Ham Radio and Moonbounce

No flatter is allowed to cite any form of photographic evidence whatsoever, as this would be hypocritical, since they claim photographic evidence for a round earth is all faked. You can't have it both ways.

Exactly. Plus, anyone who forms conclusions from images isn't too bright to begin with.

Quote from: julianmartin on August 16, 2009, 11:18:09 AM

Not sure what you are suggesting is not impossible - FE as a whole or my given phenomena working in FE? If the latter, would you care to elaborate?

Nothing is impossible, thus both.

Right and playing devils advocate has what place in serious debate and discussion? I know people who have been banned for less informative posts than yours in this very forum. Double standards alert.

GTFO of my thread if you aren't contributing.

Right and playing devils advocate has what place in serious debate and discussion?

Depends. I personally gain satisfaction from showcasing poor logic and incorrect assumptions/facts.

I know people who have been banned for less informative posts than yours in this very forum.

I very much doubt that.

GTFO of my thread if you aren't contributing.

I did contribute, and unfortunately there hasn't been a sufficient reply to it.

Nothing is impossible, thus both.

Nonsense, many things are impossible.

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 16, 2009, 11:54:05 AM

Nothing is impossible, thus both.

Nonsense, many things are impossible.

Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.

Quote from: Squat on August 17, 2009, 11:10:25 AM

Quote from: divito the truthist on August 16, 2009, 11:54:05 AM

Nothing is impossible, thus both.

Nonsense, many things are impossible.

Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.

Putting your pants on over your head, for another.

Depends. I personally gain satisfaction from showcasing poor logic and incorrect assumptions/facts.

And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?

And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?

No. Thinking there are impossibilities is naive and fallacious.

Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.

Should check out Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku.

Quote from: julianmartin on August 18, 2009, 03:34:33 AM

And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?

No. Thinking there are impossibilities is naive and fallacious.

Like having the FE accelerate to a velocity faster than the speed of light?

Quote from: julianmartin on August 18, 2009, 03:34:33 AM

And saying nothing is impossible doesn't classify as poor logic?

No. Thinking there are impossibilities is naive and fallacious.

Quote from: Pete on August 17, 2009, 05:54:17 PM

Perpetual motion machines or otherwise violating the second law of thermodynamics, for example.

Should check out Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku.

Michio Kaku is a theoretical Physicist. Theoretical being the important word there - until you can prove perpetual motion is possible, it still lies in the box called impossible. It cannot be done.

Now...get back on topic maybe?

RF propagation? Know anything about that? Didin't think so....

Okay I could use an SWR meter, which I do have, to prove signal of considerable strength is being received from behind me, and the timings that it occurs. However it is virtually impossible without me using an obscure data mode like SSTV which doesn't work well on HF to prove that it is the same signal without someone being here to listen to it themselves really. I could send recordings but the accusations would be "they are both the same sound file"....

It would be interesting for you to send a recording regardless. At least you would have evidence to show, and FE'ers can move from saying "you have no evidence" to "your evidence is faked", and then "your evidence is too expensive and/or time consuming to reproduce". I am trying this same approach with the solar neutrino threads, lets see how far it gets me...

Ok, for a fellow HAM I will go ahead and expose myself here as I really enjoy these discussions:
KB0RQB here and 73s by the way...
For those in the USA you can look that up on the ARRL website for easier lookup than the FCC. Both are perfectly unique and indisputable sources for identification, and if you'd like I can provide proof of my own identity as well.

If anyone would like, I'd be happy to discuss in detail the following, but I won't bore you with details unless requested. I will just state that it is indeed factual, and again state I can back it up with plenty of whatever proofs and demonstrations if you would like. Radio is rather fun.

I think a very simple example, which may have been provided here already (I skipped to the end sorry - getting tired), is atmospheric bounce, as it does not just travel in a straight line - it bounces multiple times off of the atmosphere, from your station - up, then down to the ground, then back up again, down again, and so on - until it comes back around ... when conditions are ideal. This works really well around 8 and 10 meters.

Now then, the major kicker here is the following:

I'm in Missouri, USA. Say I point My Antenna towards California right? Well, not only might I make a contact in say... New Jersey, I may also make a contact in China, then Turkey, then Spain or Portugal, THEN New Jersey, etc.

