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 --
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/#_edn6
Lately I've been debunking some of the Apollo hoax arguments. I don't know why - I know I'll never convince them - but given the personal inspiration I got from Apollo as a kid I guess I find the whole thing too offensive to ignore.
These people are no more trustworthy than the hundreds of people who have signed up to this forum claiming to be astronauts with personal experience that we are wrong. Indeed, we have NASA administrators, astronauts, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and multiple Neil Armstrongs!
Why don't you apply that logic to people and websites who are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Truth claims? Why doesn't it apply to your own
conspiracy claims? Is it not your agenda to debunk NASA?
Either way, that person is not the author of any of those pages. Even if you choose to discount Phil Karn's commentary, it doesn't invalidate any of the other information I've presented to you. It was just an email sent to the author that he shared.
I don't understand the comparison between these independent observers and the people on this website. They're not related. These observers built their own equipment, conducted their own experiments, and they documented their work rigorously. It's right in front of you. That's a far cry from "some guy on some website said he was neil armstrong." Obviously.
How do you aim something like this at the moon?
The field of view on this antenna is so large (source?) that it could easily be picking up other sources transmitting the "live" Apollo 11 transmission to television stations (source?) around the world for public broadcast, or picking up such broadcasts bounced off of the ionosphere (source?). The operator believing that he has to "aim it at the moon" is likely matter of his own imagination.
Those seem like some pretty bold (read: warrantless) claims about a radio antenna you know absolutely nothing about. Get back to me when you can actually explain why any of those things should be true. And, none of that applies to the last point: "The audio Baysinger recorded is different from the audio provided by NASA in that Aldrin and Armstrong are can be heard, while Collins, CAPCOM, and the PAO voice-over cannot.
Were Baysinger picking up the local TV or radio station, he should have recorded the same audio that everyone heard on TV."
Here is what the people who actually built and operated the antenna have to say:
Baysinger says that on the night of the Apollo 11 landing, he and Rutherford had to essentially aim the antenna at the Moon by getting behind it and sighting it like a gun...Its “beam” or “field of view” was such that, once pointed at the Moon, it could be let go for a little while, but pretty soon it would have to be reaimed because the motions of the Earth and Moon caused the Moon to drift out of the antenna’s field and the signal to be lost. In fact, this was one piece of evidence that the Apollo 11 signals the receiver picked up were indeed from the Moon — if the antenna was not kept aimed at the Moon, the signal disappeared.
And this:
I tried to think of all possible signal sources that we might have been inadvert[ent]ly hearing and mistaking for the "real" moon-based signals. Firstly, the "selectivity" of the receiving equipment - the antenna and radio receiver - was "narrow" enough to respond to only the frequencies - and "mode" of modulation - we knew would be used. 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. And IF it had been heard, [it] should have included the other voices indicated in NASA's transcript.
That quote immediately follows the email commentary that you have such a problem with. There is no way that you missed it. Now who's being disingenuous?
As per why he received it a few seconds early, it takes time for the television stations to process and distribute the transmissions to their localities from the airwaves.
Exactly. He skipped all of that and went straight to the source.