[New] Soviets Unable to Blow Whistle on Apollo Hoax?

Originally posted by Disclosure Agent
Makes sense really with Australia bieng the home of the worlds largest tracing / communications facility at Pine Gap.....

You of course ignore the fact that Pine Gap was not operational until 1970, 1 year after Apollo 11

But moon hoax conspiracy theorists ignore all the facts!

Also the newspaper article only states that the UK was tracking the Soviet moon mission, not that the Soviets were not tracking the mission.

Also amateurs can use frequencies All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]:

2300-2310 MHz
2390-2450 MHz
3300-3500 MHz
5650-5925 MHz
etc etc

So amateurs can use 2Ghz

From "Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration":

The moon programme required a tracking network. To follow Sputnik, a government resolution had been issued on 3rd September 1956. By the time of Sputnik, about 13 had been constructed, the principal ones being in Kolpashevo, Tbilisi, Ulan Ude, Ussurisk and Petropavlovsk, supplemented by visual observatories in the Crimea, Caucasus and Leningrad.

For the moon programme, systems were required to follow spacecraft over half a million kilometers away. For this, a new ground station was constructed and it was declared operational on 23rd September 1958, just in time for the first Soviet lunar probe. Yevgeni Boguslavsky, deputy chief designer of the Scientific Research Institute of Radio Institute Building, NII-885, was responsible for setting up the ground station. It was located in Semeiz, at Kotchka Mountain in in the Crimea close to the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory of the Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. His choice of the Crimea was a fateful one, for all of the main Soviet observing stations came to be based around there, including the more substantial subsequent interplanetary communications network... A backup station was also built in Kamchatka on the Pacific coast [at Yelizovo].

Encyclopedia Astronautica also has details of the Soviet Space Tracking Systems.

Information on Soviet tracking of the Luna 1 & 2 missions are on this page.

Soviet reception of the Luna-3 images of the far side of the Moon are on this page.

The Soviet Union clearly had the ability to track lunar spacecraft and to receive images at lunar distances long before the first lunar probe landing.

Originally posted by dereks
Also amateurs can use frequencies All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]:

2300-2310 MHz
2390-2450 MHz
3300-3500 MHz
5650-5925 MHz
etc etc

So amateurs can use 2Ghz

None of these frequencies belong to the unified S-Band used by Apollo for communications. Also, the ground stations for the Apollo comms did require 30-foot antennas.

history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Exuberant1
I don't have any reason to believe that the Soviets could not receive the Apollo signals also.

Here you are allowed to believe in anything, for example in Iron Sky:


or that Ann Chapman supplied NASA with russian intercepts of the Apollo.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
But due to the Soviet's dependence on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes, this may not have been a wise thing for them to do as they would lose access to our technology; which they required for their own lunar missions.

The Russians will soon have us over a barrel, as when we retire the Shuttle fleet (I think only 2 flights left), we will be relying on them and the Soyuz for trips to the ISS.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I have been saying this all along: Americans faked the moon landings by transmitting the signals from Earth to the Moon, and then the Earth received those signals thinking that they originated from the Moon.

Sound from Houston was received instantly from the Earth-based station that the simulation took place. Then the station transmitted the reply to the moon, and then the reply was transmitted to Earth. The total time between the faked transmissions would be exactly the same time as if there was someone on the moon to reply.

reply to post by mjgoogs


Neither the Russians nor anyone else will tell you that we don't have the technology to go there. It's not good for business.

What would have been gained by the Russians by such a move? nothing. The world would not believe them. They would make fools of themselves, and they would have missed the chance to exploit the situation in their favor (faking a Mars mission, for example).

Originally posted by masterp
Sound from Houston was received instantly from the Earth-based station that the simulation took place. Then the station transmitted the reply to the moon, and then the reply was transmitted to Earth. The total time between the faked transmissions would be exactly the same time as if there was someone on the moon to reply.

No, the reply in your scenario would have taken twice as long as it should have.

A "real" reply would only need to go from the Moon to Earth (a one way trip). The reply in your scenario needs to go from the Earth to the Moon then back to earth (a two way trip).

However, it is pointless to argue about ways it "could have" been faked. Of course things "could have" been done, but that is not evidence that they "were" done.



[edit on 8/13/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Here's the rest of the article:

www.time.com...

In the early days of the space race, the Jodrell Bank observatory had the best steerable radio telescope available outside Russia, in a location that permitted tracking Soviet satellites. As a result, Lovell established a reputation as the Western world's foremost interpreter of Soviet space exploits—a reputation that he has maintained by using the skillful public-relations techniques demonstrated at Jodrell Bank last week.

I think this thread should be placed in the hoax bin since the OP's source article itself mentions Russia's radio telescopes.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


No, you don't get it:

1) time between Houston transmission and Station "Sim" reception : 0 seconds.
2) time between Station "Sim" transmission and moon reception : 2.56 seconds.
3) time between moon transmission and Houston reception : 2.56 seconds.

Total time between Houston transmission and Houston reception: 5.12 seconds, which is exactly the time it would take for Houston to get a reply from the moon if the astronauts were really there.

In your analysis, you forget the time it takes from the Earth to the moon.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by masterp]

Originally posted by bokonon2010

None of these frequencies belong to the unified S-Band used by Apollo for communications. Also, the ground stations for the Apollo comms did require 30-foot antennas.

It shows that amateurs were able to build and operate on those frequencies, and 30foot antennas were also able to be built by amateurs

Originally posted by bokonon2010
None of these frequencies belong to the unified S-Band used by Apollo for communications. Also, the ground stations for the Apollo comms did require 30-foot antennas.

