Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
A hoax theory...
Ishkabibble:
Maybe it's really only interesting from the mental gymnastics and the realistic-sounding terminology. It references Jarrah and Percy. I'd be interested in seeing the forum members dissect it, and what the factual, non-misrepresented information is.
Call it an intellectual exercise.
Here it is:
Q: Weren’t there independent parties tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back?
A: No. There are some known Ham radio operators who attest to having picked up signals from Apollo (Paul Wilson, Richard Knadle, Larry Baysinger, Sven Grahn), but none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar orbit. He openly admits to not tracking it the whole way there and back. Baysinger only received communications from Apollo 11 during the alleged moonwalk, again not the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received signals from a diversity of Apollo missions2, but again only when the crafts were in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received a handful of signals on the alleged flight home. The two were quoted to saying: “The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”
Recently, Jarrah met with CSIRO professor Ray Morris, who as a kid received signals from Apollo 13 – but only during the time they were said to be in earth orbit. In the nineties, David Percy contacted Jodrell Bank Observatory technician Robert Pitchard. He stated that they too only tracked Apollo when it was close to the moon, not the trip there and back: “The Moon probes were observed with a 50ft radio telescope which at the frequency used (2300MHz) had a beam width of 5/8ths degrees In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up signals from up to about 1,000 miles above the moon’s surface, although small corrections had to be made to pointing as the probes orbited the Moon.
Voice signals (of good quality) were received from both the orbiting spacecraft and the Lunar Lander but television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. As we were not actively involved in the tracking of these spacecraft, we did not track them after they had left the Moon. And with regard to Apollo 10, I have no details of any observations, after all this time – the reason escapes me.” And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets).
Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. This is clear evidence that NASA selected those frequencies so that no one could prove they were faking the whole thing. Only at the last minute in November 1968 did they manage to equip their TNA-400 facility in Crimea with suitable receiving equipment. And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, the Soviets were limited to listening to it during the time Apollo 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly in lunar orbit.
This is something I have only read about on a limited basis, and is way beyond my academic field. Let me state clearly, and for the record, anything that references Jarrah or Percy is automatically viewed by me as total bollocks.
darren r:
--- Quote from: Ishkabibble on October 10, 2015, 01:49:21 AM ---
none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar orbit.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Ishkabibble on October 10, 2015, 01:49:21 AM ---
television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft on the surface of the Moon.
--- End quote ---
So various spacecraft were independently tracked in Earth orbit, then in Lunar orbit, and TV signals were picked up from the Moon's surface. Hard to see how this is an argument against the reality of Apollo!
Allan F:
Of course ham operators didn't track the spacecraft all the way. As the Earth turns, they lost line-of-sight. Only with a world-wide tracking net could the spacecraft be tracked. This is just a bad argument against amateur tracking.
gwiz:
Certainly untrue about Russian capability. They tracked their own lunar missions and they tracked Apollo. NASA announced the Apollo frequencies to the world well in advance of the missions.
JayUtah:
I agree that Jarrah and Percy are not good sources. Neither one has a reputation for reliably and accurately reporting their sources, or of asking pertinent sources. Neither understands the relevant sciences.
One salient technical omission is that the VHF reception during the Moon walks was still directional. The signals were still coming unmistakably from the direction of the Moon. Another important aspect is that these were signals called for in the mission plan but not intended to be picked up from Earth. These were the low-power radios used by the astronauts to communicate with each other and with the LM while nearby. If you're faking a Moon mission, why would you fake signals that no one is expected to eavesdrop upon?
Don't be too hasty to declare this outside your field. Yes, the technical details require expertise -- which, incidentally, are to be had neither by White nor Percy. But in your field people need to discuss in particular what makes a reasonable standard of proof amid a sporadic (and sometimes nearly barren) landscape of evidence. The insidious error in the snippet you've quoted is the hidden assumption that tracking would need to be continuous from a single station in order to be probative. That suggested standard of proof is physically impossible (or absurdly impractical, let's say). Because the Earth turns, no one Earth-based system can do it. At best you'd have overlapping periods of, well, periodic coverage. That limitation informs what we might consider reasonable proof.
NASA created the Manned Space Flight Network to aggregate discrete monitoring stations into the best coverage it could manage. But still made from discrete elements. Because others' ad hoc efforts do not fly under a single banner, the author here has examined each element in isolation. And the examination cherry-picks simply the portions of the overall proof-by-tracking problem that aren't met by that individual. That method sidesteps the persuasive consilience created by having different people work in different ways and operate at different times in order to test the claim broadly and unusually, if not continuously.
This approach smacks of that class of fallacies that work on the composition and division of elements, laying expectations proper to the whole at the feet of some improper part, or vice versa. And the body of reason from which that class is drawn forms the abstract bedrock of every intellectual activity humankind pursues. The satisfaction of debunking comes in part from knowing the details in evidence, but in larger part from seeing what error of reason or interpretation led to a belief. That can't be learned from narrowed study, nor does such insight live in only one place in our body of wisdom. That's why this debate, and others, attracts generalists or specialists in other area. The appeal runs deep.
While a full rebuttal necessarily involves technical detail, a persuasive and meaningful rebuttal looks at basic questions such as, "What is this person trying to prove? Are his expectations reasonable? Are his methods fair?"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version