How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

  • 76 Replies
  • 11618 Views
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2012, 02:07:59 PM »
ICBMs are space weapons.
Not exactly, but whatever.  They're still a totally unnecessary component of our power projection. We have the world's only blue-water navy, unless you count our best friends, England and France.  Ask me where they got theirs.

NASA has only had two public spectacles of failure in the last 45 years. The things like the Hubble Telescope needing a new expensive lens were done behind closed doors and have no public validation.
What difference does it make?  Failures are failures, no?  How do hidden failures help the conspiracy?

You're wrong anyhow.  I provided you with ten different failures from Popular Science.  They're at least well enough known to get press coverage.

So I would like you to explain to us, if he was capturing the broadcasts directly from the Lunar Lander on the moon, how he intercepted President Nixon's communication.
Sure.

Houston communicated with the astronauts using the Unified S-Band.  This is not a full duplex operation, meaning that, like two people on walkie-talkies, Houston and the astronauts cannot both speak at the same time.  They use Quindar tones (the 'beeps' you always hear in the audio recordings) to mark when they are muting/unmuting the signal.

The astronauts communicated with themselves using VHF radios.  Their radios were full duplex, push-to-talk radios.  The astronauts spoke to the former president using their VHF radios (relayed to them by the command module).  Those are the transmissions Baysinger recorded.  The lunar module acts as a radio repeater for the astronauts during an EVA (when Nixon called them), so it would have transmitted anything said on either side of the conversation.

It makes more sense to use the VHF radios than to use the S-Band radios because the White House phone obviously doesn't have the ability to mute the S-Band signal sent from the Earth to the Moon.  The astronauts wouldn't be able to respond over S-Band.

Watch an original recording of Nixon's phone call.  There are no Quindar tones, and you can distinctly hear Nixon's words repeated back to him with a delay, exactly as we would expect from a full duplex operation (think cell phone).

tl;dr version: anything transmitted to the astronauts using VHF (like Nixon's phone call) would have been recorded by Baysinger.  Houston communicated with the astronauts using the Unified S-Band, so they weren't.


Oh, and it isn't possible for Baysinger's antenna to record audio from local television relays.  Literally, it's impossible.  As Baysinger himself explains, "Had the signal been a "harmonic" (i.e., a multiple, either sub or super ) or even a "spurious" emission of a local TV station, the audio portion of the signal (an FM subcarrier) would not have been separable from the video portion (an AM main carrier + sync pulses) and would have been heard as a raucous buzz, not voices."

You can confirm this with pretty much any radio ham.

e: all of the strike-through is wrong
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 09:00:44 AM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17663
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2012, 11:02:27 AM »
A quote from the website you linked me too "Deploying nuclear bombs in outer space seems like a natural goal of the military. Indeed, in the 1950's the US Air Force planned to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon. This effort, dubbed Project A 119, included a young Carl Sagan on its team. At the time, an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carrying a nuclear warhead possessed the capability to reach the moon. Fortunately, the man in the moon was spared." - This says that they were planned to be USED IN SPACE. Their conventional use (if you can call ICBMs conventional) is not as a space weapon. Just because it can, does not mean it is. That's not what they were designed for.

It's a space weapon because it's a weapon which goes into space, regardless if the ultimate target is in space or not. Look at the other "Space Weapons" on that space.com article. The majority of them are designed to attack earth based targets. The qualifier for Space Weapon is that it goes into space, not that it attacks space based things.

Quote from: ThinkingMan
That's called a wide angle lens, Tom. You can get these from online photography websites and some stores. They take images and video at a wide angle with a fish-eye lens and are known to distort images. This is not intentional distortion, this is cause by NASA trying to take a prettier picture.

I know it's a phony fish-eye effect. That's what I've been telling you guys. Therefore any claim of ISS media being legitimate evidence of the earth's curvature is bunk.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:32:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2012, 11:14:23 AM »

That's called a wide angle lens, Tom. You can get these from online photography websites and some stores. They take images and video at a wide angle with a fish-eye lens and are known to distort images. This is not intentional distortion, this is cause by NASA trying to take a prettier picture.

