Author Topic: I have a hoax theory that's near impossible to disprove  (Read 924 times)

Offline Everett

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: I have a hoax theory that's near impossible to disprove
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2017, 05:06:21 PM »
Both NASA and the Soviet Union discovered an additional, far more dangerous Van Allen belt say, 60,000 miles away from earth, in the mid-60's. [/size]

Why would there be a more dangerous radiation belt further out? That would be my first question.

Because if the real Van Allen belts were more dangerous, it couldn't be kept secret, and if it didn't exist, then there's no reason not to actually go to the moon! ;D

Offline Northern Lurker

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 49
Re: I have a hoax theory that's near impossible to disprove
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2017, 05:50:47 PM »
PS. Effortlessy reading posts and other texts in English gives me illusions of adequacy which shatter quickly when I have to produce a text in English. I know what I want to say in Finnish but due the lack of good grasp of grammar and limited vocabulary I just can't express my self as well as I would like to. Dictionaries help only with vocabulary...

For what it's worth, I didn't realize English wasn't your first language.  Your English is considerably better than that of an Australian university student in my film group, whom I'm considering blocking soon.  Her posts are hard to read and almost never worth it anyway.  Yours are well-written and interesting.

I thank you for your kind words *blushes*  :)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1337
Re: I have a hoax theory that's near impossible to disprove
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2017, 05:50:54 PM »
Because if the real Van Allen belts were more dangerous, it couldn't be kept secret, and if it didn't exist, then there's no reason not to actually go to the moon! ;D

Sure, but why would belts further out be more dangerous than the ones that are closer? There's some physics getting in the way of them being more dangerous - look up the term gyroradius. They can be as secret as they like, but like most conspiracy ideas, it is bare assertion that does not account for well understood science/engineering.

The very premise that they are more dangerous needs to stand up to the laws of physics in this case. This premise will not, I can assure you of that point.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 05:55:23 PM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: I have a hoax theory that's near impossible to disprove
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2017, 12:42:26 AM »
and on at least one occasion, they monitored the EVA suit radios on the surface of the moon from their ham shacks on earth confirmed by the fact that their directional antennas were pointed at the moon and had to be readjusted to compensate for the rotation of the Earth.

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/august2012/apollo_11_heard_by_ham_radio_operator.htm

I've written about this guy (Larry Baysinger) several times; you might find it in the archives.

Not only did he receive Neil Armstrong's backpack transmitter directly from the moon, his recording exhibits exactly those features that someone knowledgeable about radio modulation and propagation would expect to hear. The signal strength, for example, varies slowly from quite readable to unreadable. This is exactly what you'd expect given that the moon was just setting at Baysinger's location in Kentucky, and the moon is passing through "Fresnel zones" as it sets. His antenna picks up not only the direct path from the moon but also a reflected signal off the ground, and the relative lengths of these paths changes as the moon sets. At times the two components add in phase and the signal is enhanced; at other times they are out of phase and cancel, so the signal fades.

This phenomenon is will known to ham "moonbouncers" who sometimes use it to make contacts they otherwise wouldn't be able to make because their antennas are too small and/or they're not using enough power. They use very short transmissions that can complete during an enhancement peak.

Armstrong's transmitter used AM (same as aeronautical radio) on a high VHF frequency. It was intended only to reach the LM for relay to earth by S-band. Had Baysinger tried to receive the LM's S-band signal (the one intended to reach earth) he actually would have failed because it was transmitting wideband FM to carry video. This is an all-or-nothing proposition that required very large dishes (64 meters at Goldstone, California and Parkes, Australia). He heard both Armstrong and Aldrin because Armstrong's radio relayed Aldrin's voice, which was FM on a separate VHF frequency; had Baysinger listened for that, he probably also would have failed. He did not hear Capcom, as expected.

And the signal faded out completely during the EVA as the moon set in Kentucky, and Baysinger went into the house to watch the rest of it on TV.

Other hams did receive voice from later missions' CSMs in lunar orbit while it was transmitting PM (narrowband phase modulation), which is much easier to receive with small antennas.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 12:45:53 AM by ka9q »