03 Jun 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhSo show us this comm fakery then.
Damn!
You're good!
Any transmission which took less than 1.23 seconds to hear proves the distance could not be over 230,000 miles away.
Oops.
They done effed up, huh.
We only need ONE such transmission to claim something is amiss, but there are hundreds of such exchanges.
Explain that one, um, those anomalies, expert.
They could not have possibly edited out the delay, could they, technically impossible, right?
The thing that kills this rather pathetic attempt to prove fakery is the time stamp of the transmissions, they show 2 and a half odd seconds between talk and answer.
But that was faked too, right?
You really need to watch better cartoons in your desperate attempt to further your treasonous behavior as regards the moon landings.
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhOf course, since you know NOTHING about how the transmissions were edited for media consumption.
No.
03 Jun 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhAh, so you KNOW all about media editing then. So tell me why the time stamps are faked. You are pathetic, weak minded, believing every stupid conspiracy theory that comes out. If it is on Facebook or some such it HAS to be true, and you fall for every one like the pyramids HAVE to be energy generators. Jesus, you are naive.
Ha!
Keep with it, old timer.
Carry that ship with you to your grave--- where such idiocy belongs.
You live in a way different mental universe than 99.99999 % of humanity. Of course that makes ME the assshole.
I'm sorry I wasted my breath talking about the reality of space communications, it was a total waste of time explaining it since you were not interested in reality, ONLY in your pathetic conspiracy theories and zero interest in the science behind real space communications.
BTW I was offered a job at Goldstone space tracking network and I foolishly turned them down for stupid reasons.
I know a bit of what I am talking about. But of course in your eyes I am STILL the assshole.
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe real science behind transmission's restrictions proves the moon landings were faked--- or, at minimum, the communication was faked.
Ah, so you KNOW all about media editing then. So tell me why the time stamps are faked. You are pathetic, weak minded, believing every stupid conspiracy theory that comes out. If it is on Facebook or some such it HAS to be true, and you fall for every one like the pyramids HAVE to be energy generators. Jesus, you are naive.
You live in a way different m ...[text shortened]...
I know a bit of what I am talking about. But of course in your eyes I am STILL the assshole.
But you don't like the results of actual science, so change the goalposts.
Or ignore the results.
Whatever it takes to hold onto your silly little fantasy.
Sad.
03 Jun 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhThe sad part is you watching crank video's with ZERO actual personal research into subjects you know nothing about and ONLY about proving the entire scientific world wrong or worse, active fakery. That is your ONLY goal in life, you have ZERO interest in actual science. And you think ME sad.
The real science behind transmission's restrictions proves the moon landings were faked--- or, at minimum, the communication was faked.
But you don't like the results of actual science, so change the goalposts.
Or ignore the results.
Whatever it takes to hold onto your silly little fantasy.
Sad.
What are you going to say when people land on Mars and are communicating with Earth? You think they will fake that also? Even if it Elon Musk who manages to get to Mars first? Or China? Or Russia? Where the time delay is not in seconds but in minutes.
It's funny how it was first only AMERICANS writing assswipe books about fake moon landings.
Russia and China knew full well we landed men on the moon and the Russians were actively in a literal war to try to do it first but their rockets tended to blow up since they never mastered the science behind those smaller multiple rockets, like 27 or so having to work perfectly, which they didn't. They bet on the wrong horse and we won.
But if we had lost and it was Russian writing on the moon craft, who would have called THAT fake?
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseOh, I see.
The sad part is you watching crank video's with ZERO actual personal research into subjects you know nothing about and ONLY about proving the entire scientific world wrong or worse, active fakery. That is your ONLY goal in life, you have ZERO interest in actual science. And you think ME sad.
What are you going to say when people land on Mars and are com ...[text shortened]... ut if we had lost and it was Russian writing on the moon craft, who would have called THAT fake?
So when science shows your fantasy of moon landing is fake, you just move on to other science.
Seems reasonable.
