Sour Grapes of Wrath?? heheh
    no he didn't he included them if you read what he says, but your two posts don't make you look like you can understand it anyway... go get a real job dude..

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,877
    On 2001-10-29 10:56, TommyBot wrote:
    Sour Grapes of Wrath?? heheh
    no he didn't he included them if you read what he says, but your two posts don't make you look like you can understand it anyway... go get a real job dude..
    'Scuse me? In Saj's original post, he said:

    During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base.
    See where it says "thousands of HAM radio operators"? See that it doesn't say "thousands of people including HAM radio operators and their neighbors/friends/cats"?

    And please, try not to be so rude.


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10

    Yes I did say that and I stand by it too. I say that many thousands of Ham and other radio operators, schools and institutions, from hundreds of nations all across the earth received and copied those signals as they were directly transmitted from the orbiter and the LM and Tranquility Base. You did NOT need a very sophisticated rig at that time, only a high gain directional array and a UHF-capable down-converter with receiver/demodulator. NASA even published the freqs for the general populace. I also said in a subsequent post that many other people who were not Hams listened too. Where is that not clear?

    Why not say something more constructive like: "I can only obtain eleven authenticated operator logs from that period in history, therefore I want more proof." or something like that..

    I say "thousands" - Karl says he doubts that figure. Karl says this and I say that. That is all there is to it. Feel free to agree or disagree with whomever, but try to add some relevant, factual data to the debate rather than loose commentary and quotes taken from a single paragraph. I am happy to discuss whatever and to expand upon my point with someone who is willing to listen with an open brainpan.

    Basically, to reiterate, I am only trying to say that of course the evidence is now - over 30 years later - largely anecdotal but it is still very silly to even feel the need to argue the point. It happened, whether you were alive at the time, or not, it happened.

    The fact that it never dawned on millions at that time that a few people in the future (who in my mind were simply out for fun and profit) would claim that no one ever really landed on the moon doesn't alter the facts, and most rational people don't really care what those folks believe anyway because it is a given that most of them will grow up and understand how the world works and so on after a while and then they will enjoy the burden of having to say all this to THEIR kids, and so on.

    And Tommybot I would appreciate it if you would be less sarcastic and try to help the thread along. I am certainly trying to keep a bit of good natured debate in here while making my point. Though I appreciate that you appear to understand my point of view on the matter, let's tone it down a bit and add constructively.

    Actually, I am really appreciative of the efforts Karl put into his research, and I encourage everyone to look carefully at both of our positions on the matter.

    For instance, it appears that we are about to conclude here that there are indeed very few radio operator logs in existance from that period, which baffles me. This is actually quite a discovery. Many certainly KNOW that the missions took place, just like one knows that our first President was named George Washington. But what about the requirement of absolute proof for anything that is claimed as fact? What constitutes acceptable proof for something historical?

    I have a sixty year old Samurai sword that belonged to a Japanese Officer in occupied China during WWII. It is beautiful and it is definitely old. It may have even killed someone (it's sharp enough). Did it? Is it? Was it?

    In this case I say that the Apollo Moon Landing events are self evident and need no verification - that they are self evident by the weight of their effect on the world community at that time and that it was a relatively easy process back then to verify it to oneself by listening to it on your radio or someones else's radio or being staioned at a Dew Line post or NORAD and watching it all on radar or many other methods available during the event - and that it is silly to even try to prove it now. Am I right? Can you prove me wrong?

    In a purely hypothetical space/time vacuum, where any sort of 'history' would be non-existant and therefor unavailable as a form of 'proof', Karl's exercise would indeed be the only valid source of data.

    So, from a hypothetical position, as above, it is quite possible that the opposite position (no one went to the moon) could be considered an equally possible reality, in that perhaps an equal weight of suspicious anomalies and other strange findings would balance the equation. Indeed, that apears to be the case now.

    We are not, as it were, in a space/time vacuum and therefore our 'reality' is based in part upon common conscious collective 'experiences' - without which we, as an intelligence, would have no frame of reference with which to debate anything at all.

    Therefore, I must support my claim - though as looked at above, Karl's claim could be considered to be the only reality. With his 'evidence', it can appear more of a possibility, to perhaps many, that the reason for so few authenticated logs only displays an even greater likelyhood that a hoax took place:

    A.) A few Hams were bribed by the government to falsify their log books.

    B.) There SHOULD have been thousands - perhaps millions of witnesses having 'hard data' to this day but there does not appear to be that many at all.

    Why?

    This is where the heart of the debate lies and it is very interesting.

    How can there be such a gulf between my claims and Karl's real data? I say thousands but he has only substantiated a few. Maybe this is a great project for a classroom somewhere.

    But please let's not turn this into a "He's right - no He's right" thing. That's not what this is about. It has now become about trying to substantiate the Apollo Missions and, in the process of examining the entire spectrum of evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - reach a consensus that will no doubt help us to demonstrate the reality.

    Let's try to be constructive and see where all this goes. And let's not get too far Off the original Topic, but rather try to get to the bottom of this potential dilemma.

    Once again, simply, were there thousands of listeners to 'real-time' transmissions from Eagle, the Orbiter, the LEM and Tranquility Base using their own or others' directly tuned equipment or only a few?

    It helps to try and understand that the entire world stood absolutely still when Armstrong stepped off that ladder. People without TVs or radios were jammed in front of Appliance shop windows in every civilzed city on earth. It was one hell of an event at the time...

    *Lest We Forget*

    Steve

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,877
    Okay, Saj, look at this. In your original post, you said:

    During the launch phases and the landing phases, literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not only received, but copied transmissions from the Eagle and Trinity Base.
    That's "thousands of HAM radio operators."

    Karl questioned the magnitude of that number, saying:

    Given the available technology in the late 60's tracking Apollo S-band signals to the moon required a minimum 12-15ft dish and a parametric amplifier. Hardly technology available to 'thousands'.
    You responded by saying:

    Why would thousands have had to personally own the correct systems, dishes or other equipment? Many heard it on 'other' peoples radio gear!
    If you've got forty HAM radio operators who each have 24 additional people listening in, you've got a thousand people, but you do not have a thousand HAM radio operators.

    Either you meant thousands of HAM radios, in which case your response to Karl's question was invalid, or you just meant thousands of people, in which case referring to all of them as "HAM radio operators" in your original post was invalid.

    But you can't have it both ways.


    _________________
    SeanF

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2001-10-29 13:23 ]</font>

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    10
    You said:
    "If you've got forty HAM radio operators who each have 24 additional people listening in, you've got a thousand people, but you do not have a thousand HAM radio operators."

    I say:
    Why not? Your statement is non sequitor. Many amateur stations supported by clubs of dozens of members - all licensed Hams - were copying the transmissions. My claim is still valid.

    But, I also made the point later that many non-licensed people also listened. So? Many people who are not called Hams but 'SWLs' (Shortwave Listeners) also copied live traffic from NASA and NEO (Near Earth Orbit) - some even had the gear necessary to copy the Orbiter (which served as a signal repeater from the LEM).

    You said:
    "Either you meant thousands of HAM radios, in which case your response to Karl's question was invalid, ...."

    I say:
    Why would my response have been invalid?

    You said:
    "..or you just meant thousands of people, in which case referring to all of them as "HAM radio operators" in your original post was invalid."

    I say:
    No, I meant exactly what I said in each of the paragraphs of each of the posts as quoted and I still do.

    In a followup post I asked a question: Why would thousands of Hams or any other type of listener have had to actually own the radios at the clubs or other amateur facilities (such as W1AW, which also rebroadcast most of the Apollo traffic on the shortwave amateur bands)? Karl's point there seems to be that, in order for a Ham radio amateur to be considered a valid source, he/she would have had to personally own the equipment. That is simply not true at all. Lots of airline pilots do not own the jets that they fly, but they still fly them competently.

    My point, as I have tried to clarify it, is that many qualified, licensed Hams copied those transmissions - they certainly being competent and astute enough to know that the radio rigs being listened to were authentically in receipt of the transmissions.

    For example, I vividly remember sitting in a room of well over a hundred Hams in a small town listening to the first OSCAR transmissions (the US amateurs' first ever satellite launched in '62). Not everyone there had a rig sensitive enough to copy the signals from it as it whizzed by overhead sending out '.... ..' ('Hi' in morse code). However, the local clubs did. Of course, everyone present knew that the signals were real and most personally knew the Hams that owned the receiving rigs.

    The same thing happened during every single NASA launch - especially during the Apollo missions.

    The question is, how can we 'prove' it?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    33
    Saj,
    I think what people are looking for is evidence vs. speculation that thousands of Ham operators copied the transmissions.