Now the problem with all that is that kind of radio propagation is only going to happen line of sight. It doesn't matter what kind of magnetic or bouncy medium you try to come up with - the amount of time it takes to come back to you - at the frequencies being used - only allows for a straight line - with a travel distance between the Earth, atmosphere, and known wavelength.

So basically, an entirely Flat Earth, especially one that has no option for an underside - no possibility for reflection or deflection around it's "sides" to continue around it with the land masses laid out in a straight line as seen on a world map: it can't happen.

I've tried to work it out in some sort of FE and will continue to give it a shot, but off the vuff - I just don't see it.

Take care all,
- Optimus

73s Optimus, nice to see another Ham here. M3JJM and 2E1JJM are my callsigns.

I still think circumnavigational propagation is impossible to explain on a flat earth. I'd love to see the angles of the "edge" and whether they change with the sun's position and so on. Could make for some pretty interesting calculations.

I still defy any FE proponent to explain how circumnavigational propagation is plausible or possible. Even though I can do it every day...

The Dome is substantial evidence, once I prove to you the earth is flat, as I have done in my pictures, taken all over the Lake Ontario, English Channel, and Strait of Gibraltar. Please read the Nasa Fake Space Program to see how nobody has been able to ascend beyond 15 km.

15k he says really
i how about some Spanish students that did 20 miles with a balloon and a cell phone
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/03/kids-send-a-cam/
20 miles = 32.18688 kilometers
thats twice as high
and there is SS1 that did 41 miles with uncut live video

Hai all.

Not sure if anyone has attacked this one. I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.

It occured to me that a while ago I was trying something nicknamed "moonbounce" - also known as EME or earth to moon to earth communications. Effectively, a ham radio user has a very directional form of an antenna, normally a Yagi beam that produces a very directional and efficient emission, aims it rather accurately at the moon using various calculations, and can then gauge roughly where the signal will arrive on earth after bouncing off the moon. Most importantly, there is a time delay in this which is quite measurable, and the curvature of the earth plays a part in this.

In my case I was using a standard standard Cushcraft Yagi beam on the 6 metre wavelength band, aka 50MHz. With a low discharge of power, 50 watts to be specific on my 2E1JJM callsign, I successfully achieved bounce from southern england to another user in russia, more specifically leningrad with the callsign RN3LLP (this corresponds to central russia). Now I know the rough distance that my transmissions took due to the time lag bouncing off the moon - and these only agree with a slight curve of the earth's face. On top of that, my communications would not have got so far on such a large wavelength transmission with relatively minimal power if the earth was flat.

On top of this, ham radio users using much larger wavelengths, like the 40m and 17m bands, know roughly how far their signal will go due to their emissions (depending on their antenna) being a proportionate resonate distance of their wavelength that can be targetted with specific angles using directional antennas at the top layers of the atmosphere (F2 layer specifically) and then reflect off the atmosphere. Using this method, one can work out how far a single atmospheric reflection will take a signal back down to sea level depending on time of day (the atmosphere rises and sinks with sunlight exposure due to temperature fluctuations); and crucially how long it will take, using speed of light calculations. This certainly confirms a round earth.

On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission. I have in fact witnessed my father doing this (his radio license allows more power, G0WKL is his callsign), on a completely omnidirectional HF dipole (proving that you don't even need my specifications to do it) made by cushcraft (an R8, available here http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/CUSHCRAFT_HF_Vertical_Antennas.html) with about 190W of power on the 40m band.

Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space. A dual spherical plane of reflection (i.e. RE) is the only way without using ridiculous reflection repeater arrays positioned at incredibly lucky points along your "ice wall", to produce the effect I have described above. Goto any Ham radio forum and ask if HF circumnavigation is possible and if anyone has experienced it. No end of people have - I am not the only one. The ham radio community is so small, that NASA or any of your government agencies wouldn't even consider ploughing the tens of billions required to reproduce this effect on a flat plane; it would be impossible to recreate successfully for every user without someone seeing something weird like 500m tall resonant reflectors for each wavelength (we're talking nearly millions of combinations here with the various angles) on the edge of your ice wall, or as we call it, Antarctica.

I tried to read many of the posts in this thread. As a newbie to this forum I read a lot of descent into very complicated explanations of this and that. Seems to avoid the elephants in the room so to speak.

The real questions for me regarding radio communication as a former broadcast engineer in AM, FM and TV transmission (also former VE3HWZ amateur) are:

1. If the moon is 3K miles or so above us why do reflections from the moon take exactly the amount
of time to arrive back to earth as predicted by the commonly accepted astro-physics model.
(simple arithmetic from that delay gives you the distance by the way)

2.  Why do radio signals pointed at the dome not reflect back off the dome? And with that what the heck is it made of if radio waves don't reflect off it but rockets do?

Honest answers to those simple questions would help make a case for FE.

This thread from nine years ago is a classic.

This thread from nine years ago is a classic.

Yes it is.  It occurred to me a day or two ago that my early history with amateur radio introduced to me to moon bounce guys back in the 1970s.  These are independent "nerd" types that play with this stuff for their own amusement. No conspiracy or hidden agenda. Just the challenge of building the radio station to do the job. (which I identify with) 

It requires explanation within the FE model.
I cannot think of a way.

Related to the moon bounce question is my personal experience of installing TV downlinking antennas and rack equipment and then assisting the operators to find the correct satellite to get the programs that we  were going to record or broadcast.  Our little station in Canada was late to this technology so there were about 12 or so satellites up there in the mid 1980s.  They were all lined up so that once you got the dish at the right angle for your latitude they all fell in a line... almost like they were in a geostationary orbit.

This activity replaced the way we did it in the 1970s  and mid 1980s where the courier arrived everyday and dropped off a stack of film reels (movies) and video tapes (syndicated TV shows to our shipping door.  We aired them and then they were forwarded on to the next TV station down the highway.   

What changed that caused a commercial money making enterprise to stop paying for
courier fees of *50 ..100lbs of stuff every day?  Just askin' ...

*2" wide 15" reels of video tape are very heavy.

It requires explanation within the FE model.
I cannot think of a way.

Original set of Maxwell's equations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)

Structure of the potential: Whittaker scalar waves

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (four consecutive messages)

During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by Hermann von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'

'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."


Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves.

A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.

Quote from: julianmartin on June 08, 2009, 04:39:50 PM

Hai all.

Not sure if anyone has attacked this one. I am an amateur radio enthusiast, I have 2 callsigns, 2E1JJM and M3JJM - you can look this up with the RSGB and with Ofcom - the UK's governmental body for communications.

It occured to me that a while ago I was trying something nicknamed "moonbounce" - also known as EME or earth to moon to earth communications. Effectively, a ham radio user has a very directional form of an antenna, normally a Yagi beam that produces a very directional and efficient emission, aims it rather accurately at the moon using various calculations, and can then gauge roughly where the signal will arrive on earth after bouncing off the moon. Most importantly, there is a time delay in this which is quite measurable, and the curvature of the earth plays a part in this.

In my case I was using a standard standard Cushcraft Yagi beam on the 6 metre wavelength band, aka 50MHz. With a low discharge of power, 50 watts to be specific on my 2E1JJM callsign, I successfully achieved bounce from southern england to another user in russia, more specifically leningrad with the callsign RN3LLP (this corresponds to central russia). Now I know the rough distance that my transmissions took due to the time lag bouncing off the moon - and these only agree with a slight curve of the earth's face. On top of that, my communications would not have got so far on such a large wavelength transmission with relatively minimal power if the earth was flat.

On top of this, ham radio users using much larger wavelengths, like the 40m and 17m bands, know roughly how far their signal will go due to their emissions (depending on their antenna) being a proportionate resonate distance of their wavelength that can be targetted with specific angles using directional antennas at the top layers of the atmosphere (F2 layer specifically) and then reflect off the atmosphere. Using this method, one can work out how far a single atmospheric reflection will take a signal back down to sea level depending on time of day (the atmosphere rises and sinks with sunlight exposure due to temperature fluctuations); and crucially how long it will take, using speed of light calculations. This certainly confirms a round earth.

On top of this point I've just made, the nail in the coffin supplied by ham radio, is that depending on the conditions, the quality of the antenna, and how the weather is doing round the world, it is actually possible on the very very long wavelength bands (160m and 80m for example), to bounce a signal off the F2 layer, and then to the earth again, and back upto the F2, several times, to the point where a signal will circumnavigate the globe, and providing one gets their power adjustments just right, once can receive their own signal a second or two later after initial transmission. I have in fact witnessed my father doing this (his radio license allows more power, G0WKL is his callsign), on a completely omnidirectional HF dipole (proving that you don't even need my specifications to do it) made by cushcraft (an R8, available here http://www.wsplc.com/acatalog/CUSHCRAFT_HF_Vertical_Antennas.html) with about 190W of power on the 40m band.

Let me re-iterate. Directional Electromagnetic radition that circumnavigates the earth, is NOT possible on a dual flat plane of reflection; let alone omnidirectional. It would be emitted to into space. A dual spherical plane of reflection (i.e. RE) is the only way without using ridiculous reflection repeater arrays positioned at incredibly lucky points along your "ice wall", to produce the effect I have described above. Goto any Ham radio forum and ask if HF circumnavigation is possible and if anyone has experienced it. No end of people have - I am not the only one. The ham radio community is so small, that NASA or any of your government agencies wouldn't even consider ploughing the tens of billions required to reproduce this effect on a flat plane; it would be impossible to recreate successfully for every user without someone seeing something weird like 500m tall resonant reflectors for each wavelength (we're talking nearly millions of combinations here with the various angles) on the edge of your ice wall, or as we call it, Antarctica.

I tried to read many of the posts in this thread. As a newbie to this forum I read a lot of descent into very complicated explanations of this and that. Seems to avoid the elephants in the room so to speak.

The real questions for me regarding radio communication as a former broadcast engineer in AM, FM and TV transmission (also former VE3HWZ amateur) are:

1. If the moon is 3K miles or so above us why do reflections from the moon take exactly the amount
of time to arrive back to earth as predicted by the commonly accepted astro-physics model.
(simple arithmetic from that delay gives you the distance by the way)

2.  Why do radio signals pointed at the dome not reflect back off the dome? And with that what the heck is it made of if radio waves don't reflect off it but rockets do?

Honest answers to those simple questions would help make a case for FE.

I am the guilty party who is responsible for some of the moon bounce forum. I am a licensed amateur radio operator, a retired FAA electronics technician who was in radio communications, radar and computer systems and served in the U.S. Navy as an ET2 (Electronic Technician, 2nd Class Petty Officer) on radio and radar shipboard equipment.

The answer to all of those questions is simply the amateur radio measurements are based on known facts and the  flat earth notions are based on ideas with no evidence to back them up.
(1) The 3K distance is based on flat earth. The earth is a globe.
(2) There is no dome. The earth is a globe.

If you will go back on that earlier forum, you will find photos of the equipment used, the methods used , and the mathemarics used in computing the distance from the earth to the moon.
Much of flat earth is based on the writings of Samuel Birley Rowbotham in the 19 Century.
Who would you trust, 21st Century ham radio operators or Mr.Rowbotham ?

Much of flat earth is based on the writings of Samuel Birley Rowbotham in the 19 Century.

All of my FE theory is not based at all on any of Rowbotham's writings.

It requires explanation within the FE model.
I cannot think of a way.

Original set of Maxwell's equations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)

Structure of the potential: Whittaker scalar waves

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (four consecutive messages)

During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by Hermann von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'

'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."


Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves.

A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.

Where is your Nobel Prize?

"Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden substructure of the potential of the e/m/g (electrogravitational) waves." 

So what. I don't use those things.

"A scalar wave is a bidirectional longitudinal wave = a non-Hertzian wave."
Perhaps but how do I create them?

"A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether."
That may be, but they work real well for communication. 
Try your cell phone sometime and let me know how it works out.

"Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents"
I really don't care. We are talking about real world technology that works in specific reproducible ways.
(by the way stealing vocabulary from string theory doesn't help you.  It has not made one accurate prediction about reality to date as I understand.)

"A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves."
How is it generated please.  Describe the circuit or whatever it takes to make them.

"A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave."
I would love to have a receiver that picks them up.  Where can I learn how to make one?

"This is true wireless."
But for us mortals "un-true" wireless is how I send voice and data across distances.

"Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves."
Which Nikola Telsa invention generated these waves? A Tesla coil?  I can see the EM spectra from a Tesla coil.  I don't know how to pickup non-herzian waves until you give me a device or the plans how to make one.

"The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere."
OK.  But when we measure them it's really damned fast. Like about 300,000Km per sec and it doesn't seem to vary much.  Real world stuff please.

Instead of everyone in the FE sitting around,
Doing nothing but spouting stuff.

EME or moon bounce is a real thing.
It can tell you how far away the moon is.

Surely, since there are so many FEs
One of them must know a ham radio operator.

Get them to bounce a signal off your
3,000 mile away moon and see what happens.

Course, if the results don't agree with your "theory"
It's all garbage anyway.

Earth still round though.

Instead of everyone in the FE sitting around,
Doing nothing but spouting stuff.

EME or moon bounce is a real thing.
It can tell you how far away the moon is.

Surely, since there are so many FEs
One of them must know a ham radio operator.

Get them to bounce a signal off your
3,000 mile away moon and see what happens.

Course, if the results don't agree with your "theory"
It's all garbage anyway.

Earth still round though.

I’m not sure if there are any FE ham radio operators on this forum, though there are plenty of FE hams around, that not right John?

This completely disproves FET and DET in a way that can be done by anyone.

OK.  But when we measure them it's really damned fast. Like about 300,000Km per sec and it doesn't seem to vary much.  Real world stuff please.

In the lab, yes.

If you are directing a radio signal to the Moon, you are going to have to deal with the huge density of both the ether and the aether fields, which will markedly change the speed of light and the distance traveled by that radio signal.

A Tesla bifilar coil uses double torsion to access the field of ether.

Tesla specified several times how to inject signals directly into the potential (subquark strings/non-Hertzian waves), look for these specifications.

You might also want to check out the original form of the Maxwell equations, which were modified by Heaviside and Lorentz in order to eliminate any possibility of accessing the non-Hertzian waves.

"Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."

OK.  But when we measure them it's really damned fast. Like about 300,000Km per sec and it doesn't seem to vary much.  Real world stuff please.

In the lab, yes.

If you are directing a radio signal to the Moon, you are going to have to deal with the huge density of both the ether and the aether fields, which will markedly change the speed of light and the distance traveled by that radio signal.

A Tesla bifilar coil uses double torsion to access the field of ether.

Tesla specified several times how to inject signals directly into the potential (subquark strings/non-Hertzian waves), look for these specifications.

You might also want to check out the original form of the Maxwell equations, which were modified by Heaviside and Lorentz in order to eliminate any possibility of accessing the non-Hertzian waves.

"Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."

So what is the velocity of light through so-called aether?

Ham radio won't help.  Ham radio uses shortwave frequencies -- these bounce off the ionosphere to come back to earth, which is the whole point of shortwave and ham radio.  What you need is ultra-high frequency radio that goes through the ionosphere to reach outer space.  It is ultra-high freq that is used to communicate with the moon landings and the space station and satellites.  Shortwave, by design, won't punch through the ionosphere to get there.  Not so many people have ultra-high freq equipment; it's expensive and since it doesn't bounce off the ionosphere, about the only thing it's good for is outer space.

But with ultra-high frequency equipment several observatories and labs were and still are able to make use of the retroflectors set up by the astronauts on the moon.  These are very precisely made, and very precisely positioned, parabolic reflectors designed that any laser or maser beam from earth that hits them will be reflected back to the exact spot on earth from which it was sent.  These retroflectors have been used to precisely measure the moon's distance from earth. 

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

And retroreflectors are not needed in any case.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

Here is the Aharonov-Bohm effect for light (photons):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263850559_Aharonov-Bohm_effect_for_light_in_a_moving_medium

If you are directing a radio signal to the Moon, you are going to have to deal with the huge density of both the ether and the aether fields, which will markedly change the speed of light and the distance traveled by that radio signal.

Neither of which you have shown to exist, and neither of which you have shown to effect light in any way.
Regardless, if something like this was there, you would expect massively varying results as the position of the moon changes and between different ground stations, but you don't.

Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."

And Tesla just magically decided to stay quiet?
This sounds like a load of delusional crap.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

And they are just magically in the right place at the right time?

And that should make the moon appear even closer.