Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions

  • 68 Replies
  • 14564 Views
Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« on: July 27, 2012, 09:20:10 AM »
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
This page describes the efforts of a ham radio operator who designed his own radio horn to eavesdrop on Apollo 11.

http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
This page describes Baysinger's eqipment and method in greater detail.  It also includes some audio files of some of his recordings.

http://as.ua.edu/ay/keel/space/apollo.html
This page describes the photographs taken of various Apollo missions by multiple independent sources.

http://www.squidoo.com/apollo-moon-landing-photos-from-space
This page show photos of the lunar landing sites taken by non-NASA space agencies, like China and Japan.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
This crew of radio operators tracked Apollo 17.
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: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2012, 09:28:03 AM »
In order to avoid derailing the X-Prize thread...

I accept that someone saw some dots in the sky and thought it was a space craft, and that someone turned on a Ham radio and heard the Apollo 11 broadcasts which were being relayed from many hundreds of towers all over the world.

From http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/#_edn6

Quote
Of course we can ask, did Baysinger really pick up signals from the moon?  Is it possible that he was merely detecting spurious transmissions from a local radio or TV station that was broadcasting the moon landing?  Baysinger has asked himself these same questions.  However, several lines of evidence indicate that these signals were not spurious:
·         The antenna had to be aimed at the moon in order to receive the signals. 
·         The audio could be heard through Baysinger's receiver a few seconds before it was heard over TV. 
·         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.  A recording of Apollo 11 made from a German radio observatory is similar to Baysinger’s recording in this regard.

Also, those who photographed the event didn't just 'see some dots.'  You didn't even bother to read the material presented to you.
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
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2012, 10:43:17 AM »
In order to avoid derailing the X-Prize thread...

I accept that someone saw some dots in the sky and thought it was a space craft, and that someone turned on a Ham radio and heard the Apollo 11 broadcasts which were being relayed from many hundreds of towers all over the world.

From http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/#_edn6

Quote
Of course we can ask, did Baysinger really pick up signals from the moon?  Is it possible that he was merely detecting spurious transmissions from a local radio or TV station that was broadcasting the moon landing?  Baysinger has asked himself these same questions.  However, several lines of evidence indicate that these signals were not spurious:
·         The antenna had to be aimed at the moon in order to receive the signals. 
·         The audio could be heard through Baysinger's receiver a few seconds before it was heard over TV. 
·         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.  A recording of Apollo 11 made from a German radio observatory is similar to Baysinger’s recording in this regard.

This is the antenna he had to keep aimed at the moon:



How do you aim something like this at the moon?

The field of view on this antenna is so large that it could easily be picking up other sources  transmitting the "live" Apollo 11 transmission to television stations around the world for public broadcast, or picking up such broadcasts bounced off of the ionosphere. The operator believing that he has to "aim it at the moon" is likely matter of his own imagination.

Perhaps he tried pointing it in the opposite direction and found that it didn't pick up signals, therefore he had to point it towards the moon (along with half of the world's radio antennas) in order to get a signal...

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.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 11:07:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM »
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

Quote
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!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 11:55:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38892
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2012, 11:41:58 AM »
This is the antenna he had to keep aimed at the moon:



How do you aim something like this at the moon?

Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://blog.makezine.com/2009/11/03/eavesdropping-on-the-moon-circa-196/
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2012, 11:43:25 AM »
Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lunarlistener4.jpg?w=600&h=376

It's worse than I thought. The entire antenna is bare metal and chicken wire. It would impossible to tell where the signal is coming from. The signal can be hitting it from any direction.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 11:46:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38892
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2012, 11:45:16 AM »
Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lunarlistener4.jpg?w=600&h=376

It's worse than I thought. The entire antenna is bare metal and chicken wire. It's impossible to tell where the signal is coming from. The signal can be hitting it from any direction.

If you don't understand how antennas work, then you really shouldn't be criticizing them.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2012, 11:54:16 AM »
Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lunarlistener4.jpg?w=600&h=376

It's worse than I thought. The entire antenna is bare metal and chicken wire. It's impossible to tell where the signal is coming from. The signal can be hitting it from any direction.

If you don't understand how antennas work, then you really shouldn't be criticizing them.

It is clearly not a directional antenna.

What's stopping the antenna from receiving a signal from the direction of the photographer in your photograph? From the photographer's position you can clearly see many locations of bare metal surface area.

Are you claiming that if a broadcasting antenna was broadcasting from the photographer's direction, the chicken wire antenna would not see it? It clearly would.

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2012, 11:54:31 AM »
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

Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
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 --

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38892
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2012, 12:04:00 PM »
Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lunarlistener4.jpg?w=600&h=376

It's worse than I thought. The entire antenna is bare metal and chicken wire. It's impossible to tell where the signal is coming from. The signal can be hitting it from any direction.

If you don't understand how antennas work, then you really shouldn't be criticizing them.

It is clearly not a directional antenna.

What's stopping the antenna from receiving a signal from the direction of the photographer in your photograph? From the photographer's position you can clearly see many locations of bare metal surface area.

Are you claiming that if a broadcasting antenna was broadcasting from the photographer's direction, the chicken wire antenna would not see it? It clearly would.

Umm...  The chicken wire isn't the antenna.  The loops sticking out from the center rail are the antennas.  The chicken wire, most likely acts as a reflector that concentrates the signal to the antenna loops. 

If you don't understand why loop antennas are directional, then this discussion is pointless.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 12:06:00 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2012, 12:08:07 PM »
Perhaps you should look at a photograph of the actual antenna instead of a crude sketch.
http://makezineblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/lunarlistener4.jpg?w=600&h=376

It's worse than I thought. The entire antenna is bare metal and chicken wire. It's impossible to tell where the signal is coming from. The signal can be hitting it from any direction.

If you don't understand how antennas work, then you really shouldn't be criticizing them.

It is clearly not a directional antenna.

What's stopping the antenna from receiving a signal from the direction of the photographer in your photograph? From the photographer's position you can clearly see many locations of bare metal surface area.

Are you claiming that if a broadcasting antenna was broadcasting from the photographer's direction, the chicken wire antenna would not see it? It clearly would.

Umm...  The chicken wire isn't the antenna.  The loops sticking out from the center rail are the antennas.  The chicken wire, most likely acts as a reflector that concentrates the signal to the antenna loops. 

If you don't understand why loop antennas are directional, then this discussion is pointless.

As you say, the chicken wire is directing signals to the middle section. Hence, if the photographer can see the chicken wire, the chicken wire can pick up his signal.

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2012, 12:21:02 PM »
Tom, seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.  Learn something (anything) about radio antennae before making these assertions.

It's called a corner reflector.  http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/reflectors/cornerReflector.php
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: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2012, 12:29:07 PM »
I have no knowledge of radio antennae - that said let me make sure i'm correct on the following assumption:

The aformentioned 'chicken wire' is not 'absorbing' the radio signals, but rather 'reflecting them' onto a central antennae - much like a mirror in a newtonian telescope.

Is that correct?

And let me say again how much I appreciate you taking the time to explain things.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38892
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2012, 12:31:19 PM »
As you say, the chicken wire is directing signals to the middle section. Hence, if the photographer can see the chicken wire, the chicken wire can pick up his signal.

Ummm... No.  Again, the chicken wire is not the antenna.  The chicken wire is acting as a reflector, so the photographer's radio signal would be reflected away from the antennas within.  Only signals coming in at a very specific angle will be reflected to the antennas.

Also:
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
Quote
Of course we can ask, did Baysinger really pick up signals from the moon?

Is it possible that he was merely detecting spurious transmissions from a local radio or TV station that was broadcasting the moon landing?  Baysinger has asked himself these same questions (click here).  However, several lines of evidence indicate that these signals were not spurious: 
· The antenna had to be aimed at the moon in order to receive the signals. 
· The audio could be heard through Baysinger's receiver a few seconds before it was heard over TV.   
 · 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.  A recording of Apollo 11 made from a German radio observatory (click here) is similar to Baysinger’s recording in this regard.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2012, 03:03:31 PM »
Ummm... No.  Again, the chicken wire is not the antenna.  The chicken wire is acting as a reflector, so the photographer's radio signal would be reflected away from the antennas within.  Only signals coming in at a very specific angle will be reflected to the antennas.

Source?


Quote
Also:
http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/
Quote
Of course we can ask, did Baysinger really pick up signals from the moon?

Is it possible that he was merely detecting spurious transmissions from a local radio or TV station that was broadcasting the moon landing?  Baysinger has asked himself these same questions (click here).  However, several lines of evidence indicate that these signals were not spurious: 
· The antenna had to be aimed at the moon in order to receive the signals. 
· The audio could be heard through Baysinger's receiver a few seconds before it was heard over TV.   
 · 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.  A recording of Apollo 11 made from a German radio observatory (click here) is similar to Baysinger’s recording in this regard.

I clicked on the link in your quote and listened to the audio and heard both mission control and the astronauts talking. Please check your source.

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2012, 03:10:59 PM »
Ummm... No.  Again, the chicken wire is not the antenna.  The chicken wire is acting as a reflector, so the photographer's radio signal would be reflected away from the antennas within.  Only signals coming in at a very specific angle will be reflected to the antennas.

Source?

Forum user Garygreen has done his homework and answered this question already:

Tom, seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.  Learn something (anything) about radio antennae before making these assertions.

It's called a corner reflector.  http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/reflectors/cornerReflector.php





*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2012, 03:41:11 PM »
Ummm... No.  Again, the chicken wire is not the antenna.  The chicken wire is acting as a reflector, so the photographer's radio signal would be reflected away from the antennas within.  Only signals coming in at a very specific angle will be reflected to the antennas.

Source?

Forum user Garygreen has done his homework and answered this question already:

Tom, seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.  Learn something (anything) about radio antennae before making these assertions.

It's called a corner reflector.  http://www.antenna-theory.com/antennas/reflectors/cornerReflector.php

The corner reflector in that link is made out of solid plates. How could it possibly function if the plates are made of chicken wire and you can see the center antenna through it at several different angles?

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2012, 03:47:24 PM »
The corner reflector in that link is made out of solid plates. How could it possibly function if the plates are made of chicken wire and you can see the center antenna through it at several different angles?

Light and radio waves aren't reflected by the same materials due to their different wavelengths.  You can see just fine through a faraday cage, for example, but it will block out most radio waves.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2012, 03:55:53 PM »
Ummm... No.  Again, the chicken wire is not the antenna.  The chicken wire is acting as a reflector, so the photographer's radio signal would be reflected away from the antennas within.  Only signals coming in at a very specific angle will be reflected to the antennas.
Source?
Maybe you could provide a single source for any one of your outrageous claims?  Surely if a corner reflector isn't a directional antenna you can find plenty of sources to verify that fact.  If you would actually read and try to understand the sources that I an others have provided you, you'd see that Markjo's description is totally accurate.  It's almost as if you're less interested in the truth than you are in protecting your own ego.


I clicked on the link in your quote and listened to the audio and heard both mission control and the astronauts talking. Please check your source.
Which link did you listen to?

http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/

Scroll down to the audio files and click on "A11-HighQual.wma."  Then, open this annotated transcript of the audio and follow along while you listen.  The first two pages are of Baysinger's recording.  The second two pages are the NASA transcript of the event.  Compare them.  Nothing that Houston says can be heard.

There is also the matter of the German radio antenna that recorded the same thing.  Maybe this is what you listened to?  You can hear Houston in that audio file because they added the NASA recording to one of the channels.
Quote
In this stereo mp3 file, the recording made at Bochum is on the right channel – and the NASA Net 1 recording (recorded at Honeysuckle, but coming from Goldstone) is on the left channel. Charlie Duke (Capcom in Houston speaking with the astronauts) – and the associated Quindar tones – are heard only on the left channel (i.e. the NASA recording) since Bochum could only hear the transmissions from the Moon – not those being transmitted to the Moon from the tracking stations on Earch.


I have no knowledge of radio antennae - that said let me make sure i'm correct on the following assumption:

The aformentioned 'chicken wire' is not 'absorbing' the radio signals, but rather 'reflecting them' onto a central antennae - much like a mirror in a newtonian telescope.

Is that correct?

And let me say again how much I appreciate you taking the time to explain things.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.  The signal is detected by the dipole antenna within the reflector, the reflector being the mesh of chicken wire.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2012, 04:03:51 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: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2012, 05:38:22 PM »
The corner reflector in that link is made out of solid plates. How could it possibly function if the plates are made of chicken wire and you can see the center antenna through it at several different angles?

The answer is pretty complicated.  The short answer is that so long as the gaps between the wire are significantly shorter than the wavelength you're trying to reflect, it's just as effective as a solid panel.  The practical advantages of using lightweight chicken wire over bulky metal plates should be obvious.  The long answer can be found by doing some research of your own.

http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/HiResImages/LB007.jpg

Basically any directional antenna you can think of can be (and typically is) made using a wire mesh reflector instead of a metal plate.

Regardless, your argument at this point seems to be that Baysinger is either lying or incompetent.  You have no evidence of the former: his results have been thoroughly documented, verified and corroborated.  You have no evidence of the latter: his antenna was designed according to foundational principles of antenna theory verified by the thousands and thousands of people who use them effectively every day.

Your argument is based purely on your own ignorance of how these tools work.
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: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2012, 06:20:40 AM »
Since space travel is possible.
As Zetetics landing on the moon is possible.
An independent radio signal is more proof. Thank you.
Congratulations NASA

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2012, 07:00:20 PM »
Since space travel is possible.
As Zetetics landing on the moon is possible.
An independent radio signal is more proof. Thank you.
Congratulations NASA

with this logic thn you must believe the earth is round

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2012, 09:40:17 PM »
http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/amradio/radio1.htm

Tom, here is an experiment for you to perform that should prove to you that a wire screen can effectively block radio waves.  It's perfectly Zetetic.

Quote
Have you ever notice that, as you drive over a suspension bridge, FM radio reception is OK, but AM radio reception can be messed up.  The cables of the bridge are of a spacing that can block AM waves but not FM waves.  (The cables are spaced too far apart.)  This experiment will at least show that a screen can block radio waves.

Part of this exercise is to demonstrate both the difference in the size of the wavelengths of AM and FM radio waves and to show how the incoherent scatter radar dishes do not need to be solid.

With your radio and screen in hand, do the following:

Get a small AM/FM radio and go outside.  (This can be done inside, but it is always nice to eliminate the students doubts about the effects of tuning a radio inside.)
Tune in an AM station.
Place an aluminum screen over the radio.  What happens to the signal?
Tune in and FM station.
Place an aluminum screen over the radio.  What happens to the signal?
This can be repeated with a fiberglass screen.....which won't block the radio waves.

...a mesh of a size on the order of one tenth of the wavelength of a radio wave will essentially act as a solid object to the radio wave.

So, there is nothing wrong with Baysinger's equipment.  Of course, this was already proved by the fact that he could only hear transmissions from the astronauts and not from Houston.  And an independent observatory in Germany recorded precisely the same transmissions.

We went to the moon.  The Earth is a globe.
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
  • 17457
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2012, 05:55:44 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38892
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2012, 06:53:21 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!


Tom, what makes you (or any other FE'er) any more trustworthy than the "NASA administrators, astronauts, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and multiple Neil Armstrongs" that have posted here?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2012, 07:38:28 AM »
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!

I don't see the connection.  Look, I don't know anything about fake Neil Armstrongs, and I'm not sure why my evidence needs to answer for that.  Everything I've presented to you has been independently verified by journalists and other radio/astronomy enthusiasts.  You simply choose not to believe them.  That's difficult to reconcile with quotes like these:   

...yes, we accept evidence from third parties unconnected to NASA.

Rowbotham does not say that all evidence must be based on direct first hand observations and experiences.
...
Did you read the rest of Earth Not a Globe? HUNDREDS of third parties are cited throughout the work to support Rowbotham's positions.
...
Rowbotham does not say anywhere that first hand experience is required. His work demonstrates quite the contrary.
...
Please read Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe. The presence of hundreds of third party citations demonstrates very clearly that the philosophy behind the work does not require first hand experience.

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: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2012, 10:28:25 AM »
For some reason I get an error every time I try and update the OP.

Here are some new finds:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/UoFSTS/UoFSTSx.htm
This page describes the tracking of artificial satellites by a team from the University of Florida, and it details the equipment they used.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm
This is basically the mother lode of amateur space tracking.  It contains amateur observations of dozens and dozens of US, Soviet, and Chinese space vehicles.  Of particular interest are the pages ( Part I and Part II ) on the Jodrell Bank Observatory's observations.

The author of those pages has this to say about his intent:
Quote
I have an irresistible urge to find out what went on behind the scenes during the Space Race of the Cold War. What I saw as a kid and a young man was just the the media picture, not the true story. To try to tell the real story is the purpose of this site. I also wish to share personal memories of great space events.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 12:29:19 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 --

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2012, 11:01:44 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!

Is this your form of a source? You quote yourself to try to prove a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation? Any 13 year old can come on here and say they are/were an astronaut. Not every person has the knowledge to build and operate a directional antenna (as you yourself have clearly demonstrated). These people did independent (see: by your self) to try and listen to the apollo transmissions. I haven't read the cited material, but I feel they did it either to prove it to themselves because they had doubts, to show people that it actually happened, or even just for fun. Your arguments are invalid and childish. It's like someone saying they don't believe the holocaust happened because no one showed them the bodies, someone just told them they'd seen the bodies.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

?

dado

  • 107
Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2012, 02:37:12 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!

Is this your form of a source? You quote yourself to try to prove a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation? Any 13 year old can come on here and say they are/were an astronaut. Not every person has the knowledge to build and operate a directional antenna (as you yourself have clearly demonstrated). These people did independent (see: by your self) to try and listen to the apollo transmissions. I haven't read the cited material, but I feel they did it either to prove it to themselves because they had doubts, to show people that it actually happened, or even just for fun. Your arguments are invalid and childish. It's like someone saying they don't believe the holocaust happened because no one showed them the bodies, someone just told them they'd seen the bodies.
So what else is new on this forum?
Every time you face them (FEs) with facts they stop replying or just keep trolling...

Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2012, 03:44:43 PM »
The level of denial of the FEers is almost pathological.

All I am seeing here is FEers denying evidences based on their own ignorance and assumptions. They seems incapable of actually presenting evidence that supports their claims.