The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
zen at freedbms.net
Thu Dec 17 23:25:59 PST 2015
On 12/18/15, 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
> 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 (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
> 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 - 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.
> And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio
> signals from these missions, 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.
Sounds very impressive science - is this documented somewhere, like
some old magazine, so we can get someone to find a copy and scan it in
for the world to see - something with empirical doppler calculations/
verifications for example?
More information about the cypherpunks