I know it's a phony fish-eye effect. That's what I've been telling you guys. Therefore any claim of ISS media being legitimate evidence of the earth's curvature is bunk.

Tom, I'm still waiting for you to disprove my proof that the ISS is a genuine satellite. Until you can do that, I suggest you shut your clammy gob on all matters concerning it.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2012, 11:16:43 AM »
It's a space weapon because it's a weapon which goes into space, regardless if the ultimate target is in space or not. Look at the other "Space Weapons" on that space.com article. The majority of them are designed to attack earth based targets. The qualifier for Space Weapon is that it goes into space.

Do you think semantics make you look as if you're correct? Protip: they do the opposite.
By your definition then, any weapon that uses gunpowder should be called a chemical weapon because it uses a chemical reaction of combustion to fire a projectile.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17663
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #64 on: August 25, 2012, 11:21:30 AM »
What difference does it make?  Failures are failures, no?  How do hidden failures help the conspiracy?

You're wrong anyhow.  I provided you with ten different failures from Popular Science.  They're at least well enough known to get press coverage.

Whoopees like the Hubble needing a expensive new lens helps NASA because they can bill the government for more money.

Things like the Space Shuttle Challenger blowing up on liftoff hurts NASA because it threatens the entire space program to be shut down by congress. After the recent Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, for example, manned space flight was put to a halt entirely.

Quote
So I would like you to explain to us, if he was capturing the broadcasts directly from the Lunar Lander on the moon, how he intercepted President Nixon's communication.
Sure.

Houston communicated with the astronauts using the Unified S-Band.  This is not a full duplex operation, meaning that, like two people on walkie-talkies, Houston and the astronauts cannot both speak at the same time.  They use Quindar tones (the 'beeps' you always hear in the audio recordings) to mark when they are muting/unmuting the signal.

The astronauts communicated with themselves using VHF radios.  Their radios were full duplex, push-to-talk radios.  The astronauts spoke to the former president using their VHF radios (relayed to them by the command module).  Those are the transmissions Baysinger recorded.  The lunar module acts as a radio repeater for the astronauts during an EVA (when Nixon called them), so it would have transmitted anything said on either side of the conversation.

It makes more sense to use the VHF radios than to use the S-Band radios because the White House phone obviously doesn't have the ability to mute the S-Band signal sent from the Earth to the Moon.  The astronauts wouldn't be able to respond over S-Band.

Watch an original recording of Nixon's phone call.  There are no Quindar tones, and you can distinctly hear Nixon's words repeated back to him with a delay, exactly as we would expect from a full duplex operation (think cell phone).

tl;dr version: anything transmitted to the astronauts using VHF (like Nixon's phone call) would have been recorded by Baysinger.  Houston communicated with the astronauts using the Unified S-Band, so they weren't.

Oh, and it isn't possible for Baysinger's antenna to record audio from local television relays.  Literally, it's impossible.  As Baysinger himself explains, "Had the signal been a "harmonic" (i.e., a multiple, either sub or super ) or even a "spurious" emission of a local TV station, the audio portion of the signal (an FM subcarrier) would not have been separable from the video portion (an AM main carrier + sync pulses) and would have been heard as a raucous buzz, not voices."

You can confirm this with pretty much any radio ham.

e: whoops.  Unified S-Band is indeed full duplex.  However, the mission control signal still has to be muted from in Houston, and it cannot be muted from the White House.  It makes more sense to use VHF.

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. You're seem to be claiming that Baysinger picked up the walkee-talkee communication between the Astronauts, and not the signals from the main directional dish on the Lunar Lander to Earth.

Beyond the brunt absurdity of receiving such a signal so far away which is not even directionally pointed at the earth, if that is what Baysinger was picking up, why don't we hear mission control talking to the astronauts? The Lunar Lander would have repeated Mission Control's communication to the Astronauts on those same VHF bands to their space suit radios.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:45:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #65 on: August 25, 2012, 01:53:56 PM »
I bet people thought Christopher Columbus's journey to America was a fake as well. We see how that turned out.