    Though the possibility exists that thousands could have listen doesn't mean that they in fact listened. But if there were some other supportive evidence such as logs, first hand accounts, etc it would help "The Cause"

    "The Cause" is the conquest to defeat ignorance. What Karl has done has assembled information that can be verfied and thus supports "The Cause".

    The problem I have seen run into on this broad prior to Karl's info. Was people claming that hundreds recorded the transmissons from the missions. The Hoaxters would ask for proof. When not even one verfiable record was put forth the Hoaxters would claim victory because of the lack of evidence.

    Now that Karl has posted the information he can now state for a fact that there are X number of pieces of verifiable evidence. The more pieces he finds the stronger the Transmission arument becomes and so does "The Cause".

    Now I understand that including thousands of Logs would be a very time consuming process that you might not want to get involved in. But if you could it would help "The Cause" by magnitudes. However rather then provide thousands of citings why not provide a couple then provide where the others could be found.

    If there aren't any records available to support your claims then "The Cause" suffers. Because, most Hoaxters take the stance that since you can't back up your claims they are therefore invalid.

    Most of the people I have read on this board want to create a rock solid stance when it comes to the moon landings. When a hoaxter surfaces and spews ignorant information we want the ability to enlighten them with facts.

    Hauteden

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2001-10-29 22:01, saj wrote:
    I say:
    No, I meant exactly what I said in each of the paragraphs of each of the posts as quoted and I still do.
    Some of the statements were a little extreme. For instance, after making the statement that "literally thousands of HAM radio operators all over the world not only received, but copied transmissions" in your first post, you said "I guess that the only people that might want to butt up against this little piece of golden proof are those bean-brains that couldn't grasp a weeny little clue as to how a simple radio works if their reputations depended upon it (er...Doh!)."

    That seems a little harsh, especially in light of this discussion. Actually, it appears to be wrong. That proof has a long way to go before it is golden.

    From the rest of your comments, you seem to have a lot to contribute, and I hope you continue to do so. Your style is entertaining. You won't stifle disagreement by impugning the motives of those who disagree, though.


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,468
    Phobos said:
    The images seem to show an object passing behind the tether. I have heard a claim that this is actually an optical illusion from the camera (which I am inclined to believe purely on balance of probabilities). Another arguement sited is that if it were a UFO it would be 1 mile long and visible from Earth. Whilst that may be true there are two logical faults with that argument;

    1.) The tether was over 20 miles long and could not be seen from Earth.
    There is a difference between a cable that is 20 miles long in one dimension but only 2 mm thick in the other two, and a disk that is 1 mile in diameter. While theoretically I suppose the disk could be 2 mm thick in the third orientation and by some lucky condition be turned edgewise so the ground couldn't see it, practically it would be difficult to be edgewise for the whole surface at once, and it would be difficult for a 2 mm thick disk to be an alien spacecraft.

    As for the signals being digitized and encrypted, I think this has certain practical reasons. First, to prevent interruptions by other broadcasters including pirates, and second to protect the integrity of the information. If it is all open signal, a pirate broadcaster could post a signal and be received and perhaps seem authentic, no? Also, data and telemetry are transferred to the spacecraft, including some commands to equipment. It would really be a bad day for an erroneous signal to be picked up by the shuttle and cycle, say, a thruster firing. Whether intentionally hijacked or not, it would not be good.

    Whilst I accept the arguements that the object was a camera artifact I feel we are better for being able to examine the evidence for ourselves rather than have the data encrypted and kept away from the public gaze (sanitised).
    Got some evidence they're being sanitized, other than just the fact that you yourself aren't getting a raw data stream and processing it on your own computer?

    The same thing goes for all images from Mars. They are now encrypted and sent to a private company (Malin Space Science Systems) where the company owner maintains full control.
    Yes, NASA contracted the science payload to Malin Space Systems. That means Malin is in charge of collecting and processing the data. The same way IMAX has a camera for ISS flights, and they are responsible for processing the film taken by it. HST is the same way. Scientists get a set of time allotted for their particular science experiment, and the data collected during that time is theirs first to process and evaluate for one year. There's nothing sinister about it. It's the payoff for those scientists dreaming up the investigation, investing the time and effort to develop the plan for the investigation, etc. The BA has explained this numerous times.

    1. The images received were released at the first opportunity, and completely free from any form of alteration (a high pass filter hardly improves image quality).
    Given that what is received is NOT images, but data streams, I would think it appropriate to have some processing prior to release. While the image of the face released and nicknamed the "catbox" image was processes with a high-pass filter, the accusation that this was malicious is unsupported. A high-pass filter makes edges and lines stand out. While it would have been better (in my opinion) to release the image without the filtering for the general public, the high-pass filter is useful to see to help details stand out. It certainly wouldn't mask such features as a pupil or a nostril or the other sundry details that the Hoagland crowd keep claiming are there - in fact it would make those details more prominent. So the high-pass filter was actually to help see if there were signs of artificiality, not mask them. Just that most of the public are not familiar with image processing and would expect to see the image looking as close to the original as possible for comparison.

    2. NASA presented a more open policy, removed image encryption, and handled the images themselves rather than passing them on to private individuals (and therefore not as legally accountable).
    So you're critiqueing the policy of using contractors to build the science payloads? You want civil servants doing it all?

    Personally I suspect that "some" images from both the Moon and Mars have been tampered by "some" individuals. Rather than removing clear signs of artificiality I believe that object which mearly suggest artificial may have been altered to look less artificial for purely political reasons.
    And your rationale for this belief is what, that scientists think the features are natural and not artificial and don't want people to be mislead? Any evidence, or just suspicion?

    I suppose no matter what NASA do to improve their credibility with the general public their efforts will constantly be undermined by lies/deceptions routinely given out by the political establishment (how many "official" versions of the Roswell crash have there been ? I can recall at least 4).
    I haven't heard four "official" explanations. I've heard a couple possible explanations, but only one official one - that the crash debris was a balloon from a top secret project (Project Mogul) to use high altitude balloons to monitor the atmosphere for radioactivity for nuclear bomb testing.

    If you're talking about explanations for supposed alien bodies, I've heard a couple of possible explanations but nothing official. I'm not sure an official explanation is possible with claims as nebulous and unpinnable as to time and circumstances as the alien body claims.

    Regarding the original post and the "thousands of ham operators" issue, I think the issue more one of what can be proven vs. what happened. Karl states that certain equipment was necessary that wasn't that widely available. Saj makes some points about how some people with the complex equipment could/did relay the signals to others in a way requiring less complex equipment. However, Karl is collecting a log that has verifiable information, and that is much different than knowing something happened because you were there but forgot to take a picture, save the tape, etc. Hauteden explains this very well.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,575
    On 2001-10-28 22:28, saj wrote:
    Matthew Ota -

    Oops - I certainly apologize - It was indeed Tranquility Base, not 'Trinity' (where'd I get that from?? lol)..

    Thanks..
    Probably from the first atomic bomb test during WW II. The site of the test was called trinity. The bomb was called the trinity device.

  29. #29
    Guest
    On 2001-10-26 10:17, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
    On 2001-10-26 07:58, saj wrote:
    However, since I cannot copy them and forward to that thread, let's all agree that at least your summary seems to enhance the point.. K?

    (Sheesh..)
    Sheesh?

    I'm not going to agree that Karl's summary "enhances" your point. It does what Karl says it does, detracts from your point. Unless you have evidence and are willing to provide it, I'd stick with Karl's assessment. Perhaps you have access to a published article that makes the same claim?
    HUb' 11:48 A.M. So yeah I went to get my
    2 meter Li. but you know. anyway I sure
    do "NOT" car for the represIVe state of CB
    4 me 120 watt 27 Mhz units should be the Standard so Boo4 U2's

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2001-12-01 13:16, HUb' wrote:
    HUb' 11:48 A.M. So yeah I went to get my
    2 meter Li. but you know. anyway I sure
    do "NOT" car for the represIVe state of CB
    What's CB?

Similar Threads

  1. How about a Lunar Rover Meeting a Lunar Lander?
    By fagricipni in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-13, 04:50 PM
  2. Morpheus Lunar Lander
    By kamaz in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2011-May-09, 01:04 PM
  3. The cost of a lunar lander?
    By kamaz in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-14, 07:06 PM
  4. Lunar Lander in 3D (Flash)
    By sanman in forum Fun-n-Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2009-Apr-27, 07:39 PM
  5. Altair Lunar Lander & Lunar Outpost
    By kyle_baron in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-31, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: