On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:50:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> > There are plenty of new mathematical theories being applied for now in RF engineering. Maybe in the future.

> > > You should stop wasting time fantasising and study physics instead. All you've
> > > mentioned so far has been done already and is well understood.

> > Once again, this is an appropriate comment. You should stop patronizing and downplaying people over here,

> No. You make your bed, you sleep in it. I've seen your kind of nonsense here for 20+ years, full
> of offensive idiocies directed at all honest and very hard-working people..

See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at full throttle.
This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn about mistakes I do, and work
to make it better.

I was not insulting to anyone, but you have to come with your attitude "I'm the champion of knowledge" and
if what I read doesn't suit me, the writer is a fucking idiot.

I wonder how much do you base you know-how on googling, as it seems that your opinionated position makes you
a know-it-all. Or are you just a JERK, who is delighted by trolling with things that you fast-learned?
Because, if not, you are a true polymath beyond the heights of Poincaré, Maxwell, Newton or Gauss and the Nobel
Committee HATES YOU and that is the reason for not getting several consecutive Nobel Prizes. Is that the truth?

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> No. You make your bed, you sleep in it. I've seen your kind of nonsense
>> here for 20+ years, full of offensive idiocies directed at all honest
>> and very hard-working people.
>
> See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at full
> throttle.
> This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn
> about mistakes I do, and work to make it better.

he is so stupid, honestly believing in a live TV-transmission from moon's
surface by men, more than half century ago.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> which I recommended to JanPB to read, after he wrote that Maxwell's
> equations were left 100 years behind.
>
> And, by the way, the measurement of CMB was done in maxwellian terms,
> with antennae like those in this book and bolometers like those in this
> book. No photon jargon involved with COBE or WMAP projects.
>
> This can continue, as I dig further.

cut the crap to the essential, fucking stupid. I bet you are one of those
double vaccinated.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:59:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:50:15 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > There are plenty of new mathematical theories being applied for now in RF engineering. Maybe in the future.
>
> > > > You should stop wasting time fantasising and study physics instead. All you've
> > > > mentioned so far has been done already and is well understood.
>
> > > Once again, this is an appropriate comment. You should stop patronizing and downplaying people over here,
>
>
> > No. You make your bed, you sleep in it. I've seen your kind of nonsense here for 20+ years, full
> > of offensive idiocies directed at all honest and very hard-working people.
> See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at full throttle.

No. Look in the mirror first.

--
Jan

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:26:27 PM UTC-7, Wally Oldham wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >> No. You make your bed, you sleep in it. I've seen your kind of nonsense
> >> here for 20+ years, full of offensive idiocies directed at all honest
> >> and very hard-working people.
> >
> > See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at full
> > throttle.
> > This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn
> > about mistakes I do, and work to make it better.
> he is so stupid, honestly believing in a live TV-transmission from moon's
> surface by men, more than half century ago.

It's not a question of belief, it's simply a fact. (Leaving aside the obvious: it's
far, FAR, harder to engineer such a hoax than to actually fly to the Moon and
be done with it. Actually, engineering such a hoax is impossible.)

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> > See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at
>> > full throttle.
>> > This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn
>> > about mistakes I do, and work to make it better.
>> he is so stupid, honestly believing in a live TV-transmission from
>> moon's surface by men, more than half century ago.
>
> It's not a question of belief, it's simply a fact. (Leaving aside the
> obvious: it's far, FAR, harder to engineer such a hoax than to actually
> fly to the Moon and be done with it. Actually, engineering such a hoax
> is impossible.)

cretin, those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of
3 busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.

It appears the Matzek Vozniak is ways more educated than you are, a
doctor in physics when compared to morons like you. What a shame.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 4:51:48 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> I can’t believe you don’t understand the key aspects of the photoelectric effect.
>> I do, very well so far.
>> And also "photo-emission": lamps. LED, sparks, etc.
>>
>> You don't want to accept that such phenomena are closely related.
>
> Bodkin, I have to apologize to you. You're almost right with the
> photoelectric effect because I
> misunderstood why you mentioned it. I, without thinking any further, just
> took it as EXACTLY
> the same topic in the OP of this thread: In my mind,
> you was talking about photon's detection
> in a CCD sensor, and its conversion to an electron stored into the MOS capacitor.
>
> You can mock me at will because, stubbornly, I kept reading PHOTON DETECTION.
>
> I was offline when, all of a sudden, the truth hit me.
>
> You was talking about the 1/2.m.v² = h.f - W Einstein's formula in his
> 1905 paper, which involves
> the ejection of an electron from one atom, being accelerated under a
> potential, which is a completely
> different matter than in my OP here.
>
> Then, I come to the computer to write this apology.
>
> Not using it as an excuse, but still it's unrelated to a single photon
> absorption, causing the electron to be free.
> The time involved in this process is still unknown for a single atom (not
> statistically), and such time was the
> topic under discussion. For me, the photon is absorpted entirely before
> the ejection process start, so it can
> take 1/f = T seconds or more.
>
>
>
>

