The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

[juan]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:45:15 -0500
"David I. Emery" <die at dieconsulting.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500
> > 	Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier.
> > 	Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar
> > 	resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes,
> > you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my
> > 	knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more
> > 	information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big
> > object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and
> > without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
> 
> 	It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite
> certifiably insane...

	So there's no reason to pay attention to what you say? =) 

	
> 
> 	Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals
> from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler
> for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for
> osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a
> direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface


	I know my command of the english language is far from perfect,
	so maybe that's why you misunderstood what I said. 
	
	I'm asking if the moon *landing* was tracked using radar
	'illuminating' the target from the earth. 
	
	I realize that signals *directly* transmitted by transmitters
	on an object can be used to track the object, but that isn't
	strictly speaking radar is it? 

	I also can ask : when relying only on triangulation and doppler
	measurements, what kind of *resolution* do you get? How can you
	tell if the object actually landed on the moon? 

 

> (which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as
> the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video)
> due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the
> random reflecting points.
> 
> 	And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the
> angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground
> antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those
> predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective
> moon 

	Like I said, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the signals
	received on earth were somehow all just reflections from the
	moon. That would be absurd. 


>- which eventually was not even close to being inside the
> beamwidth of the antennas used.
> 
> 	To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in
> multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy
> spacecraft  to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.


	Again, you don't seem to be following what I'm saying. I
	didn't mean that the whole thing was fake. 



> 
> 	And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow
> radio signals from these missions, 

	That's historical data. It isn't 'obvious' to me at
	all. Your hams may have had first hand access to the evidence
	bu the direct evidence isn't available today. At best there is
	some kind of record of it.


> but so did various professional
> intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with
> substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks
> (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very
> well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
> 
>