Good thing some amateurs managed to monitor the S-Band communications using a 9 meter dish:
www.svengrahn.pp.se...
Larry Baysinger was able to listen in to the VHF transmissions directly from the astronaut's PLSS antennas.
legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...
The PLSS transmitted at 259.7 MHz at 500mW, this is what Baysinger was tuning in to, and indeed if you run the numbers this is consistent with the level of quality he received (which wasn't much, but it did work).

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
None of these frequencies belong to the unified S-Band used by Apollo for communications. Also, the ground stations for the Apollo comms did require 30-foot antennas.

Good thing some amateurs managed to monitor the S-Band communications using a 9 meter dish:
www.svengrahn.pp.se...

Correct URL for these S-band comms:
www.svengrahn.pp.se...

Sven Grahn is reputable amateur; he and his team were not able to record any voice or tv signal from the surface of the Moon.

Anyway, the topic is about the notion that the Russians were able and tracked the Apollo all the way. As it has turned out, it is just another fairy tale.
There are no records of these purported intercepts. To the contrary, both military and astronomers of USSR said that such observations of the Apollo did not happen:
manonmoon.ru...

[edit on 13.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Sven Grahn is reputable amateur; he and his team were not able to record any voice or tv signal from the surface of the Moon.

They did receive telemetry and data from the LM, however. From your link (which is just part of the same page I linked to):

The next day the lunar module landed on the Moon and at 1518 local time we picked up main carrier and telemetry from the surface of the moon some 80 minutes after touchdown.

Your selective goalpost is irrelevant. He confirmed both the LM on the surface and the CM in orbit of the moon.

Your insinuation that Larry is not reputable and is somehow lying does not have a rational basis in reality.

Anyway, the topic is about the notion that the Russians were able and tracked the Apollo all the way.

Wouldn't matter if they did or didn't as amateurs all over the world did so themselves. The russians did pick up the signals from Apollo at the moon, however.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by masterp


It depends on what "recording" of the mission you are talking about. if the conversation was recorded in Houston, then we would hear:

-- the astronaut on the recording (it would have been 2.5 seconds after the astronaut spoke, but that doesn't matter to the recording being made on Earth)
-- then Houston could respond immediately
-- then the astronaut follow-up would be 5 seconds later
-- but Houston can (again) reply immediately.

THAT's the way it would sound on a tape recorded at Mission Control in Houston.

Also, there were many, many instances of the astronauts "talking over" Houston because of the lag. In your scenario, there would be no cause for this "talking over each other".



[edit on 8/13/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by masterp

In your analysis, you forget the time it takes from the Earth to the moon.

No, you did.

1. Question from Capcom.
2. 2.56 second pause to simulate transmission to Moon.
3. Reply from astronaut.
4. 2.56 seconds to transmit reply to Moon.
5. 2.56 seconds for reply to return from Moon.
6. Reply from Capcom.
7. 2.56 second pause to simulate transmission to Moon, etc.

Total time between transmission of simulated broadcast and reception: 7.68 seconds, with a potentially widening gap.

"Larry Baysinger W4EJA accomplished an amazing feat...as the rest of the country – and the world – watched this historic event on television, Larry was receiving their communications directly, independently of NASA or the media networks." -- Source: www.ae5x.com...

"Baysinger’s lunar eavesdropping is an independent verification that men were on the moon, by a local person who is not part of the scientific establishment."
-- Source: legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu...

Recordings located at the above site.

Any reasonable person with even a smidgen of intellectual honesty, would look at the evidence provided and could only come to one logical conclusion -- Men have been to the Moon. If you wish to believe in a fantasy, that is your right.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Here's the rest of the article:
www.time.com...

In the early days of the space race, the Jodrell Bank observatory had the best steerable radio telescope available outside Russia, in a location that permitted tracking Soviet satellites. As a result, Lovell established a reputation as the Western world's foremost interpreter of Soviet space exploits—a reputation that he has maintained by using the skillful public-relations techniques demonstrated at Jodrell Bank last week.

I think this thread should be placed in the hoax bin since the OP's source article itself mentions Russia's radio telescopes.

Chadwickus.....

Based on precedent, the op has shown strong skills at collating facts in order to support his points of discussion & debate.

Therefore, it appears to be very unlikely the op unintentionally omitted such key facts in this instance.

Therefore, one must ponder if the op has intentionally omitted such key facts in order to support his own argument.

Logically, that leads to your aforementioned “hoax” conclusion.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Exuberant1


I think it's incredibly important to point out the inanity of this thread's premise.

(yes, "inanity" --- unfortunately there IS a pattern, a history with certain ATS members in this regard....it is vexing, and puzzling, for it seems their postings are inconsistent, as to apparent "beliefs", when viewed in the aggregate. These sorts of behaviors point to either a 'change of heart' situation, or a deliberate and orchestrated method of "pranking" --- seemingly a source of amusement for some people??).

However, in light of the raging discussion, and apparently unending FURTHER disinfo and inanity regarding an individual from off the ATS boards (at least, so far as we "know"), this little statement should be pointed out as completely without merit:

*Here is are a couple of videos by the acclaimed Apollo researcher J. White...

That person, "J. White"?? No...he is NOT, I repeat NOT "acclaimed".

Nor would the description "researcher" be correct, either....this needs to be made very clear so people won't be misled.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
yes, "inanity" --- unfortunately there IS a pattern, a history with certain ATS members in this regard....it is vexing, and puzzling, for it seems their postings are inconsistent, as to apparent "beliefs", when viewed in the aggregate. These sorts of behaviors point to either a 'change of heart' situation, or a deliberate and orchestrated method of "pranking" --- seemingly a source of amusement for some people??

Yes, it is when the Apollo hoaxers continue with the bogus claims like that:

Originally posted by ngchunter
The russians did pick up the signals from Apollo at the moon, however.

while failing at the facts and the debunks presented.