Thanks for apologizing and thanks also for continuing to demonstrate that
you STILL don’t know what the photoelectric effect is, or what it’s
observed properties were that made it a problem for wave models of light at
the time. Let me know when you’ve decided to pick up a basic book that
outlines those features.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-7, Buck Laramee wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at
> >> > full throttle.
> >> > This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn
> >> > about mistakes I do, and work to make it better.
> >> he is so stupid, honestly believing in a live TV-transmission from
> >> moon's surface by men, more than half century ago.
> >
> > It's not a question of belief, it's simply a fact. (Leaving aside the
> > obvious: it's far, FAR, harder to engineer such a hoax than to actually
> > fly to the Moon and be done with it. Actually, engineering such a hoax
> > is impossible.)
> cretin,

No. We flew to the Moon, get over it.

> those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of
> 3 busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
> Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.

Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have originated from
the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of proof was even needed
for non-schizophrenic adults).

That people can seriously believe in rank lunacy like the "Moon hoax" is almost
frightening. Imagine those people in voting booths or on juries. <shudder>

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of 3
>> busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
>> Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.
>
> Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have originated
> from the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of proof was even
> needed for non-schizophrenic adults).

Idiot. Imbecile. Wanker. Show the paper calculations and dimensioning
required before engaging in this kind of endeavour.

This planet is fucked up in its head. This is what happen when people are
made believe in a fake moon landing. They put covid masks on newborns.

ALL THE VACCINATED HAVE BEEN CHIPPED - WATCH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY TURN
IT ON - SIDE EFFECTS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/MbDlLj3dL9z6/

JanPB wrote:

>> those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of 3
>> busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
>> Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.
>
> Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have originated
> from the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of proof was even
> needed for non-schizophrenic adults).

inbreed wanker, you made me so depressed, I have to ask you this basic
question, just to establish your level compared to Matzek Vozniak, which
appears right now, as a doctor in physics when compared with you.

What is the current through a 10 kOhm resistor connected a 9V battery.
Think before answering because I seen surprisingly many answers in sci.
groups.

I bet you won't answer the simple question, afraid displaying the
uneducated moron you are, to the entire free world.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 3:06:35 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I can’t believe you don’t understand the key aspects of the photoelectric effect.
>
> I do, very well so far.
> And also "photo-emission": lamps. LED, sparks, etc.
>
> You don't want to accept that such phenomena are closely related.
>
>

Not as closely related as you’d like to make them out to be.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/18/2021 2:31 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 7:59:38 AM UTC-7, Buck Laramee wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>>>>> See Jan? Always you end being offensive, rude and also an idiot at
>>>>> full throttle.
>>>>> This is my post and these are my fucking concepts, of which I learn
>>>>> about mistakes I do, and work to make it better.
>>>> he is so stupid, honestly believing in a live TV-transmission from
>>>> moon's surface by men, more than half century ago.
>>>
>>> It's not a question of belief, it's simply a fact. (Leaving aside the
>>> obvious: it's far, FAR, harder to engineer such a hoax than to actually
>>> fly to the Moon and be done with it. Actually, engineering such a hoax
>>> is impossible.)
>> cretin,
>
> No. We flew to the Moon, get over it.
>
>> those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of
>> 3 busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
>> Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.
>
> Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have originated from
> the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of proof was even needed
> for non-schizophrenic adults).

There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic.
That is, rather ordinary people (radio enthusiasts) who were spending
their own money to build/buy radio equipment. Much of the work was
super high gain antennas to point at the moon. They required skill to
make but material costs were rather low. The super sensitive receivers
would be a different story.

