The work you have done on the Moon hoax is spectacular hollycrap!.. keep it up man.
You should put together a documentary film on this topic!
I see the movie starting off with the Earth rising on the Moon- Only in the movie, the Earth is the correct size (enormous).. and show with the clarity you would expect from viewing the stars with zero atmosphere. Then you show the film we were shown from the "Moon Landings".. People would be cracking up!
Start and end the movie that way- and it will be a classic.
(I guess a few people, including reel.deal pointed out the Earth size issue.. credit there. It really can't be denied.. any scientist would agree)
The MOON HOAX
-
- Banned
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:34 pm
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
Your composite showing the difference in shape between the detached crew compartment during seperation, compared to the foil-wrapped combination, is excellent. Some further comments from me (parts of which have been prompted from reading the impressive analyses at http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm )
- the obvious lack of ballooning/over-pressuring within the space suits on the lunar surface
- no mention ever made of the point that the astronots would have de-suited/de-booted repeatedly within a crew compartment that would have become grossly contaminated with lunar dust and light particulate, all of which would have presented a serious floating health hazard when breathed-in (irrespective of being in a 1G/6thG/0G suspension) despite the observed requirement of having to have built the craft within a dust-free cleanroom environment
- in addition to having to provide a +/- 250deg temperature hot/cold heat-swing protection for the astronots via the PLSS backpacks, how were the volatile propellant tanks prevented from exploding in the lunar sunlight just by a few layers of foil?
- why there doesn't appear to be any direct mention of air conditioning/temperature control within the LM for the crew (particularly during the extended A17 '3-day barbeque')
- the incredibly-valid point regarding the sheer quantity of images photographed on the lunar surface (even including the obligatory 'false mistakes' amongst the thousands of perfectly-composed studio-lit material)....the averaged quantity across all alleged missions indicates a photograph being taken every fifty seconds....perfectly. And that's without the aid of the New York skyline to keep the cameras rolling so sweetly...
And here's where I make some observations myself that are straight from my own perspectives:
- Astronot dosimetry: why am I unaware of any mention being made of personal film badges or dosimeters being worn by the intrepid crew? This aspect is all the more bizarre the more you think about it, and it's worth noting that a meaningful segment within 'Diamonds are Forever' appears to delberately poke fun at this (whilst Bond is masquerading his way into the complex). Has there ever been any mention of this biological radiation monitoring necessity even during Space Shuttle missions?
- The telecommunications antennas (and I *will* look into this in a lot more depth)...especially on the Lunar Rovers. Frequently the high-gain antenna (the ones with the folding mesh parabolic dish) is pointing straight upwards into the sky. Since this was meant to be communicating directly back to earth (unlike the low-gain guide antenna below it, which was just communicating up to the CM), by definition it *must* be meant to be pointing at the earth at all times . Is it ever actually doing this, in practice?? I havn't yet located a picture which would show a whistleblower combination of the antenna pointing 90deg away from a pasted-in earthrise, but my instinct tells me that there will be such an image. It is possible to estimate the beam-width tolerance of the antenna in terms of acceptable inaccuaracy, but surely this style of antenna would have to be tracking constantly at least in elevation to maintain a direct link back to Mission Control?
- In particular, in the later missions with the colour tv footage, the camera on the Lunar Rover is meant to be be getting telecontrolled by Mission Control. Is the mesh high-gain being manually adjusted for direction by the astronots, or is it also under alleged remote telecontrol?
- I seem to notice that the cross-hair/graticules appear to be less evident on pictures from later missions. Also (and especially) it *seems* to be the case that much of the imagery in the A17 series has two distinct styles of images, especially of the LR: real-life full-size 'content', and contrasting highly-implausible scale model shots that are painfully unrealistic. I'm even beginning to see plastic model-style decal edging on some of the flag symbols (perhaps I'm just staring too hard)
- the interesting find regarding the 'laminated' spiral-bound cuff-notes....the ones with the soft-porn in-jokes. Just how do the ergonomics of a gloved hand work with the tiny page-tabs?? And how did they work with the film magazine changes on the Hasselblads?
I've now entered a worryng phase with an analysis of some of the later A15/A17 technical manuals in areas that I can digest and am qualified to comment upon....more info to follow....
