1970 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Gaden, on 04 November 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

In that vein I might suggest a rereading of my post #1293

An excerpt:
But there is an even stronger and more pertinent argument involving "telemetry". There was a world-wide tracking network providing communications to and from the various Apollo mission elements and although the people involved in doing this were indirectly paid by the project, they were not all US government employees or even citizens. So they would have had to have been part of the conspiracy or taken in by it.

And as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake.

Let's review...  

" I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles,"

In a simulation, it doesn't matter where the antenna is being pointed. A sim spacecraft signal containing sim data is received at the HC station, a sim astronaut signal feeding sim commands, and so on.   

So they point the antenna during a 'genuine' mission, but they don't point it during a 'sim'? To a sim, it matters not where you point the antenna, as I've noted above.


"Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake."

This seems to be the clincher - the doppler frequencies (and two way range delays) are impossible to fake. But is that really true, now? Read on...

"However, as the downlink is derived from the VCXO, a separate voltage may be summed with the error voltage to simulate doppler on the transponder downlink. This allows the simulation of doppler out to lunar distances and is controlled from the transponder control panel"

http://www.honeysuck...tion_System.pdf

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".

Hey, Czero! Do you like the part about "the simulation of doppler out to lunar distances"? Probably not, I'd wager.

A further note - the simulation commands having "2% sec. delay" to account for range.

Apollo can't be a sim, my butt!

[turbonium]

MID, on 06 November 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

...The more you decide to speak, the stupider everything you say sounds.  Seriously.  You actually are claiming that slowing down a film to about 2/3 normal speed proves your case?

What was that again, anyway???

Look at this clip, specifically the comparison to Apollo's jump (about the 6:00 mark on)..



Nothing stupider than someone who keeps on putting his foot in his mouth, is there?

[turbonium]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

My claim stands.

We know this phot was taken around the time of Apollo 13 or 14,  ergo, no later than 1971.

We know it went into the ALSJ in 1998 as a 'genuine' moon photo.

We know Harland noticed it was a fake moon photo a year later.

We know there is a gap of 27 years, plus a gap of one year. A total of 28 years.

We know in those 28 years, it was never deemed to be a 'fake' or a 'model'. If it had been, it would certainly not have been kept in the 'genuine'  group.  

We know Harland then told Jones about the fake photo.

We know Jones credited Harland for noticing the fake photo.

We know only one person - Harland - ever noticed it was a plaster model. But even he was fooled by it, for a year.

Who gave them the fake photo?

Jones isn't sure...

I don't have a record of who provided it.  It could have been Harland."

Now to Harland..

"As Eric says, he added the picture to the alsj in good faith"

He added it "in good faith"?  As in,  acting on his belief that it's a genuine Apollo photo, maybe?

Whatever it means, the point is both Harland and Jones were fooled by it, and it was put into the ALSJ as being a genuine moon shot. That much we know for a fact.

We know the photo fooled the people at NASA who sent it off to Harland as 'genuine'. So now at least three people were fooled by it. And how many others who saw it, as a 'genuine' photo, during those 28 years?

There's one more problem - all 'genuine' Apollo images are listed with unique identification numbers. NASA surely archived 'genuine' Apollo images, by Magazine numbers, and the mission it was from, etc. So the Apollo images are all uniquely numbers in 1998, right?

This means ALSJ gets all the 'genuine' Apollo images, with unique Apollo id numbers. So what about the fake photo, then? It can't have a unique Apollo id number, like all the genuine images have. So why is that not a big deal for ALSJ, who somehow still considered it a 'genuine' Apollo image?

Why don't you email them about that? I'd like to know what they say...

If the 'genuine' images are numbered, how could they be fooled so much to iaccept one image without a proper Apollo id number?

[frenat]

turbonium, on 10 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

I can't prove it,

All you needed to ever say.  Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions.  Thank you for finally admitting it.

Edited by frenat, 10 November 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Gaden]

turbonium, on 10 November 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

blah, blah, blah, blah

So it's obviously NOT "impossible to fake".
blah, blah, blah

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

It's not just frequency shifts. A radio telescope is a precise pointing device. At all times the source of the signal would have to have mimicked the position of a spacecraft en route to, orbiting, or returning from the moon, and it would have to be consistent for radio telescopes anywhere on earth. If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

Edited by Gaden, 10 November 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Gaden, on 10 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

It's not just frequency shifts. A radio telescope is a precise pointing device. At all times the source of the signal would have to have mimicked the position of a spacecraft en route to, orbiting, or returning from the moon, and it would have to be consistent for radio telescopes anywhere on earth. If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

In addition:

Quote

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory

http://www.classicbr...arte_bochum.pdf

[skyeagle409]

frenat, on 10 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

All you needed to ever say.  Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions.  Thank you for finally admitting it.

Nice that he has now admitted he can't "prove it."  His admission that he can't "prove it" sheds a bit of light as to why his claims have been shot down.

[skyeagle409]

Seems someone was duped by another flawed video in regards to the astronauts and wires and it also seemed he overlooked the real video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhkJ0qD42Fo&feature=player_embedded

[Obviousman]

Gaden, on 10 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

[turbonium]

frenat, on 10 November 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

All you needed to ever say.  Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you avoid questions.  Thank you for finally admitting it.

It's all I needed to say??? Thanks for finally admitting it??

You don't have a clue about what I've said. If you did, you'd have seen me point it out, repeatedly. Here's some examples you obviously didn't read.......

turbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

How could it be done? Wires.

I can't prove it, and never said I could.

I do find some great evidence in video clips, but I can't prove it.  

So do you get it now?

I suppose you don't even know I DIRECTLY RESPONDED TO YOUR POST ON THIS??....

frenat, on 27 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

What does it have to do with wires?  Are you just trolling now?  YOU claimed they did everything with wires.  YOU claimed they were edited out just like any other movie.  YOU need to show how they did that in real time on a demonstrably live video.  Support YOUR claim.

And here's what I told you, in part.....

turbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

No. MID asked me how it could be faked. I said it could be faked with wires. And I do think wires were used to fake it.

And I said it was my opinion. I just said it again, now.

Get it?

And here's one more time I mentioned it, just for good measure...

turbonium, on 04 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

I might as well be talking to a brick wall, because it gets the same result.

I'll go over it one more time -

No evidence of wires can be seen in the Apollo videos. Just like no evidence of wires can be seen in many sci-fi films, either. They edit the wires out of the video frames. I can't prove wires were used in Apollo videos, or in the sci-fi films, since they're not visible in either case.

I mentioned wires as to how it could be done, which is correct.

I never claimed to have evidence to prove it, so don't keep asking for it.

Pretty much sums up your entire experience here and elsewhere and explains why you keep asking me the same questions I've already responded to, then you accuse ME of "avoiding" them!!.

[turbonium]

Gaden, on 10 November 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

It is pretty obvious you didn't read the link.

It's not just frequency shifts. A radio telescope is a precise pointing device. At all times the source of the signal would have to have mimicked the position of a spacecraft en route to, orbiting, or returning from the moon, and it would have to be consistent for radio telescopes anywhere on earth. If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?

Here we have experts in the field saying you have to point the telescope at the source to receive a signal. Unlike a car's antennae which is omnidirectional. We have experts in the field saying they did indeed point their telescope at the trajectory and did indeed receive signals. This one expert in particular is explaining how it could not be faked. Get it now?

First of all, don't alter my own quotes, which you did here. It's a goofball tactic.

As for pointing other radio telscopes, cite the specifc telescopes you claim tracked Apollo to the moon. However, even without seeing them, I'm quite sure a probe coud have easily accounted for it.

I've already shown you one "expert" was wrong abouth being "impossible to fake". And now it seems a second "expert" is wrong about it too.

You also said..

"If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?"

Well, it's obvious that we CAN pull it off, as shown in the document I last cited, and/or using unmanned probes.

Why do you think that's more difficult than actually sending a manned craft to the moon? We already had unmanned probes going to the moon before Apollo In case you aren't aware, those probes also sent signals back to Earth. We also had the ability to do the simulations.

You have it completely backwards, and how.

Edited by turbonium, 11 November 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 10 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Nice that he has now admitted he can't "prove it."  His admission that he can't "prove it" sheds a bit of light as to why his claims have been shot down.

It just shows you also have no clue about what I've already said, repeatedly.

Maybe I should be talking to a brick wall - at least I'd be wasting less of my time.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 11 November 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

It's all I needed to say??? Thanks for finally admitting it??

Given the facts and evidence provided to him by a number of people, he needs to make additional admissions.

[skyeagle409]

Obviousman, on 10 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

He also ignored the fact that a number of countries and individuals not under the control of NASA, have stated they have tracked the Apollo moon missions and even photographed their landing sites.

Given the fact that the Apollo moon missions have been verified by a number of countries and individuals around the world, why is he still claiming the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed and then, provide no evidence to support his claim?

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 November 2012 - 07:24 AM.

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 10 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Not the first time Turbs has done that (remember the "NASA controlled everything" claim?); as a matter of fact, Turbs has a record of doing this: quickly looking at whatever the text may be, then deciding what THEY want it to be saying and asserting that position.

So who do you think was in control of the Apollo missions, if not NASA?

The Aussies worked for NASA. They were trained by NASA, to operate NASA's equipment, They were hired by NASA. They did whatever NASA told them to do.

Do you think that means the Aussies were "in control"? If so, there's no hope in getting a serious answer from you.