Plus the Soviet Union had a huge radio spy base in the Ukraine and they
were listening in. As getting to the moon first was the grand prize of
the space race, if there was ANYTHING phony about the moon landing they
would have figured it out and would have made a LOT of noise about it
being faked.
>
> That people can seriously believe in rank lunacy like the "Moon hoax" is almost
> frightening. Imagine those people in voting booths or on juries. <shudder>
>
What's funny is the cranks make a lot of noise about Apollo 11 being
faked, recordings lost etc. But not a peep about Apollos 12, 14-17
being fake. Or the 10 and 13 orbit/flybys. So maybe they think Apollo
11 was fake but Apollo 12+ were real? And...?

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 11:36:17 AM UTC-7, Buck Laramee wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> those days direct town to town transmission required a minimum of 3
> >> busses or trucks of equipment plus a huge size diesel power generator.
> >> Did you any of those in that fake moon landing.
> >
> > Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have originated
> > from the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of proof was even
> > needed for non-schizophrenic adults).
> Idiot. Imbecile. Wanker. Show the paper calculations and dimensioning
> required before engaging in this kind of endeavour.

This was all done by the Soviets who were, naturally, VERY interested in
finding out about any "funny business". Can you imagine the news on the
first pages of not only "Pravda" but all newspapers around the world if they
found that the signals did not originate from Moon's surface?

That data was kept secret until Gorbachov's tenure when portions of
the secret Soviet archives were made public for the first time. The TV
signals of Apollo 11 originated from the surface of the Moon.

So get over it, knock it off. It's time to retire this little cretinic fantasy.

--
Jan

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:58:55 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic.
> That is, rather ordinary people (radio enthusiasts) who were spending
> their own money to build/buy radio equipment. Much of the work was
> super high gain antennas to point at the moon. They required skill to
> make but material costs were rather low. The super sensitive receivers
> would be a different story.
>
> Plus the Soviet Union had a huge radio spy base in the Ukraine and they
> were listening in. As getting to the moon first was the grand prize of
> the space race, if there was ANYTHING phony about the moon landing they
> would have figured it out and would have made a LOT of noise about it
> being faked.
> >
> > That people can seriously believe in rank lunacy like the "Moon hoax" is almost
> > frightening. Imagine those people in voting booths or on juries. <shudder>
> >
> What's funny is the cranks make a lot of noise about Apollo 11 being
> faked, recordings lost etc. But not a peep about Apollos 12, 14-17
> being fake. Or the 10 and 13 orbit/flybys. So maybe they think Apollo
> 11 was fake but Apollo 12+ were real? And...?

I agree with the capability of ham radio amateurs, since the beginning of radio days in the '20s.
My father and my uncle were such as early as 1935, and built their transceptors and antennae
by themselves. I wasn't a fan of it, by I designed a "state of the art" (for me) 200 Watts multiband
AM/LSB transceptor (Plessey's chips in the IF section, low noise FET and Schottky at the FE, digital
reading for analog & high stable tuning oscillator, 6DQ6 pair for TX, full coverage of ham bands, etc.).

Have a peek at the 1974 ARRL handbook:
https://archive.org/details/arrl-1974-radio-amateur-handbook/page/n5/mode/2up

The ONLY problem is that transistors, diodes, tubes and IC were available only for HF, VHF and UHF bands,
for commercial use. No tech for frequencies higher than 400 Mhz was available until 4 or 5 years, and only
at specialized sites who sold them to ham amateurs (at high cost). Of course, military tech far beyond existed.

At this site, it's told that Apollo used a 2.2 Ghz frequency (S Band), which is reasonable because of less attenuation for
space comm passing through ionosphere. But also, I read that such communications were encoded, making
it impossible for a ham amateur to read them.

(I guess that they used digital 2-DPSK modulation, which allows the best BER of them all)

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/12264/apollo-communication-between-the-earth-and-moon

But this link provides a story of a very good radio ham and astronomer, Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, who was
capable of receive and hear VHF signals transmitted between astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins
and also with President Nixon. He did not attempt to eavesdrop the 2.2 Ghz link.

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

Quotes:

"An unanswered question in this story is whether there were other lunar eavesdropping projects
conducted by Amateur Radio operators."

"Fortunately, his accomplishments were recorded by Glenn Rutherford, a young reporter for the Louisville
(Kentucky) Courier-Journal. “Lunar Eavesdropping: Louisvillians hear moon walk talk on homemade equipment,”
sporting Rutherford’s byline, appeared in the Wednesday, July 23, 1969 issue of that paper — front page of
section B, the local news section (see Figure 1)."

"Sven Grahn and Richard Flagg picked up transmissions from the Apollo 17 command module in orbit around the
Moon using a 30 foot radio telescope dish, but they heard only two recognizable voice transmissions, each
consisting of only a few words."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I take this history with reservations. The web link to "Lunar Eavesdropping In Louisville, Kentucky",
with the original story narrated by Baysinger, is dead (legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/).

Now, the bad news coming from a very serious site (in 2009): The Microwave Journal, and from his current
editor, David Vye.
40 Years Later: Moon Communications Questioned in Blogsphere
https://www.microwavejournal.com/blogs/8-david-vye-mwj-editor/post/262-40-years-later-moon-communications-questioned-in-blogsphere

EXCERPT: "A Modern Automobile has more computing power than the lunar module itself (Google space capsule computing);
so how was it possible to receive in Real Time, Voice, Data & Video from (221,600 miles) and greater than 3GSpeeds
from a distant at perigee and 406,997 kilometers, WITHOUT AMPLICATION - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! This from of
Communication Technology Did not exist in 1969-1974, Even if it did exist, there would have to be an array of Towers
on the Moon and Transponders in the line of the path to receive these signals."

You have to give a credit to this man. His background is "heavy" in the field:

QUOTE: "Prior to joining the Journal, Mr. Vye was a product-marketing manager with Ansoft Corporation,
responsible for high frequency circuit/system design tools and technical marketing communications.
He previously worked for Raytheon Research Division and Advanced Device Center as a Sr. Design Engineer,
responsible for PHEMT, HBT and MESFET characterization and modeling as well as MMIC design and test.
David also worked at M/A-COM's Advanced Semiconductor Operations developing automated test systems
and active device modeling methods for GaAs FETs. He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Massachusetts
at Dartmouth, with a concentration in microwave engineering."

There are psyops, Moroney. Even when the original story didn't gain momentum by then, and traces of the original
source (by Baysinger himself) have been erased on the internet.

So, Moroney, update your 50 years old info about "There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic."
Just ONLY ONE being historically registered by the ARRL in a global survey, and I smell a fish over it.

I agree with Vye on the technical impossibility (1969) to achieve such thing with ham radio.
The numbers on SNR, attenuation, receiver sensitivity over noise threshold, antennae tracking, etc.,
don't fit real possibilities for amateurs (even professionals) in that epoch.

On 8/18/2021 11:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:58:55 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic.
>> That is, rather ordinary people (radio enthusiasts) who were spending
>> their own money to build/buy radio equipment. Much of the work was
>> super high gain antennas to point at the moon. They required skill to
>> make but material costs were rather low. The super sensitive receivers
>> would be a different story.
>>
>> Plus the Soviet Union had a huge radio spy base in the Ukraine and they
>> were listening in. As getting to the moon first was the grand prize of
>> the space race, if there was ANYTHING phony about the moon landing they
>> would have figured it out and would have made a LOT of noise about it
>> being faked.
>>>
>>> That people can seriously believe in rank lunacy like the "Moon hoax" is almost
>>> frightening. Imagine those people in voting booths or on juries. <shudder>
>>>
>> What's funny is the cranks make a lot of noise about Apollo 11 being
>> faked, recordings lost etc. But not a peep about Apollos 12, 14-17
>> being fake. Or the 10 and 13 orbit/flybys. So maybe they think Apollo
>> 11 was fake but Apollo 12+ were real? And...?
>
> I agree with the capability of ham radio amateurs, since the beginning of radio days in the '20s.
> My father and my uncle were such as early as 1935, and built their transceptors and antennae
> by themselves. I wasn't a fan of it, by I designed a "state of the art" (for me) 200 Watts multiband
> AM/LSB transceptor (Plessey's chips in the IF section, low noise FET and Schottky at the FE, digital
> reading for analog & high stable tuning oscillator, 6DQ6 pair for TX, full coverage of ham bands, etc.).
>
> Have a peek at the 1974 ARRL handbook:
> https://archive.org/details/arrl-1974-radio-amateur-handbook/page/n5/mode/2up
>
> The ONLY problem is that transistors, diodes, tubes and IC were available only for HF, VHF and UHF bands,
> for commercial use. No tech for frequencies higher than 400 Mhz was available until 4 or 5 years, and only
> at specialized sites who sold them to ham amateurs (at high cost). Of course, military tech far beyond existed.

Lots of military surplus available, both WW2 and Korea. I myself had a
Korean War surplus transmitter which I retuned for 2 meters.
>
> At this site, it's told that Apollo used a 2.2 Ghz frequency (S Band), which is reasonable because of less attenuation for
> space comm passing through ionosphere. But also, I read that such communications were encoded, making
> it impossible for a ham amateur to read them.