- the obvious lack of ballooning/over-pressuring within the space suits on the lunar surface
- no mention ever made of the point that the astronots would have de-suited/de-booted repeatedly within a crew compartment that would have become grossly contaminated with lunar dust and light particulate, all of which would have presented a serious floating health hazard when breathed-in (irrespective of being in a 1G/6thG/0G suspension) despite the observed requirement of having to have built the craft within a dust-free cleanroom environment
- in addition to having to provide a +/- 250deg temperature hot/cold heat-swing protection for the astronots via the PLSS backpacks, how were the volatile propellant tanks prevented from exploding in the lunar sunlight just by a few layers of foil?
- why there doesn't appear to be any direct mention of air conditioning/temperature control within the LM for the crew (particularly during the extended A17 '3-day barbeque')
- the incredibly-valid point regarding the sheer quantity of images photographed on the lunar surface (even including the obligatory 'false mistakes' amongst the thousands of perfectly-composed studio-lit material)....the averaged quantity across all alleged missions indicates a photograph being taken every fifty seconds....perfectly. And that's without the aid of the New York skyline to keep the cameras rolling so sweetly...
And here's where I make some observations myself that are straight from my own perspectives:
- Astronot dosimetry: why am I unaware of any mention being made of personal film badges or dosimeters being worn by the intrepid crew? This aspect is all the more bizarre the more you think about it, and it's worth noting that a meaningful segment within 'Diamonds are Forever' appears to delberately poke fun at this (whilst Bond is masquerading his way into the complex). Has there ever been any mention of this biological radiation monitoring necessity even during Space Shuttle missions?
- The telecommunications antennas (and I *will* look into this in a lot more depth)...especially on the Lunar Rovers. Frequently the high-gain antenna (the ones with the folding mesh parabolic dish) is pointing straight upwards into the sky. Since this was meant to be communicating directly back to earth (unlike the low-gain guide antenna below it, which was just communicating up to the CM), by definition it *must* be meant to be pointing at the earth at all times . Is it ever actually doing this, in practice?? I havn't yet located a picture which would show a whistleblower combination of the antenna pointing 90deg away from a pasted-in earthrise, but my instinct tells me that there will be such an image. It is possible to estimate the beam-width tolerance of the antenna in terms of acceptable inaccuaracy, but surely this style of antenna would have to be tracking constantly at least in elevation to maintain a direct link back to Mission Control?
- In particular, in the later missions with the colour tv footage, the camera on the Lunar Rover is meant to be be getting telecontrolled by Mission Control. Is the mesh high-gain being manually adjusted for direction by the astronots, or is it also under alleged remote telecontrol?
- I seem to notice that the cross-hair/graticules appear to be less evident on pictures from later missions. Also (and especially) it *seems* to be the case that much of the imagery in the A17 series has two distinct styles of images, especially of the LR: real-life full-size 'content', and contrasting highly-implausible scale model shots that are painfully unrealistic. I'm even beginning to see plastic model-style decal edging on some of the flag symbols (perhaps I'm just staring too hard)
- the interesting find regarding the 'laminated' spiral-bound cuff-notes....the ones with the soft-porn in-jokes. Just how do the ergonomics of a gloved hand work with the tiny page-tabs?? And how did they work with the film magazine changes on the Hasselblads?
I've now entered a worryng phase with an analysis of some of the later A15/A17 technical manuals in areas that I can digest and am qualified to comment upon....more info to follow....
Re: The Moon Hoax
Thanks Kentrailer, not half a bad idea
Nicely put, icarusinbound , though I differ on Percy's theory of the whistle-blowers, given the widespread "errors" and mockery. It seems almost as if the guys that put up the scam were laying out an experiment to see how people can be massively fooled to the extremes,even in the face of the absurd. I will try to dig into the issue of the Antenna. If I find something, I'll holla out
Nicely put, icarusinbound , though I differ on Percy's theory of the whistle-blowers, given the widespread "errors" and mockery. It seems almost as if the guys that put up the scam were laying out an experiment to see how people can be massively fooled to the extremes,even in the face of the absurd. I will try to dig into the issue of the Antenna. If I find something, I'll holla out
Last edited by hollycrap on Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Yes, another good question. I posed this Q on a forum and was told by a NASA fan that the camera was remote controlled from Houston.hollycrap wrote:ANd who is panning the camera if they were not in a studio.
This brings up anther question: How do you remote control a camera following a rocket when there is a 1.3 second delay each way between the Earth and Moon? That means the guy in Houston had to cope with a lag of 2.6 seconds plus any mechanical lag from the camera movement mechanism in order to keep the LM centered in the frame as he followed it. Rather a difficult feat I would think, yet it was done perfectly.
-
- Member
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
Is anyone aware of an intriguing movie that I had (until a few days ago) never heard of, until I watched the tail-end of it on a UK satellite TV channel? It's called "Moonwalk One- the Director's Cut", described as being a film by Theo Kamecke. It purports to be a lost classic, and I found its stream-of-consciousness 1960s footage interesting but disturbing. See http://www.moonwalkone.com/
Although I just caught the programme from Part7 onwards (it's a lengthy movie) I was astounded to actually see images of the 'playtex spacesuits' apparently being made, and space boots being molded...the timing of this actually appearing on tv, as we discuss the topic, was weirdly coincidental.
I'm rather suspicious of this lengthy movie (based from what I saw of it). Why have I never heard of this before? It self-refers itself by choice of critical comment as being complimentary to Kubrick's 2001, and the marketing trailer quotes a strangely self-fulfilling prophetic comment attributed to a Kathleen Carroll of the New York Sunday News dated November 1972 "Kamecke's film could be placed in a time capsule...as an exact record of our feelings at the time" . Hmm...it certainly includes monoliths and lunar-looking locations:
I hope someone else that's Apollo baby vintage (ie like me, in their late 40s) has heard of this movie before. Please tell me that it's been a well-known holy grail of retrohistorical astro-cinematograpghy that I'm unaware of, because I'm a British hick that's usually been in hicksville.
I did wonder even from the short chunck that I managed to see if some of the imagery was just too good...think of 'Forrest Gumpian' CGI, but... I might be entirely wrong. The Apollo 11 motorcade absolutely reeks of JFK's last(?) public outing, and had some incredibly fortuitous camera angles that made me wonder if a 60s steadycam could actually do that...or was it Avvid?? I'm now going to have to buy the DVD- for definite.
ps a worrying observation....during one sequence, a Pacific Apollo capsule splash-down is shown, with the obligatory radiocommunications black-out during re-entry. The Apollo crew can be clearly heard after the required theatrical pause, with CAPCOM calling for them, hopefully and earnestly, into the oblivion, and then, as ever, the world is saved. But the Apollo comunicator (unsure if it's Aldrin) clearly advises HORNET (the search and rescue team ) of their (ie the capsule's) at-sea location in exact latitute and longditude in DD:MM:SS....so how the hell did they know that?? Seriously? Decades before GPS. Did they have a LORAN system as standard, or some other form of radio resection? Did they apply astronavigation techniques with sextants on landing? Or did the C-130 crew give them their drop-zone co-ordinates before the drogue chutes pulled them clear of the loading bay at 10,000ft?
Although I just caught the programme from Part7 onwards (it's a lengthy movie) I was astounded to actually see images of the 'playtex spacesuits' apparently being made, and space boots being molded...the timing of this actually appearing on tv, as we discuss the topic, was weirdly coincidental.
I'm rather suspicious of this lengthy movie (based from what I saw of it). Why have I never heard of this before? It self-refers itself by choice of critical comment as being complimentary to Kubrick's 2001, and the marketing trailer quotes a strangely self-fulfilling prophetic comment attributed to a Kathleen Carroll of the New York Sunday News dated November 1972 "Kamecke's film could be placed in a time capsule...as an exact record of our feelings at the time" . Hmm...it certainly includes monoliths and lunar-looking locations:
I hope someone else that's Apollo baby vintage (ie like me, in their late 40s) has heard of this movie before. Please tell me that it's been a well-known holy grail of retrohistorical astro-cinematograpghy that I'm unaware of, because I'm a British hick that's usually been in hicksville.
I did wonder even from the short chunck that I managed to see if some of the imagery was just too good...think of 'Forrest Gumpian' CGI, but... I might be entirely wrong. The Apollo 11 motorcade absolutely reeks of JFK's last(?) public outing, and had some incredibly fortuitous camera angles that made me wonder if a 60s steadycam could actually do that...or was it Avvid?? I'm now going to have to buy the DVD- for definite.
ps a worrying observation....during one sequence, a Pacific Apollo capsule splash-down is shown, with the obligatory radiocommunications black-out during re-entry. The Apollo crew can be clearly heard after the required theatrical pause, with CAPCOM calling for them, hopefully and earnestly, into the oblivion, and then, as ever, the world is saved. But the Apollo comunicator (unsure if it's Aldrin) clearly advises HORNET (the search and rescue team ) of their (ie the capsule's) at-sea location in exact latitute and longditude in DD:MM:SS....so how the hell did they know that?? Seriously? Decades before GPS. Did they have a LORAN system as standard, or some other form of radio resection? Did they apply astronavigation techniques with sextants on landing? Or did the C-130 crew give them their drop-zone co-ordinates before the drogue chutes pulled them clear of the loading bay at 10,000ft?
Re: The Moon Hoax
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ great stuff guys...
We Have Ignition! NASA Tests a New Rocket
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPxHXzd4iM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPxHXzd4iM0
versus
We Have Ignition! Apollo 17 blast off !
NA$A 1973 VS NA$A 2010.
We Have Ignition! NASA Tests a New Rocket
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPxHXzd4iM0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPxHXzd4iM0
versus
We Have Ignition! Apollo 17 blast off !
NA$A 1973 VS NA$A 2010.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Moonwalk One is on YouTube
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: The Moon Hoax
icarusinbound wrote:Is anyone aware of an intriguing movie that I had (until a few days ago) never heard of, until I watched the tail-end of it on a UK satellite TV channel? It's called "Moonwalk One- the Director's Cut", described as being a film by Theo Kamecke. It purports to be a lost classic, and I found its stream-of-consciousness 1960s footage interesting but disturbing. See http://www.moonwalkone.com/
Although I just caught the programme from Part7 onwards (it's a lengthy movie) I was astounded to actually see images of the 'playtex spacesuits' apparently being made, and space boots being molded...the timing of this actually appearing on tv, as we discuss the topic, was weirdly coincidental.
I'm rather suspicious of this lengthy movie (based from what I saw of it). Why have I never heard of this before? It self-refers itself by choice of critical comment as being complimentary to Kubrick's 2001, and the marketing trailer quotes a strangely self-fulfilling prophetic comment attributed to a Kathleen Carroll of the New York Sunday News dated November 1972 "Kamecke's film could be placed in a time capsule...as an exact record of our feelings at the time" . Hmm...it certainly includes monoliths and lunar-looking locations:
I hope someone else that's Apollo baby vintage (ie like me, in their late 40s) has heard of this movie before. Please tell me that it's been a well-known holy grail of retrohistorical astro-cinematograpghy that I'm unaware of, because I'm a British hick that's usually been in hicksville.
I did wonder even from the short chunck that I managed to see if some of the imagery was just too good...think of 'Forrest Gumpian' CGI, but... I might be entirely wrong. The Apollo 11 motorcade absolutely reeks of JFK's last(?) public outing, and had some incredibly fortuitous camera angles that made me wonder if a 60s steadycam could actually do that...or was it Avvid?? I'm now going to have to buy the DVD- for definite.
ps a worrying observation....during one sequence, a Pacific Apollo capsule splash-down is shown, with the obligatory radiocommunications black-out during re-entry. The Apollo crew can be clearly heard after the required theatrical pause, with CAPCOM calling for them, hopefully and earnestly, into the oblivion, and then, as ever, the world is saved. But the Apollo comunicator (unsure if it's Aldrin) clearly advises HORNET (the search and rescue team ) of their (ie the capsule's) at-sea location in exact latitute and longditude in DD:MM:SS....so how the hell did they know that?? Seriously? Decades before GPS. Did they have a LORAN system as standard, or some other form of radio resection? Did they apply astronavigation techniques with sextants on landing? Or did the C-130 crew give them their drop-zone co-ordinates before the drogue chutes pulled them clear of the loading bay at 10,000ft?
Yeah, Icarus, you can imagine it now. NASA are looking for a film maker to produce a documentary of the Apollo 11 mission. Who do you turn to - a sculptor, of course!
I like this quote from Wicked: Theo has worked as a sculptor, working in the medium of early electronic circuits. His work has been purchased by film director James Cameron.
Check out some of his "Illuminati inspired" work....
http://www.theokamecke.com/
PS. I've never heard of this film, either and will check it out, too.
Re: The Moon Hoax
APOLLO 16 ~ MOON CAN HAS STARS, NOW ?!?
The Truth Illuminated - Photographic stars from the lunar surface
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81jSvTKmZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81jSvTKmZA
and here it is ! Apollo 16s 'special' celestial snapping observatory camera !!!
kickin' back & chillin' in the shade of the LEM with a spaceman silhouette,
er, ...i mean, workin' on a tan, catchin' some rays,
er...
The Truth Illuminated - Photographic stars from the lunar surface
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81jSvTKmZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81jSvTKmZA
and here it is ! Apollo 16s 'special' celestial snapping observatory camera !!!
kickin' back & chillin' in the shade of the LEM with a spaceman silhouette,
er, ...i mean, workin' on a tan, catchin' some rays,
er...
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
(nice one reel!)
Have a look at this amazing website....http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... inPage.HTM. This guy, known as 'Chaîne de hunchbacked' on YouTube has done masses of technical analysis on CM/LM systems that shreds Apollo to pieces.
A forensic dissection of the variable Moon-Earth radio transmission delay (used the dramatic give-away for the suspecting member of Ground Control in the movie 'Capricorn One')http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... nDelay.HTM
(click the picture)
And as for the crew equipment analysis...wow (click the pic)
Also, the "Weird Electronics of Apollo" section is going to keep me busy for a while....http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... ystems.HTM...this guy knows his stuff
Have a look at this amazing website....http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... inPage.HTM. This guy, known as 'Chaîne de hunchbacked' on YouTube has done masses of technical analysis on CM/LM systems that shreds Apollo to pieces.
A forensic dissection of the variable Moon-Earth radio transmission delay (used the dramatic give-away for the suspecting member of Ground Control in the movie 'Capricorn One')http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... nDelay.HTM
LM puzzles are also investigated (he may sometimes confuse illustrations with alleged depictions of...reality...I don't mean this obvious charcoal cartoon, click it to see the link page, and agree/disagree)...Chaîne de hunchbacked wrote:Given the distance of the moon to the earth (384000km) and the speed of the light (300000km/s), it takes 1.25 second for the light to go from the earth to the moon and vice versa (slightly more than 1.25 second, but I'll round it down to 1.25 second).
Thence the time of transmission of radio waves from the earth to the moon or from the moon to the earth cannot be less than 1.25 second (it is even slightly more, for the waves can be a little slowed down in earth's atmosphere, but we'll neglect it).
People use to think that it means that, in the discussion between the astronauts and Houston, there should be a delay of 1.25 second between each phrase of the dialog, that is as well between a question of an astronaut and the answer of the operator on earth as between a question of the operator and the answer of the astronaut.
But, it is wrong, for the answer of the astronaut is not recorded when it starts from the moon, but when it arrives on earth.
Therefore there is no delay in fact in the recording between a question of the astronaut and the reply of the operator in Houston.
On the other hand, between a question of the operator at Houston, and the answer of the astronaut, there must be the double of the time of transmission between the earth and the moon.
Indeed:
- It takes 1.25 second for the question of the operator to reach the astronaut
- The astronaut hears the question and answers to it.
- It then takes another 1.25 second for his answer to reach Houston where it is finally recorded.
So, between the recorded question of the operator and the recorded answer of the astronaut, there must be in fact 2*1.25=2.5 seconds, and not just 1.25 second.
This is an absolute minimum; this delay typically should even be over 3 seconds.
If you check the dialog between Houston (Parker) and the astronauts, you can effectively see that, when Parker talks, the astronauts generally reply no sooner than three seconds after Parker has finished talking.
(click the picture)
And as for the crew equipment analysis...wow (click the pic)
Also, the "Weird Electronics of Apollo" section is going to keep me busy for a while....http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/ ... ystems.HTM...this guy knows his stuff
Re: The Moon Hoax
I wonder if the Saturn rockets themselves were even real, that is, if they were everything we were told they were. Launch spectators were so far away from the pad -- could they tell if the rocket that lifted off had the dimensions and weight that it was supposed to have per the official specs? Could NASA have launched scaled down models instead?
Take a look at what this guy did:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9R1bgB6ifo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-X4z_cRLOY
The reason I have this question is: If they went to all the trouble which they obviously did to fake the other aspects of the Apollo missions, why would we expect the Saturn rockets to be as represented? It seems a logical extrapolation to me that the Saturn launch vehicles would be only "real enough" to fool the public and no more.
Take a look at what this guy did:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9R1bgB6ifo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-X4z_cRLOY
The reason I have this question is: If they went to all the trouble which they obviously did to fake the other aspects of the Apollo missions, why would we expect the Saturn rockets to be as represented? It seems a logical extrapolation to me that the Saturn launch vehicles would be only "real enough" to fool the public and no more.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7339
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: The Moon Hoax
Dear Lux - here's the first (unmanned) Saturn V rocket... your thoughts?lux wrote:I wonder if the Saturn rockets themselves were even real, that is, if they were everything we were told they were.
APOLLO 4 - LAUNCHED BY WALTER CRONKITE
These are the historical TV images of the launch of Apollo 4 - reportedly the first (unmanned) Saturn V rocket which paved the way for NASA's quest for the Moon. The excited TV anchor heard screaming his bowels out is none other than America's sweetheart Walter Cronkite. The date is 11/9, 1967:
APOLLO 4 on Wickedpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_4
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoVfZpx5dY
I have put together a series of successive frames from the above video. It makes for a most colorful, Warholesque (watercolor?) canvas:
At 2:07, the artist goes mad - and decides to throw his paintbrush across the screen:
Fascinating, isn't it? Compare with the 2009 ARES imagery: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2367709
Re: The Moon Hoax
To hollycrap; remember that the most important parts are those that you can't see. The moon-lander's engine is reported (2000 Percy- What Happened on the Moon) to output dense thick orange smoke; so the set-up is ridiculous, as you world see absolutely nothing but smoke. Backdrop and shadows don't really support a thought of genuine unaltered photography.
To icarusinbound; For an antenna system, it is the product of the amplification of the two antennas and the distance between them that matters, so you can compensate a small antenna on the moon by using a radio telescope on earth. You don't need to focus the dish antenna perfectly either, so aiming only get moderately difficult. You can use a slide or a nob to move the antenna away from the focus of the dish, so the directivity of the antenna is adjustable.
The wavelength matters. It is difficult to build an antenna much smaller than the wavelength. The typical wire antenna is 1/4 of the wavelength. For moon/dish use, where you don't have a ground plane, you stack two of them together. You can use a coil to shorten the antenna; I have an 11m wavelength antenna that is approx 45 cm or 16% of 1/4 wavelength.
It is completely impossible to build a directive antenna unless the antenna is much larger than the wavelength. That is because of "bending" in the output "aperture", the dish size in our case.
A picture of an antenna tell many things about the radio signal.
The problem of aiming the dish antenna is basically that I don't see an easy way of measuring in which direction the antenna is off, while manual adjustment seams easy and practical. Looping a calibration tone back to moon, so real-time audio can be used to check antenna, during adjustment, seems rather obvious, but is there any record of such a procedure?
Note that, nowadays, you simply use stepper-motors and a microcontroller with a search algorithm to do the work.
To reel.deal; compare the intense burn with super-sonic flow in the U-tube rocket with typical Apollo-11-blow-torch rockets. I don't like the Apollo-11 rockets, and I think the video is a fake.
To icarusinbound; For an antenna system, it is the product of the amplification of the two antennas and the distance between them that matters, so you can compensate a small antenna on the moon by using a radio telescope on earth. You don't need to focus the dish antenna perfectly either, so aiming only get moderately difficult. You can use a slide or a nob to move the antenna away from the focus of the dish, so the directivity of the antenna is adjustable.