03 Jun 18
3 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat 'other science'. I said when you go to mars the delay will be minutes long not seconds.
Oh, I see.
So when science shows your fantasy of moon landing is fake, you just move on to other science.
Seems reasonable.
What part of that do you not understand? You really need to update your meds.
Priceless, you going 'my fantasy of moon landings are fake', YOU are the one saying moon landings were fake. NOT the Soviets, not the Chinese, not the Brits. JUST AMERICANS. Gee, what does THAT tell you.
Oh yeah I forgot, NASA, China, Russia, Britain, Italy, ALL in on the incredibly vast international conspiracy to keep the duped population from finding out Earth is flat THEREFORE NASA ALWAYS LIES.
Sure, and pigs can fly too. You really need to take this to spiritual since this is clearly your religion, science not needed in your flat Earth religion.
We have gone over this ad nauseam and I am tired of pursuing this idiocy any further. Take your treason elsewhere, you are a troll and nothing else. That is my last word, so keep on adding to this post all you want, I am through with any communications with you unless you show some interest in actual science without an obvious agenda which of course you have none.
I am interested in ALL sciences and the arts like my own music compositions having nothing to do with science.
You have ONE interest, DESTROYING sciences and the people behind them.
You have ZERO interest in actual science since learning that would destroy your religion and you can't have THAT can you.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseSad.
What 'other science'. I said when you go to mars the delay will be minutes long not seconds.
What part of that do you not understand? You really need to update your meds.
Priceless, you going 'my fantasy of moon landings are fake', YOU are the one saying moon landings were fake. NOT the Soviets, not the Chinese, not the Brits. JUST AMERICANS. Gee, ...[text shortened]... actual science since learning that would destroy your religion and you can't have THAT can you.
07 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhThe whole bunch of them are so full of shyte it isn't funny. Why don't YOU take a look at the specs that assswipe shows in his own graph, transmitter gain 60 db, receiver gain TEN db.
[youtube]8ueKXD1Bbd8[/youtube]
Ship is unraveling.
And unraveling.
And unraveling some more, yo.
Dearest sonhouse:
Please start around the 8:00 mark.
No sense getting completely overwhelmed with science in one fell swoop.
That last is rather important.
I can get ten DB gain from a frigging YAGI. You may remember I do know something about this subject, I possess the top amateur radio licence, extra class and was offered a job at goldstone space tracking center and was a trained apollo tech.
They are using radio telescopes with huge apatures and at 10 gigahertz the wavelength is 3 cm, 30 millimeters, call it an inch for grins. Take a look at the big radio telescopes around the world, 80 feet is a rather small one these days.
So look at the numbers, a disc 80 feet in diameter focusing incoming RF.
One inch wavelength with an 80 foot diameter dish will focus more than 70 MILLION such wavelengths on a detector.
So a 10 db antenna focuses 10X the energy, a 20 db antenna focuses 100X the energy. A 60 db antenna focuses 1 MILLION X the energy. and here we have 70 times that, call it an extra 15 odd db plus 60. Total gain, ~75 DECIBELS gain, not TEN DB like that chart says.
You really need to study electronics more if you plan to snooker us with bullshyte videos done by film makers using total BS tales like 'yeah, my video camera can only transmit an image 200 feet MAX, so how are we supposed to believe in 1969 that camera could have possible transmitted a video signal all the way to Earth.'
It looks to me like HE needs a bit of training in electronics since the signal from the camera goes to the backpack on the spacesuit and from there to the lander which has an antenna with some decent gain and THEN to Earth.
You really need to study these subjects before you shove your foot ever deeper into your widening mouth.
Of course you won't even understand what I just said anyway so go back to your old MO of moving the goalposts once again.
Or you could actually LOOK CLOSELY at the graph your own dude generated and see for yourself the reference to a miserly 10 db gain antenna in the receive end.
But you won't will you? Totally satisfied yet again a crackpot video HAS to be true because, hey, there is the video, and videographers NEVER lie.
And of course you have to deny the excellent video recently received from Pluto, showing details never even imagined, frozen methane dunes and such. There the antenna is maybe a meter across and similar wavelengths and a not very powerful transmitter, maybe 10 watts or so, managing to get that signal clear across the entire frigging solar system to the radio telescopes on Earth.
Also the Voyagers which took the first close up images of the planets 40 odd years ago, still running, still sending signals back from ten BILLION miles out and we are still getting good data about the interface between the solar system and total interstellar space, also something they didn't even imagine could have been possible, yet using the same technology as was available for the Apollo missions.
You live in a sad place mentally.
07 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou totally should put your comments on the video--- sans the usual banal insults, of course--- and see whether or not your take on it is shredded.
The whole bunch of them are so full of shyte it isn't funny. Why don't YOU take a look at the specs that assswipe shows in his own graph, transmitter gain 60 db, receiver gain TEN db.
That last is rather important.
I can get ten DB gain from a frigging YAGI. You may remember I do know something about this subject, I possess the top amateur radio lic ...[text shortened]... e same technology as was available for the Apollo missions.
You live in a sad place mentally.
I literally have no idea whether you're right or the narrator is right.
I suspect he is right, but I also respect your knowledge on the topic, too, so it's a toss-up right now... leaning towards you, believe it or not.
But one way to find out, huh!
07 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhI didn't insult you. I insulted those idiots who thought they could bamboozle people who actually worked in the field. I am one such and there are others far more expert than I ever will be in such matters.
You totally should put your comments on the video--- sans the usual banal insults, of course--- and see whether or not your take on it is shredded.
I literally have no idea whether you're right or the narrator is right.
I suspect he is right, but I also respect your knowledge on the topic, too, so it's a toss-up right now... leaning towards you, believe it or not.
But one way to find out, huh!
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/EME_2010_Hbk.pdf
Here is a paper, actually more like a book, about the history of using the moon as a reflector for moonbounce communications I mentioned earlier.
Obviously highly math oriented and such but it describes the history of professionals who first did it then down to hams like me who also did it, (I don't have the equipment myself)
but look at page 23, there is a chart, several actually, but the first one where it shows the signal loss path for various frequencies, the one closest to the ones NASA used being around 10 gigahertz.
Your dude in his analysis said the path loss was 154 db or so, in reality it is MUCH worse, the chart on that Princeton study shows the actual loss to be 240 odd DB of loss, a full 100 db higher than that dude suggested.
Think about that for a bit. Even with a HUGE path loss, there was moonbounce experiments of actual communications mostly using morse code which is the most efficient way to pass communications, watt for watt, but doing that way before NASA had men on the moon and now a ham with a few thousand to spend can do the same thing and in fact is being done on a regular basis with off the shelf antennas and off the shelf transceivers and that has been going on well before the moon landings.
It just goes that much further to say that guy was totally biased and attempting to hoodwink people knowing nothing about the subject, like Joe the plumber looking at all that and Joe thinking, wow, this guy really knows what he is talking about THEREFORE the moon landings were faked.
In another 20 years or so when people start going back to the moon and they indeed find human footprints and the landing stuff still there, the rover car still there, all this fake bullshyte will be buried in the dustheap of history and all those who tried to pull that crap off will be seen in a MUCH different light.
08 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseOr, conversely, when we have a telescope powerful enough to see minute details of the moon...
I didn't insult you. I insulted those idiots who thought they could bamboozle people who actually worked in the field. I am one such and there are others far more expert than I ever will be in such matters.
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/EME_2010_Hbk.pdf
Here is a paper, actually more like a book, about the history of using the moon as a re ...[text shortened]... of history and all those who tried to pull that crap off will be seen in a MUCH different light.
Makes one wonder why they don't simply train one of the thousands we do have on it!
We have satellites a million miles out, but 250,000 is just too far for us to focus on.
Weird, huh.