|
Post by BertL on Jan 31, 2008 16:00:29 GMT -4
I just wish I had saved his "Polar Orbit" post. It would make a prime exhibit in a Hoax Believer Hall Of Shame. If all else fails, try Archive.org's Wayback Machine. Or you might be able to sign up on the Brickfilms.com forums, and request access to the Lively Discussion forum where he made some interesting posts.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 31, 2008 22:32:24 GMT -4
To start with, it's argued by the pro-NASA side that to stay in Earth orbit, a spacecraft must travel faster than 17000mph; I understand Apollo 10 set the record for travelling 24000mph. Considering this information, the circumference of the Earth is 25000 miles: this makes it easy for us to divide how much of this circumference is facing the sun and how much is in darkness: 12,500 miles each. This means travelling at 24000mph, making a full orbit, a spacecraft will zip across the darkened side of the Earth once every hour, travelling at that speed an Apollo craft would have covered more than three quarters of the darkened side in thirty minutes.
One of Jarrah's contributions at the same loosechange thread...'nuf said...
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 1, 2008 4:44:23 GMT -4
I see I am new at this. Sorry if its ground already covered. Interesting though. Especially the diagram over the page. First came across the idea in a conversation down the pub when someone was proposing the orbiting sats business. I asked how that would work and the chap responded with "I don't know, its NASA, they can do anything" to which I said "they could put a man on the moon then?" Answered with a lot of "yeah but no but yeah but no er, whose round is it?"
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Feb 1, 2008 13:51:20 GMT -4
Jarrah postulated that low frequency radio waves could be used to secretly hoax lunar communications because they would bounce off the ionosphere and not penetrate it. Guess what? Scientists Detect Lowest Frequency Radar Echo From the Moonwww.nrl.navy.mil/pressRelease.php?Y=2008&R=4-08rIn this experiment, Air Force and civilian researchers use low frequency radio waves to send a signal from Alaska, bounce it off the Moon, and receive the echo in New Mexico. What caught my attention was that the ground receiver picked up both the ionospheric bounce and the Lunar echo on the same low frequency: If Jarrah contends that LF radio waves could be used to secretly bounce signals off the Moon because they can't penetrate the ionosphere, I think that that one can be put to rest once and for all. Thanks, Waspie, for your original post of this press release on the UM Science/Space board.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 1, 2008 13:57:34 GMT -4
And it really doesn't answer how other people (i.e., amateurs) were able to pick up conversations from the direction of the Moon in the S-band (ca. 2 GHz). It doesn't really matter what can be done with a frequency completely different from the one people picked up.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 1, 2008 17:20:36 GMT -4
I see I am new at this. Sorry if its ground already covered. Absolutely no need for apologies. Once, we were all "new" at this... Fact is I still consider myself "new" at this...
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 2, 2008 5:45:53 GMT -4
Dunno if this has anything to do with Jarrah's postulation, but... Manawatu Daily Times, Tuesday 9 June 1959, page 3 Message bounced off moon [/b] Prince Albert (Saskatchewan), June 7[/center] The Canadian Prime Minister, Mr John Diefenbaker, heard a voice message yesterday from President Eisenhower that had bounced off the moon, and sent a reply the same way. Greetings were exchanged at the opening at Prince Albert of the new Canadian Government radar laboratory for joint United States-Canadian research in defence against inter-continental ballistic missiles. The message from President Eisenhower was transmitted from 1700 miles away but it travelled about 250,000 miles to the moon and back another 250,000 miles in 2.7 seconds.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Feb 2, 2008 20:43:38 GMT -4
Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but would it have been possible for NASA to transmit these radio signals privately, in a way amateurs or anybody else could not access? Are there radio frequencies for instance that are used exclusively by government agencies and are off-limits to civilians or are too high or low for most commercial receivers to receive? I ask because if such a thing is possible, wouldn't it be much easier for NASA to have told everybody these transmissions had to be made privately for security reasons and avoided the whole issue if they were going to fake the landing?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Feb 2, 2008 23:49:53 GMT -4
There are frequencies that are frequently used only by the military but there is no way of keeping others from using them as well. They could encrypt the transmissions but what would be the point? They had nothing to hide so they didn't. All encryptions can be broken eventually anyway.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2008 1:28:27 GMT -4
The real danger is the uplink frequency. If you have many spacecraft deployed by many nations, there is the danger they'll be near enough in the angular aspect to pick up each others' command channels unless the frequences are deconflicted. That's why spacefaring nations publish the uplink frequences of their spacecraft. Other spacefaring nations will then know not to accidentally step on someone else's uplink.
The law forbids you to transmit on certain frequencies, but no law prevents anyone from listening on any frequency.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 3, 2008 7:06:21 GMT -4
Also I would have thought the downlink frequencies would be the giveaway. People with the right kit can at least look even if they are encrypted. At this time there are quite a few people who scan the skies so to speak sniffing the ether. They do it for a hobby and results are published at least for geostationary sats. In the days of analogue it was so obvious as the bandwidth required could be huge compared to todays digital transmissions which can be a tad harder to sniff out.
Encryption methods are interesting but if you were going to get serious then you would have problems decoding on the fly but that does not prevent you from seeing stuff unless you get into compression and burst transmissions, something I only have an inkling about.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 3, 2008 7:13:26 GMT -4
Also I would have thought the downlink frequencies would be the giveaway. People with the right kit can at least look even if they are encrypted. At this time there are quite a few people who scan the skies so to speak sniffing the ether. They do it for a hobby and results are published at least for geostationary sats. Here's a page of links from a guy who tracks lots of satellites, including military. He also heard Apollo 17 transmitting from the moon. www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 3, 2008 7:24:28 GMT -4
Also I would have thought the downlink frequencies would be the giveaway. People with the right kit can at least look even if they are encrypted. At this time there are quite a few people who scan the skies so to speak sniffing the ether. They do it for a hobby and results are published at least for geostationary sats. Here's a page of links from a guy who tracks lots of satellites, including military. He also heard Apollo 17 transmitting from the moon. www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htmInteresting. I have not come across that before. I tend to pay attention to the sites that aid me in my job. Believe it or not its handy to have recent accounts of what is on what satellite when you are working unfamiliar positions.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Feb 5, 2008 1:46:41 GMT -4
I was asked about this rescently, and while I have my own thoerys, I would like your advise on this picture and the claims therein. can you help? It seemed best to put in here because, ol' Ted is doing the analysis rense.com/general80/smoking.htm
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 5, 2008 2:16:16 GMT -4
It's such a good place to put it that it's already been covered. Start reading this thread on page 4.
|
|