The wavelength matters. It is difficult to build an antenna much smaller than the wavelength. The typical wire antenna is 1/4 of the wavelength. For moon/dish use, where you don't have a ground plane, you stack two of them together. You can use a coil to shorten the antenna; I have an 11m wavelength antenna that is approx 45 cm or 16% of 1/4 wavelength.
It is completely impossible to build a directive antenna unless the antenna is much larger than the wavelength. That is because of "bending" in the output "aperture", the dish size in our case.
A picture of an antenna tell many things about the radio signal.
The problem of aiming the dish antenna is basically that I don't see an easy way of measuring in which direction the antenna is off, while manual adjustment seams easy and practical. Looping a calibration tone back to moon, so real-time audio can be used to check antenna, during adjustment, seems rather obvious, but is there any record of such a procedure?
Note that, nowadays, you simply use stepper-motors and a microcontroller with a search algorithm to do the work.
To reel.deal; compare the intense burn with super-sonic flow in the U-tube rocket with typical Apollo-11-blow-torch rockets. I don't like the Apollo-11 rockets, and I think the video is a fake.
Re: The Moon Hoax
actually... NA$A - have addressed & resolved the question of the correct Earth scale discrepancy:Kentrailer wrote: (I guess a few people... pointed out the Earth size issue...
It really can't be denied.. any scientist would agree)
umm, er, well... maybe ?!?Earth-Space-space-8071577-2000-1500
dear astronuts, would've looked more convincing if they put the 'Nightfall' Earthterminator line
on the opposite side, y'know... to match the right/left SUN shadows 'ON THE MOON!'
2 SUNS...
again.
...maybe not !!!
-
- Member
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
Tufa, thanks for this, but I'm fully tuned-in to the general (and many of the specifics) that should have been happening for the communications to operate conventionally within the Official Story. My point is that I'm intrigued as to whether there were any photographs taken that show a high-gain mesh dish pointing in *entirely* the wrong direction, when according to the script/story it should have been pointing at least approximately towards the earth (particularly on the Lunar Rover for A16+ A17, where I believe I've seen some pictures that show the dish furled-up *after* a sequence of shots when it's been fully deployed).Tufa wrote: To icarusinbound; For an antenna system, it is the product of the amplification of the two antennas and the distance between them that matters, so you can compensate a small antenna on the moon by using a radio telescope on earth. You don't need to focus the dish antenna perfectly either, so aiming only get moderately difficult. You can use a slide or a nob to move the antenna away from the focus of the dish, so the directivity of the antenna is adjustable.
I believe such photographic evidence would represent either a silently-pointing finger of disapproval pointing down the decades (that is, a deliberate subtle technical discrepancy left in place by dissenters) OR sheer random sloppiness OR a deliberate overt technical dicrepancy left in place by the perpetrators as a joint enterprise (I guess these possibilities range from most likely down to least likely...what is your personal opinion on this whistleblower-versus-incompetence paradigm? I can't understand the 'Percy' reference in this respect)
An interesting admission. If you also possess antennas cut for wavelengths other than 11m, we may have had elements in common in our respective pasts . And if that is the case, I may ask you for some technical second opinion that's emerging as a need from parts of my research.Tufa wrote: I have an 11m wavelength antenna
Precisely, I wonder if there are there any documented procedures?? I have seen some two-sided written transcripts from the 'missions' somewhere on the web, and I take it these exist within the NASA public files. Again, if it doesn't happen at all, it tends to be yet-another nail in the lunar coffin of Apollo.Tufa wrote:Looping a calibration tone back to moon, so real-time audio can be used to check antenna, during adjustment, seems rather obvious, but is there any record of such a procedure?
Do you, yourself, actually attempt EME experimental communications? You certainly appear very familiar with the applied concepts.Tufa wrote:Note that, nowadays, you simply use stepper-motors and a microcontroller with a search algorithm to do the work.
This is amazing, reel!! Very good point! What's the source of this planetary-grade trick-pic? Is it actually an official AS-series back in the 70s, or a latter-day genetic modification ?reel deal wrote:dear astronuts, would've looked more convincing if they put the 'Nightfall' Earthterminator line
on the opposite side, y'know... to match the right/left SUN shadows 'ON THE MOON!'
2 SUNS...
again.