I bet people thought Piltdown Man was true as well. We see how that turned out.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #66 on: August 25, 2012, 04:48:42 PM »
Sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

Admittedly, my previous post is somewhat unclear.  That said, if your radio knowledge is dwarfed by a boy scout with a radio merit badge, then your belief that this is BS is at best irrelevant and at worst completely irrational.

You're seem to be claiming that Baysinger picked up the walkee-talkee communication between the Astronauts, and not the signals from the main directional dish on the Lunar Lander to Earth.

I'm saying exactly that.  He received signals from Armstrong's VHF transceiver located on his Personal Life Support System.  His antenna could only receive signals from a particular set of wavelengths much smaller than the entire VHF range.  This means that he would not detect all VHF channels used during Apollo 11, just the ones his antenna is designed to receive.

Baysinger's antenna had an upper range around 250 MHz.  All but one of the VHF channels used during Apollo 11 were too far outside of that limit.  For instance, the channel used by the LM to relay signals to the astronauts was 296.8 MHz, well outside of Baysinger's range.  The only channel close enough for Baysinger to receive was the channel used by Armstrong to talk to the LM, at 259.7 MHz.

Beyond the brunt absurdity of receiving such a signal so far away which is not even directionally pointed at the earth, if that is what Baysinger was picking up, why don't we hear mission control talking to the astronauts? The Lunar Lander would have repeated Mission Control's communication to the Astronauts on those same VHF bands to their space suit radios.

Find me a source that says it's absurd.  Better yet, explain to me why it's absurd.  All of the information necessary to run a radio link budget is available to you.

Why can't we hear mission control in Houston?  As I mentioned above, he simply couldn't receive signals on those wavelengths.  So why can we hear Nixon?  Obviously, at some point his words were transmitted by Armstrong's transceiver.  Why?  My guess is that because Armstrong's transceiver carried both his and Aldrin's transmissions, Armstrong's transceiver would have to be the final relay from Nixon to the astronauts if both Armstrong and Aldrin were to participate in the 'phone call.'

It's a minor mystery at best, and it does nothing to discredit the authenticity of Baysinger's recordings or the recordings of the other independent sources I have provided to you.  If the signals had not come from the Moon, Baysinger could not have detected any signals at all.  None.  At all.  It's impossible.

You indicated at one point that you think Baysinger is a NASA plant.  If so, why only him?  Sure, other amateurs have received telemetry from other missions, but if the goal is to manufacture fake independent evidence, why just the one dude for Apollo 11, the keystone mission?  If NASA was capable of manufacturing fake evidence from fake independent sources, why not manufacture a lot of it?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 04:57:28 PM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2013, 09:06:30 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54350.msg1537307.html#msg1537307

The Nixon video also resolves how Baysinger was able to record bits of Nixon's phone call to the astronauts.  Nixon's voice was loud enough to be picked up by Armstrong's mic and be fed back to him, which Baysinger received as it was transmitted from the Moon via Armstrong's transmitter.

For reference, the original thread on all of this can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55364.0.html#.UitO6jZwp8E
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Excelsior John

  • Ranters
  • 2020
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #68 on: September 07, 2013, 09:53:24 AM »
Yes, Yuri Gagarin, the first man to journey into space. He made a complete orbit around the Earth in his Vostok Spacecraft in 1961. Proving, beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is in fact a globe, NOT a flat disk.
You REALLY dont realize that not all FEs agree with the FAQ. I am a flat earther and I dont believe NASA is a conspiracy, I believe all photos and missions are genuine. This does not prove at all that the Earth is a globe, which I will elaborate on below. Come on, your making it way to easy to prove you wrong ;D
The best part, this had absolutely NOTHING to do with NASA. This was during the Cold War, a very tense part of the Cold War when the Soviet Union and United States were in a desperate race to develop stronger nuclear weapons. Also, the US and USSR were locked in a space race after the Soviets successfully launched "Sputnik 1" into orbit in October 1957.

In fact, Yuri Gagarin's successful orbit of the Earth in 1961 inspired Kennedy to set a much higher goal for the United States in the unofficial but obviously clear 'Space Race' in his 1962 speech at Rice University, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things. Not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
And we very much did go to the moon
Since the Apollo Missions, not only has the Soviet Space Program confirmed the success of the Apollo program (putting 12 men on the moon over several missions) from the Soviet lunar satellites. But also the European, Japanese and recently the Chinese space agencies have confirmed the evidence of humans being on the moon. Including the photographs of the American flag on the moon from lunar satellites.
Yes, I know we did. The Earth looks round from space because the sun shines down as a spotlight on it causing it to look round, when instead it is a circle of light upon the Earth. It is all just am illusion
Sorry you crackpot flat Earth believers. Well, to be honest I don't think you honestly believe the Earth is flat. I think you're just trolling your own site. That or you're just trying to argue for the hell of it. But if that's the case, I suggest a healthy dose of vagina. You will be surprised what getting laid, often, will do for your boredom issues.
*facepalm* You really think that this website is some kind of big conspiracy where FEs waste there time arguing with each other just for laughs? Were not bored, were just communicating with each other and debating rounders (as I call round earthers)
A piece on Yuri from Russia Today:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Yuri Gagarin: 108 minutes that changed the world

Also watch the documentary called: "First Orbit".. It's available for free on YouTube. Then tell me it's 'fake'.
Its not fake. At least take a look at the forums and see the diversity of views among FEs. Yuri did orbit around the earth. That is, circled above the Earth and was fooled by the illusion of going around the earth. Still a very cool story, indeed
Quote from: sceptimatic
John is not your average bear is he. He's a daddy grizzly that grabs ridicule and intimidation , folds it up, wipes his bum on it and slings it right back, slap , bang into your face and it's frustrating isn't it?

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #69 on: September 07, 2013, 10:01:36 AM »
YG was probably one of the first main psyop attempts involving the men-in-space meme. The guilty people collaborate without regard to borders. If it had failed in the USSR, there would have been the option to accuse them of lying and being clumsy. Stuff done in the USA is supposed to be flagship, first-world stuff. So they workshopped the techniques where they had more room for cover, then brought the concepts over to the USA.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17663
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #70 on: September 07, 2013, 10:36:49 AM »
I'm saying exactly that.  He received signals from Armstrong's VHF transceiver located on his Personal Life Support System.  His antenna could only receive signals from a particular set of wavelengths much smaller than the entire VHF range.  This means that he would not detect all VHF channels used during Apollo 11, just the ones his antenna is designed to receive.

Baysinger's antenna had an upper range around 250 MHz.  All but one of the VHF channels used during Apollo 11 were too far outside of that limit.  For instance, the channel used by the LM to relay signals to the astronauts was 296.8 MHz, well outside of Baysinger's range.  The only channel close enough for Baysinger to receive was the channel used by Armstrong to talk to the LM, at 259.7 MHz.

Claiming that someone on earth with a jerry-rigged garden antenna could pick up the walkee-talkee communication between the Lunar Lander and the Astronaut's Personal Life Support System is beyond stupid, and is exemplative of the desperate leaps of imagination RE'ers are regularly forced into when things cannot be justified and basic questions cannot be answered. You might as well claim that the antenna is picking up the vibration of the astronaut's helmet, as to post such an ignorant assertion.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #71 on: September 07, 2013, 11:23:40 AM »
I'm saying exactly that.  He received signals from Armstrong's VHF transceiver located on his Personal Life Support System.  His antenna could only receive signals from a particular set of wavelengths much smaller than the entire VHF range.  This means that he would not detect all VHF channels used during Apollo 11, just the ones his antenna is designed to receive.

Baysinger's antenna had an upper range around 250 MHz.  All but one of the VHF channels used during Apollo 11 were too far outside of that limit.  For instance, the channel used by the LM to relay signals to the astronauts was 296.8 MHz, well outside of Baysinger's range.  The only channel close enough for Baysinger to receive was the channel used by Armstrong to talk to the LM, at 259.7 MHz.

Claiming that someone on earth with a jerry-rigged garden antenna could pick up the walkee-talkee communication between the Lunar Lander and the Astronaut's Personal Life Support System is beyond stupid, and is exemplative of the desperate leaps of imagination RE'ers are regularly forced into when things cannot be justified and basic questions cannot be answered. You might as well claim that the antenna is picking up the vibration of the astronaut's helmet, as to post such an ignorant assertion.

How do you know that?  What knowledge of radio technology and communications are you bringing to bear on this topic?  Sorry, but all I see in your post is petty name-calling.  Can you explain why it's so stupid to think that Baysinger's equipment would have been unable to receive radio signals from the Moon?  Have you performed any experiments on radio transmitters and/or receivers to know what kinds of ranges are possible given the size of a transmitter/receiver?  Have you ever experimented with radio communications in any way at all? 

Short of that, do you actually have any knowledge of the subject yourself?  Have you read some study of radio communications that leads you to believe that Baysinger's story isn't true?

If you're going to assert so boldly that I'm an idiot for believing a profession radio technician on the subject of radio communications, you should probably explain why that is the case.  Like, with something other than name-calling.

e: I realize that you're never ever going to post in this thread again, but I went and found Larry Baysinger's credentials: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Larry-Baysinger/607171674

Quote
He holds a lifetime professional engineer's certification by the Society of Broadcast Engineers and is the officially certified FCC Alternative Inspector for the West Virginia Broadcasters Association. For over 40 years he was assistant engineer of WHAS and its many affiliated stations.

After he took early retirement in 2001, Larry served as engineering consultant for WJCR WorldWide Radio, a Christian short-wave and FM station in Upton, Kentucky that beams programming into Europe. In 2003, Larry became chief engineer for WJEI FM-SW in Louisville.

Larry has written articles for professional broadcast engineering journals and has put together a fascinating museum of vintage broadcast equipment that dates back to the 30's.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 11:43:37 AM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2013, 02:23:02 PM »
By the way, what about this antenna that was used to track Apollo 17?  I posted it in my 'independent evidence' thread and perhaps you overlooked it.  In your expert opinion, would it be capable of receiving radio signals from the Moon?

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17663
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2013, 03:55:06 PM »
How do you know that?  What knowledge of radio technology and communications are you bringing to bear on this topic?  Sorry, but all I see in your post is petty name-calling.  Can you explain why it's so stupid to think that Baysinger's equipment would have been unable to receive radio signals from the Moon?  Have you performed any experiments on radio transmitters and/or receivers to know what kinds of ranges are possible given the size of a transmitter/receiver?  Have you ever experimented with radio communications in any way at all? 

Short of that, do you actually have any knowledge of the subject yourself?  Have you read some study of radio communications that leads you to believe that Baysinger's story isn't true?

If you're going to assert so boldly that I'm an idiot for believing a profession radio technician on the subject of radio communications, you should probably explain why that is the case.  Like, with something other than name-calling.

e: I realize that you're never ever going to post in this thread again, but I went and found Larry Baysinger's credentials: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Larry-Baysinger/607171674

Quote
He holds a lifetime professional engineer's certification by the Society of Broadcast Engineers and is the officially certified FCC Alternative Inspector for the West Virginia Broadcasters Association. For over 40 years he was assistant engineer of WHAS and its many affiliated stations.

After he took early retirement in 2001, Larry served as engineering consultant for WJCR WorldWide Radio, a Christian short-wave and FM station in Upton, Kentucky that beams programming into Europe. In 2003, Larry became chief engineer for WJEI FM-SW in Louisville.

Larry has written articles for professional broadcast engineering journals and has put together a fascinating museum of vintage broadcast equipment that dates back to the 30's.

Larry Baysinger isn't the one making the claim that he is listening in on Apollo 11's walkee-talkee communication between the lunar lander and the astronauts with his small chicken-wire antenna in his garden, you are. This is the excuse you came up with when backed into a corner like a dog.

And yes, you are frankly an idiot for asserting that one can listen in on the walkee-talkee communication on the moon. Firstly, it is a low power signal intended for short-range communication, and secondly it's a field signal which is not directed at the earth in a direct transmission. The idea that a non-directed low-power signal can travel across a vast distance without significant scatter, and penetrate the earth's atmosphere, is an absurdity. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that an astronaut on the moon with a small antenna could not "listen in" on two people communicating with their walkee-talkee's on earth, let alone vice-versa.

I will suggest you refrain from posting and hope this thread gets buried, to save yourself from further embarrassment.

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #74 on: September 07, 2013, 04:01:23 PM »
Larry Baysinger isn't the one making the claim that he is listening in on Apollo 11's walkee-talkee communication between the lunar lander and the astronauts with his small chicken-wire antenna in his garden, you are. This is the excuse you came up with when backed into a corner like a dog.

That's exactly what he claims.


http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/HiResImages/RutherfordArticle.gif

Baysinger wasn't capable of eavesdropping on anything but the VHF frequencies.

Also, his antenna was rebuilt from Army surplus.  Is it possible for you to just explain plainly why you think it shouldn't work as Baysinger claims it did?  As in, without merely calling it stupid or small or poor or whatever?

And yes, you are frankly an idiot for asserting that one can listen in on the walkee-talkee communication on the moon. Firstly, it is a low power signal intended for short-range communication, and secondly it's a field signal which is not directed at the earth in a direct transmission. The idea that a non-directed low-power signal can travel across a vast distance without significant scatter, let alone penetrate the earth's atmosphere, is an absurdity. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that someone on the moon cannot "listen in" on two people communicating via walkee-talkee on earth, let alone vice-versa.

I will suggest you refrain from posting and hope this thread gets buried, to save yourself from further embarrassment.

I'm not sure what I should be embarrassed about.  You've not done anything but call me an idiot and assert that I'm wrong.  Well done?  That's sort of the opposite of intelligent argumentation.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Baysinger's equipment and methodology were idiotic.  What about the Florida physics students' observations of Apollo 17?  Is that antenna sophisticated enough?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 04:05:21 PM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17663
Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #75 on: September 07, 2013, 04:23:32 PM »
I'm not sure what I should be embarrassed about.  You've not done anything but call me an idiot and assert that I'm wrong.  Well done?  That's sort of the opposite of intelligent argumentation.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Baysinger's equipment and methodology were idiotic.  What about the Florida physics students' observations of Apollo 17?  Is that antenna sophisticated enough?

Why would this S-Band antenna be "sophisticated enough" to pick up weak non-directional VHF signals from a walkee-talkee on the moon?

That's exactly what he claims.


http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/HiResImages/RutherfordArticle.gif

If you're talking about the eighth paragraph down in the Newspaper article in the third link, it's unintelligible. It seems to say something about the communication between the lander and the orbiter. It is unclear what Baysinger believes to be happening.

Even if your interpretation of that jumbled mess of words is correct and Baysinger does believe that he is capturing the walkee-talkee communication of the astronauts on the moon, broadcasted directly from an astronaut's backpack, it would do nothing for this thread except make him a big of an idiot as you.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 05:41:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?
« Reply #76 on: September 07, 2013, 05:31:52 PM »
I'm not sure what I should be embarrassed about.  You've not done anything but call me an idiot and assert that I'm wrong.  Well done?  That's sort of the opposite of intelligent argumentation.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Baysinger's equipment and methodology were idiotic.  What about the Florida physics students' observations of Apollo 17?  Is that antenna sophisticated enough?

Why would this S-Band antenna be "sophisticated enough" to pick up weak non-directional VHF signals from a walkee-talkee the moon?

You said that it's stupid to believe that Baysinger's equipment was sophisticated enough to actually perform his task.  What about the Florida team?  Do you have any problems with their equipment or methodology?

If you're talking about the eighth paragraph down in the Newspaper article in the third link, it's unintelligible. It seems to say something about the communication between the lander and the orbiter. It is unclear what Baysinger believes to be happening.

Even if your interpretation of that jumbled mess of words is correct and Baysinger does believe that he is capturing the walkee-talkee communication of the astronauts on the moon, broadcasted directly from an astronaut's backpack, it would do nothing for this thread except make him a big of an idiot as you.

You're still unable to add anything to the discussion but insults.  If it's so idiotic, then you should be able to explain why without merely asserting the truth of your claims.  Obviously, if you knew how to, then you would have already.  That's why you're resorting to simply calling me an idiot.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --