Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Obviousman]

48 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I don't subscribe to your binary stance.

Let me ask you a question: "Is there life elsewhere in the universe?"

My answer is: "I don't know."

Your answer must be "yes" or "no".

So what is your answer? And remember, no weasel words.

If you are proven incorrect, that "John" is wrong / lying / made / whatever, will you rectract your articles & books, publicly state on Aulis that you are wrong and the Apollo missions are real? 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

59 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I don't subscribe to your binary stance.

Let me ask you a question: "Is there life elsewhere in the universe?"

My answer is: "I don't know."

Your answer must be "yes" or "no".

So what is your answer? And remember, no weasel words.

In the case of life in the universe we have no evidence to base a conclusion on so "I don't know" is an honest answer, in the case of Apollo there is an enourmous amount of solid evidence for it and only hearsay, speculation, misconceptions and outright lies against it. So those are completely different scenarios.

Don't you agree that it is fair to say "I don't know" when asked about the origin of the Universe, but equally fair to say no when asked if you think the Earth is flat ?

Binary answers are appropriate when the evidence is overwhelming for or against a give position. 

[Derek Willis]

16 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

If you are proven incorrect, that "John" is wrong / lying / made / whatever, will you rectract your articles & books, publicly state on Aulis that you are wrong and the Apollo missions are real? 

I said earlier that if John Kelly is proven incorrect I will pull the articles. I would be happy to make a retraction, but it would be up to Aulis whether they publish it.

[bknight]

2 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

I said earlier that if John Kelly is proven incorrect I will pull the articles. I would be happy to make a retraction, but it would be up to Aulis whether they publish it.

Which leads back to another question I asked, Who did you contact pertaining your publishing articles on their website?

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

In the case of life in the universe we have no evidence to base a conclusion on so "I don't know" is an honest answer, in the case of Apollo there is an enourmous amount of solid evidence for it and only hearsay, speculation, misconceptions and outright lies against it. So those are completely different scenarios.

Don't you agree that it is fair to say "I don't know" when asked about the origin of the Universe, but equally fair to say no when asked if you think the Earth is flat ?

Binary answers are appropriate when the evidence is overwhelming for or against a give position. 

I was taking issue with being "told" that I have to be binary with Apollo, and used the matter of life elsewhere in the universe to illustrate that binary answers aren't always possible. You have no doubts Apollo was real. That used to be my stance, but now I am not entirely sure. As for the world being flat, we both agree it isn't.

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, bknight said:

Which leads back to another question I asked, Who did you contact pertaining your publishing articles on their website?

Why does that matter?

[bknight]

23 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

If you are proven incorrect, that "John" is wrong / lying / made / whatever, will you rectract your articles & books, publicly state on Aulis that you are wrong and the Apollo missions are real? 

The key here as you know is "proven", certainly not to anyone at aulis.  But in principle, I'm with you.

[bknight]

Just now, Derek Willis said:

Why does that matter?

It matters not, I was just curious since you said you don't know Mary Bennett.

[Derek Willis]

16 minutes ago, bknight said:

It matters not, I was just curious since you said you don't know Mary Bennett.

That is correct. I have never had any contact with her.

[bknight]

9 hours ago, bknight said:

I have calculated the TLI and relative speed distance from the Erath, not some preposterous claim you make.  The TLI calculation is nothing but physics from ESC through ECO and coast.  I stopped my calculation at 490260 sec from ESC at my calculated distance of ~558199872 m.  I didn't know at what distance the Moon's gravitation would change the dynamics.  Now show your calculation that a collision would not have been an issue at your assumed time of 1 minute from ESC, or pick any number you feel comfortable.

Derek:

I went back over my figures and they a bit high but close to the values presented in AFJ.  Also after reviewing the data it would appear that my last good number would be around 62 hours never checked it until today

This is Apollo Control at 61 hours, 39 minutes. We've had no further conversation with the crew since our last report. Flight Surgeon says there is no indication at this time that they have begun to sleep, but we expect they'll be getting to sleep here shortly. Coming up in less than 10 seconds now, we'll be crossing into the sphere of influence of the Moon. A computational changeover will be made here in Mission Control at this point, as the Moon's gravitational force becomes the dominant effect on the spacecraft trajectory, and our displays will shift from Earth-reference to Moon-reference. At that point, which occurred a few seconds ago, the spacecraft was at a distance of 186,437 nautical miles [345,281 km] from Earth, and 33,822 nautical miles [62,638 km] from the Moon. The velocity with respect to the Earth was 2,990 feet per second [911 m/s], and with respect to the Moon, about three thousand, seven... 3,272 feet per second. [PAO did mean to say 3,772 fps (1,150 m/s). These numbers were predicted by his colleague at 45 hours, 28 minutes GET.] The Passive Thermal Control mode that was set up for the second time by the crew appears to be holding well at this point, and all spacecraft systems are functioning normally. Mission going very smoothly. At 61 hours, 41 minutes; this is Apollo Control, Houston.

I have at 61 hr, 39 min.=221940 sec. 1016 m/s (about 100 m/s high) and 363272 Km(about 17991 Km to far) That is the last time the reported velocity was slowing, and my number didn't include a two dimensional gravity, so mine would be off.  

Thanks for questioning me and that got me to check.

[Obviousman]

6 hours ago, bknight said:

The key here as you know is "proven", certainly not to anyone at aulis.  But in principle, I'm with you.

Yeah, I already can guess of a dozen ways they'll weasel out of it.

[Derek Willis]

3 hours ago, bknight said:

Derek:

I went back over my figures and they a bit high but close to the values presented in AFJ.  Also after reviewing the data it would appear that my last good number would be around 62 hours never checked it until today

 

 

I have at 61 hr, 39 min.=221940 sec. 1016 m/s (about 100 m/s high) and 363272 Km(about 17991 Km to far) That is the last time the reported velocity was slowing, and my number didn't include a two dimensional gravity, so mine would be off.  

Thanks for questioning me and that got me to check.

Okay, so you have confirmed the point where the Moon's gravity becomes more influential than the Earth's. The CSMs of Apollos 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 would have passed through that point on their way to the Moon. On the other hand, as the CSMs of Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 didn't go to the Moon - according to John Kelly - they didn't pass through that point. As an aside, Apollo 17 is a mystery both to myself and John Kelly. The CSM and LM headed towards the Moon, but no "real" landing took place.

I have answered enough questions for now. As I have mentioned, an edition of my book - Faking Apollo: Fifty Years of Secrecy - will be freely available online in June. If anyone has any more questions I will answer them then.  

[bmk1245]

Heh, I'll throw Molotov's cocktail: Gagarin never flew in space, all that was just staged. Here. Prove me wrong.

Edited May 19, 2019 by bmk1245

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Heh, I'll throw Molotov's cocktail: Gagarin never flew in space, all that was just staged. Here. Prove me wrong.

Maybe the Soviets didn't blow the whistle on the fake Apollo missions because then the US would have blown the whistle on Gagarins fake mission ? 

Someone who used to work at RKK Energia told me that. I'm not saying he is right, but if you buy the book I'm writing about it you can make up your own mind. 

[ChrLzs]

On 18/05/2019 at 9:36 PM, Derek Willis said:

Baysinger said he was receiving the VHF signals transmitted from the astronauts to the LM. Is it really feasible those signals could have been picked up on Earth using a relatively small receiving antenna?

Well, now you've shown how ignorant you are and how little you have researched.  You're a ....(I shall refrain, but work it out for yourself.

This sort of thing is easy to work out.  We know, precisely, the signal strength, and the location of the source.  So WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST CALCULATE IT?  If NOT, WHY DID YOU JUST BLINDLY ADD THIS TO YOUR BULLMANURE?  At the very least, why didn't you just look it up??? (see below for big hint).

It's very obvious, you are completely disinterested in the truth.  You have rejected all information and explanations out of hand, invented handwaved (and ludicrous) scenarios, present not one shred of decent evidence for any of this crud, and also (naturally) run like the wind from committing to the very best evidence you have (that being because you haven't got ANYTHING).  100% tinfoilhat behavior.

 

I am rather surprised at all this - I thought you were a better man than this, Derek.  But in the Trump age, of course, it seems it's now ok to lie and cheat, as long as you make a buck.  FTR, I would like to now point out that if you chime in on any other threads I am involved with, I will be pointing out your illogic and that you are a conspiracy theorist and tinfoilhatter...  Be 'proud'.

 

Oh, and if you think I'd spend my time doing your effing work for you, on calculating how big an aerial and how powerful/good (ie S./N ratio) your receiver needs to be.... may I point out that there's a book out there, written by one of the Apollohoax.net regulars, that shows EXACTLY how it is and was done.  Of course any college grade textbook would have the formulas required.  Maybe, Derek, you should try READING books before making a turkey out of yourself by writing one based on your lack of research, and you being gullible enough to be scammed by a scammer (or so desperate for money that you don't care).

I will give you a googling hint, though.... "apollo link budget ka9q".  See what you get, and then get back to us (no, actually, don't.. just vanish in embarrassment

Quote

Can I suggest he was picking up signals from one of the CIA satellites used to relay the transmissions from the CSM in Earth orbit down to Earth, and then to the Moon using the DSN.

Only if you are a complete dufus, haven't thought it through and haven't even considered the simplest problem of all - where was he (or the Parkes staff, etc...) pointing the antenna?  You honestly don't realise how directional this type of reception/transmission is?

Mate, you're not a scientist - you're not even a pimple on a scientists ****.

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by ChrLzs

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Mate, you're not a scientist -

Ewwwhhh! Burn!

How can that guy dare post on a discussion Forum without full Scientific Credentials?

Edited May 19, 2019 by lost_shaman

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Ewwwhhh! Burn!

How can that guy dare post on a discussion Forum without full Scientific Credentials?

The reason for my jibe can be found here, where Derek assured us of his science qualifications:

 

So .... do you have anything that adds to the thread?  In particular, do you think Derek's claim about the 'wrong' amount of dust being on Surveyor 3 has any merit whatsoever, and could be analysed in any meaningful way?

I'm all ears...

[bknight]

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, now you've shown how ignorant you are and how little you have researched.  You're a ....(I shall refrain, but work it out for yourself.

This sort of thing is easy to work out.  We know, precisely, the signal strength, and the location of the source.  So WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST CALCULATE IT?  If NOT, WHY DID YOU JUST BLINDLY ADD THIS TO YOUR BULLMANURE?  At the very least, why didn't you just look it up??? (see below for big hint).

It's very obvious, you are completely disinterested in the truth.  You have rejected all information and explanations out of hand, invented handwaved (and ludicrous) scenarios, present not one shred of decent evidence for any of this crud, and also (naturally) run like the wind from committing to the very best evidence you have (that being because you haven't got ANYTHING).  100% tinfoilhat behavior.

 

I am rather surprised at all this - I thought you were a better man than this, Derek.  But in the Trump age, of course, it seems it's now ok to lie and cheat, as long as you make a buck.  FTR, I would like to now point out that if you chime in on any other threads I am involved with, I will be pointing out your illogic and that you are a conspiracy theorist and tinfoilhatter...  Be 'proud'.

 

Oh, and if you think I'd spend my time doing your effing work for you, on calculating how big an aerial and how powerful/good (ie S./N ratio) your receiver needs to be.... may I point out that there's a book out there, written by one of the Apollohoax.net regulars, that shows EXACTLY how it is and was done.  Of course any college grade textbook would have the formulas required.  Maybe, Derek, you should try READING books before making a turkey out of yourself by writing one based on your lack of research, and you being gullible enough to be scammed by a scammer (or so desperate for money that you don't care).

I will give you a googling hint, though.... "apollo link budget ka9q".  See what you get, and then get back to us (no, actually, don't.. just vanish in embarrassment

Only if you are a complete dufus, haven't thought it through and haven't even considered the simplest problem of all - where was he (or the Parkes staff, etc...) pointing the antenna?  You honestly don't realise how directional this type of reception/transmission is?

Mate, you're not a scientist - you're not even a pimple on a scientists ****.

 

I happen to have a copy of that little piece of work.   Ah yes line of sight transmissions.  Since I am not a Ham operator, I wouldn't have thought about that, but kudos to Mr. Baysinger.

[Derek Willis]

I'm trying to stretch my mind back to my university days and remember one of the cardinal tenets of scientific proof. Ah, yes - repeatability.

It seems Larry Baysinger conducted his experiment to verify the information that NASA had been providing about the Apollo project. What he discovered was that his recording uncovered no differences to what was being transmitted on T.V. Satisfied this single experiment proved NASA was being truthful, he decided he had no need to repeat it. As it says in the link below, Baysinger did not attempt to eavesdrop on the other Apollo missions.

http://observatory.jctcfaculty.org/APOLLO11/Default.htm

Perhaps if he had of repeated his experiment with the other missions, witnesses other than Louisville Courier reporter Glenn Rutherford could have verified where the signal was coming from. Also, just a few months later Rutherford could have had a scoop by inviting the national T.V. networks to cover a different angle on the Apollo 12 mission. But no, both Baysinger and Rutherford moved onto other matters.

I think if a story like this had been presented as evidence that UFOs are real, ChrLzs would have pulled it apart. But strangely, in this instance he appears happy to accept that the Baysinger recording is definitive third party evidence that Armstrong and Aldrin really were on the Moon.  

  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Derek Willis
Spelling mistake

[Derek Willis]

What both fascinates and disturbs me is how much hostility is produced when the orthodox account of Project Apollo is questioned. I'm not bothered by the name calling and ad hominems posted here on UM. Nor am I bothered about how some sort of "character assassination" is underway - a fake website claiming I am into just about every conspiracy theory there is, people pretending to be me sending emails to NASA, and other things. I was, though, concerned when during my visit to Chicago earlier this month I noticed I was being "observed". Perhaps I am being paranoid?

All this leads me to wonder if through my conversations with John Kelly I really have hit on something "big". I have a theory that the "insiders" - as I call the people at NASA who were behind the "faking" of the missions - reckoned that by half a century or so after Project Apollo, all the people who know the truth would have passed away. With no witnesses left alive, it would be all but impossible to prove what really went on. However, not everyone is yet dead. For instance, of the twenty-four astronauts who flew the lunar missions, twelve are still alive. It follows that there are other people alive who were part of the "Apollo Simulation Project", as the "faking" was known. All the witnesses including the astronauts are now very old - in their eighties and beyond. Now is the most dangerous time for keeping a lid on everything. What if one or more of the astronauts is stricken by dementia and starts talking? What if one or more of the astronauts no longer wants to abide by his pledge not to reveal what went on?

In the coming weeks the media will be increasingly focusing on the fiftieth anniversary of Apollo 11. After that, what happened half a century ago will pass into history. It is therefore no wonder there is a concerted and coordinated effort to discredit anyone who doesn't adhere to the orthodox account of Project Apollo.

[Minimalists]

On 5/4/2019 at 11:36 AM, Peter B said:

You know what? We answer your questions and explain why Apollo Hoax beliefs are wrong and how we know. And the result is that we're the ones who are "ignored or brushed to one side."

And you know what else? All that does is strengthen my suspicions.

So come on, please, explain how NASA could have faked Apollo 11 without the Soviets detecting and revealing the fake.

Quote

So come on, please, explain how NASA could have faked Apollo 11 without the Soviets detecting and revealing the fake.

There was a huge race during that time by both Russia and the US to be the first to land on the Moon. And you can bet that the Russians would have screamed at the top of their lungs if they had one inkling that the US faked the landing...As such they never did. And as such the race to the Moon was won by the US.

[Habitat]

In my new book coming out shortly ( it is printed on the back of a beer coaster) I explain how the fact that Armstrong muffed his lines as he jumped down off the ladder, is the most compelling proof the event was not staged. 

[bknight]

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

What both fascinates and disturbs me is how much hostility is produced when the orthodox account of Project Apollo is questioned. I'm not bothered by the name calling and ad hominems posted here on UM. Nor am I bothered about how some sort of "character assassination" is underway - a fake website claiming I am into just about every conspiracy theory there is, people pretending to be me sending emails to NASA, and other things. I was, though, concerned when during my visit to Chicago earlier this month I noticed I was being "observed". Perhaps I am being paranoid?

All this leads me to wonder if through my conversations with John Kelly I really have hit on something "big". I have a theory that the "insiders" - as I call the people at NASA who were behind the "faking" of the missions - reckoned that by half a century or so after Project Apollo, all the people who know the truth would have passed away. With no witnesses left alive, it would be all but impossible to prove what really went on. However, not everyone is yet dead. For instance, of the twenty-four astronauts who flew the lunar missions, twelve are still alive. It follows that there are other people alive who were part of the "Apollo Simulation Project", as the "faking" was known. All the witnesses including the astronauts are now very old - in their eighties and beyond. Now is the most dangerous time for keeping a lid on everything. What if one or more of the astronauts is stricken by dementia and starts talking? What if one or more of the astronauts no longer wants to abide by his pledge not to reveal what went on?

In the coming weeks the media will be increasingly focusing on the fiftieth anniversary of Apollo 11. After that, what happened half a century ago will pass into history. It is therefore no wonder there is a concerted and coordinated effort to discredit anyone who doesn't adhere to the orthodox account of Project Apollo.

You do have something big, a big fat farce that you call "Apollo Simulation Project".  I don't know if it is a tenet of scientific proof or not, but tossing out data that doesn't fit your expectations/theory certainly is a big red flag.  You preach the high and mighty and yet, you know nothing concerning a large technology/engineering project such as Apollo.  "John" has sold you a bill of goods that isn't worth the paper it is printed on and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

You lament Baysinger's experiment is third party evidence, but there are many more, too many to ignore which you have done(more tossing data points that don't meet your theory).  This is really unscientific of you, but you cavalierly trot down the murky road that you have picked.  Have we shown a concerted effort to discredit you?  No, rather pointed out the absurdity of your theory.  Yet you continue with and ever increase complex narrative.  

  On 5/16/2019 at 1:26 PM, bknight said:

Here is the list of several questions unanswered, except with "John" will explain all, a rather poor answer almost no answer.

1. Provide plans for the automated devices to capture 80 lbs. of material, remembering the Soviets recovered 300 g in three missions, not blueprints perhaps a narrative of the idea making this claim believable.  Include in this request the devices to recover the parts of the Surveyor.

3. Provide details of landing A11 down range and avoiding craters real time not 2.5 second delay.

4. Provide details of changes in AGNC to allow to enable it to work effectively after A12.

5. Provide an order of magnitude of how small this number of people is in your estimation.

6. Provide you work record in reference to large engineering/manufacturing projects.

7. Reconcile the LRO images of artifacts left by the crews of both A11 and A12 around the LM's, some hundreds of feet from the LM's.

[Derek Willis]

28 minutes ago, bknight said:

You do have something big, a big fat farce that you call "Apollo Simulation Project".  I don't know if it is a tenet of scientific proof or not, but tossing out data that doesn't fit your expectations/theory certainly is a big red flag.  You preach the high and mighty and yet, you know nothing concerning a large technology/engineering project such as Apollo.  "John" has sold you a bill of goods that isn't worth the paper it is printed on and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

You lament Baysinger's experiment is third party evidence, but there are many more, too many to ignore which you have done(more tossing data points that don't meet your theory).  This is really unscientific of you, but you cavalierly trot down the murky road that you have picked.  Have we shown a concerted effort to discredit you?  No, rather pointed out the absurdity of your theory.  Yet you continue with and ever increase complex narrative.  

Here is the list of several questions unanswered, except with "John" will explain all, a rather poor answer almost no answer.

1. Provide plans for the automated devices to capture 80 lbs. of material, remembering the Soviets recovered 300 g in three missions, not blueprints perhaps a narrative of the idea making this claim believable.  Include in this request the devices to recover the parts of the Surveyor.

3. Provide details of landing A11 down range and avoiding craters real time not 2.5 second delay.

4. Provide details of changes in AGNC to allow to enable it to work effectively after A12.

5. Provide an order of magnitude of how small this number of people is in your estimation.

6. Provide you work record in reference to large engineering/manufacturing projects.

7. Reconcile the LRO images of artifacts left by the crews of both A11 and A12 around the LM's, some hundreds of feet from the LM's.

One of my favorite books on Apollo is Rocket Men by Robert Kurson. According to the cover, he has a degree in philosophy, a degree in law, and earns his living as a writer. I don't see in there any mention that he has direct experience of a large technology/engineering project like Apollo. So are you going to criticize his qualifications to write an account of the Apollo 8 mission?

I used to work for the UK government's Department of Trade & Industry, but I was just a small cog in that big machine. Consequently, I am not citing that as a qualification for anything.

I already told you, the resources required to adapt the LM for a sample return mission weren't funded by public money, and hence there was no requirement for the designs to be put into the public domain. By the way, are you sure everything funded by public money has to go into the public domain? I guess all the money put into military projects would be a waste if every blueprint and line of code had to be made publicly available to America's potential enemies.

In any case, I already gave you a narrative of what was involved - a retractable scoop to collect the samples, and a modified Corona re-entry capsule to bring them back to Earth. The arrangement was remarkably similar to the Soviet Luna probes I linked to in an earlier post.

As for your other demands, I keep telling you none of the evidence is mine to give.

The point I was making about Larry Baysinger is the "evidence" is the sort of thing which under other circumstances ChrLzs would pull apart. What is the evidence? An article in an obscure newspaper, and an extremely noisy recording. Who knows, the whole thing might have been a hoax! If evidence like that had been posted on UM as proof of UFOs it would have been laughed at.

I will leave it to others to decide whether you describing the term "Apollo Simulation Project" as a "big fat farce" is an attempt to discredit me or not. And by the way, the term isn't "mine", it appears on a memo sent by Werner von Braun to James Webb in September 1968. But of course, you are not going to believe the memo is genuine ...

[bknight]

24 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

One of my favorite books on Apollo is Rocket Men by Robert Kurson. According to the cover, he has a degree in philosophy, a degree in law, and earns his living as a writer. I don't see in there any mention that he has direct experience of a large technology/engineering project like Apollo. So are you going to criticize his qualifications to write an account of the Apollo 8 mission?

I used to work for the UK government's Department of Trade & Industry, but I was just a small cog in that big machine. Consequently, I am not citing that as a qualification for anything.

I already told you, the resources required to adapt the LM for a sample return mission weren't funded by public money, and hence there was no requirement for the designs to be put into the public domain. By the way, are you sure everything funded by public money has to go into the public domain? I guess all the money put into military projects would be a waste if every blueprint and line of code had to be made publicly available to America's potential enemies.

In any case, I already gave you a narrative of what was involved - a retractable scoop to collect the samples, and a modified Corona re-entry capsule to bring them back to Earth. The arrangement was remarkably similar to the Soviet Luna probes I linked to in an earlier post.

As for your other demands, I keep telling you none of the evidence is mine to give.

The point I was making about Larry Baysinger is the "evidence" is the sort of thing which under other circumstances ChrLzs would pull apart. What is the evidence? An article in an obscure newspaper, and an extremely noisy recording. Who knows, the whole thing might have been a hoax! If evidence like that had been posted on UM as proof of UFOs it would have been laughed at.

I will leave it to others to decide whether you describing the term "Apollo Simulation Project" as a "big fat farce" is an attempt to discredit me or not. And by the way, the term isn't "mine", it appears on a memo sent by Werner von Braun to James Webb in September 1968. But of course, you are not going to believe the memo is genuine ...

I'm not criticizing anyone who writes a book, just those that claim that a relatively small number of people "knew" the project called Apollo.  I have asked how many do you believe was in on your hoax,  absolute values are not needed just an order of magnitude.  Nothing but silence and "I keep telling you none of the evidence is mine to give.".  Surely "John" and you discussed this claim for you to give an approximate number.  

As to your work with the UK government's Department of Trade & Industry, I'm not sure what they did, but it doesn't sound like a major technological/engineering type projects, so I'll repeat that you don't have the expertise to understand let alone claim that a relative few number of people knew about Apollo.  The worker at the first level didn't need to know what the parts they were manufacturing fit into the whole program but from there upwards those supervisors need to  know how to fit those pieces into the overall project.  You are simply speculating about the numbers and don't really know.

Well that article was a first hand observation of the end result.  Did the reporter know how to work the devices?  Probably not except it lost reception  when not adjusted for the Earth's rotation.  BTW UFO's are not part of this discussion nor comparisons to them that is for a completely different thread.  

You of course have a copy of this memo that you could post a link so that the group may be able to read the entire document not just three words..  I am unable to find such a document