The ARRL story you referenced states Baysinger listened in on a VHF
frequency (actual frequency not given) between the astronauts but did
not attempt to listen in on the S Band signal.

> Actually, I take this history with reservations. The web link to "Lunar Eavesdropping In Louisville, Kentucky",
> with the original story narrated by Baysinger, is dead (legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/).

Lots of link rot. The ARRL article does have images from the news
article. Unfortunately the image of the newspaper text itself is partial.
>
> Now, the bad news coming from a very serious site (in 2009): The Microwave Journal, and from his current
> editor, David Vye.
>
> 40 Years Later: Moon Communications Questioned in Blogsphere
> https://www.microwavejournal.com/blogs/8-david-vye-mwj-editor/post/262-40-years-later-moon-communications-questioned-in-blogsphere
>
> EXCERPT: "A Modern Automobile has more computing power than the lunar module itself (Google space capsule computing);
> so how was it possible to receive in Real Time, Voice, Data & Video from (221,600 miles) and greater than 3GSpeeds
> from a distant at perigee and 406,997 kilometers, WITHOUT AMPLICATION - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

That's a rather bizarre comment. What does computing power or 3G speeds
have anything to do whatsoever with whether one can listen in on Apollo?
Do they think the signal was digital?

> This from of
> Communication Technology Did not exist in 1969-1974,

Umm yeah, the signal was analog. As in old fashioned radio.

> Even if it did exist, there would have to be an array of Towers
> on the Moon and Transponders in the line of the path to receive these signals."

Why? Do you know amateurs regularly bounce signals off the moon and
receive them on earth? As in NO amplification on the moon end? And
transmitted power limited to 1 kW RF? The secret is a very good high
gain antenna.
>
> You have to give a credit to this man. His background is "heavy" in the field:
>
> QUOTE: "Prior to joining the Journal, Mr. Vye was a product-marketing manager with Ansoft Corporation,
> responsible for high frequency circuit/system design tools and technical marketing communications.
> He previously worked for Raytheon Research Division and Advanced Device Center as a Sr. Design Engineer,
> responsible for PHEMT, HBT and MESFET characterization and modeling as well as MMIC design and test.
> David also worked at M/A-COM's Advanced Semiconductor Operations developing automated test systems
> and active device modeling methods for GaAs FETs. He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Massachusetts
> at Dartmouth, with a concentration in microwave engineering."
>
Yet he thinks moon communication was digital ("3G speeds", computing
power of the lunar module) ?

> There are psyops, Moroney. Even when the original story didn't gain momentum by then, and traces of the original
> source (by Baysinger himself) have been erased on the internet.
>
> So, Moroney, update your 50 years old info about "There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic."

Ummm, there hasn't been any moon missions since 50 years ago, so there
are no additional listening in on moon traffic to include.

Not counting anyone listening in on unmanned missions, but that is
nowhere near as interesting, and these days the signals are probably
encrypted anyway.

> Just ONLY ONE being historically registered by the ARRL in a global survey, and I smell a fish over it.

A minimum of 2 from just your references.
>
> I agree with Vye on the technical impossibility (1969) to achieve such thing with ham radio.

Meanwhile, the amateurs doing moonbounce/EME ignore Vye. Good thing
that they don't know what they are doing is impossible! Good thing that
Baysinger didn't know what he was doing was impossible, too!

> The numbers on SNR, attenuation, receiver sensitivity over noise threshold, antennae tracking, etc.,
> don't fit real possibilities for amateurs (even professionals) in that epoch.
>
Yet you gave two references for hams doing just that.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:03:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/18/2021 11:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 8:58:55 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic.
> >> That is, rather ordinary people (radio enthusiasts) who were spending
> >> their own money to build/buy radio equipment. Much of the work was
> >> super high gain antennas to point at the moon. They required skill to
> >> make but material costs were rather low. The super sensitive receivers
> >> would be a different story.
> >>
> >> Plus the Soviet Union had a huge radio spy base in the Ukraine and they
> >> were listening in. As getting to the moon first was the grand prize of
> >> the space race, if there was ANYTHING phony about the moon landing they
> >> would have figured it out and would have made a LOT of noise about it
> >> being faked.
> >>>
> >>> That people can seriously believe in rank lunacy like the "Moon hoax" is almost
> >>> frightening. Imagine those people in voting booths or on juries. <shudder>
> >>>
> >> What's funny is the cranks make a lot of noise about Apollo 11 being
> >> faked, recordings lost etc. But not a peep about Apollos 12, 14-17
> >> being fake. Or the 10 and 13 orbit/flybys. So maybe they think Apollo
> >> 11 was fake but Apollo 12+ were real? And...?
> >
> > I agree with the capability of ham radio amateurs, since the beginning of radio days in the '20s.
> > My father and my uncle were such as early as 1935, and built their transceptors and antennae
> > by themselves. I wasn't a fan of it, by I designed a "state of the art" (for me) 200 Watts multiband
> > AM/LSB transceptor (Plessey's chips in the IF section, low noise FET and Schottky at the FE, digital
> > reading for analog & high stable tuning oscillator, 6DQ6 pair for TX, full coverage of ham bands, etc.).
> >
> > Have a peek at the 1974 ARRL handbook:
> > https://archive.org/details/arrl-1974-radio-amateur-handbook/page/n5/mode/2up
> >
> > The ONLY problem is that transistors, diodes, tubes and IC were available only for HF, VHF and UHF bands,
> > for commercial use. No tech for frequencies higher than 400 Mhz was available until 4 or 5 years, and only
> > at specialized sites who sold them to ham amateurs (at high cost). Of course, military tech far beyond existed.
> Lots of military surplus available, both WW2 and Korea. I myself had a
> Korean War surplus transmitter which I retuned for 2 meters.
> >
> > At this site, it's told that Apollo used a 2.2 Ghz frequency (S Band), which is reasonable because of less attenuation for
> > space comm passing through ionosphere. But also, I read that such communications were encoded, making
> > it impossible for a ham amateur to read them.
> The ARRL story you referenced states Baysinger listened in on a VHF
> frequency (actual frequency not given) between the astronauts but did
> not attempt to listen in on the S Band signal.
> > Actually, I take this history with reservations. The web link to "Lunar Eavesdropping In Louisville, Kentucky",
> > with the original story narrated by Baysinger, is dead (legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/observatory/apollo11/).
> Lots of link rot. The ARRL article does have images from the news
> article. Unfortunately the image of the newspaper text itself is partial.
> >
> > Now, the bad news coming from a very serious site (in 2009): The Microwave Journal, and from his current
> > editor, David Vye.
> >
> > 40 Years Later: Moon Communications Questioned in Blogsphere
> > https://www.microwavejournal.com/blogs/8-david-vye-mwj-editor/post/262-40-years-later-moon-communications-questioned-in-blogsphere
> >
> > EXCERPT: "A Modern Automobile has more computing power than the lunar module itself (Google space capsule computing);
> > so how was it possible to receive in Real Time, Voice, Data & Video from (221,600 miles) and greater than 3GSpeeds
> > from a distant at perigee and 406,997 kilometers, WITHOUT AMPLICATION - IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
> That's a rather bizarre comment. What does computing power or 3G speeds
> have anything to do whatsoever with whether one can listen in on Apollo?
> Do they think the signal was digital?
> > This from of
> > Communication Technology Did not exist in 1969-1974,
> Umm yeah, the signal was analog. As in old fashioned radio.
> > Even if it did exist, there would have to be an array of Towers
> > on the Moon and Transponders in the line of the path to receive these signals."
> Why? Do you know amateurs regularly bounce signals off the moon and
> receive them on earth? As in NO amplification on the moon end? And
> transmitted power limited to 1 kW RF? The secret is a very good high
> gain antenna.
> >
> > You have to give a credit to this man. His background is "heavy" in the field:
> >
> > QUOTE: "Prior to joining the Journal, Mr. Vye was a product-marketing manager with Ansoft Corporation,
> > responsible for high frequency circuit/system design tools and technical marketing communications.
> > He previously worked for Raytheon Research Division and Advanced Device Center as a Sr. Design Engineer,
> > responsible for PHEMT, HBT and MESFET characterization and modeling as well as MMIC design and test.
> > David also worked at M/A-COM's Advanced Semiconductor Operations developing automated test systems
> > and active device modeling methods for GaAs FETs. He is a 1984 graduate of the University of Massachusetts
> > at Dartmouth, with a concentration in microwave engineering."
> >
> Yet he thinks moon communication was digital ("3G speeds", computing
> power of the lunar module) ?
> > There are psyops, Moroney. Even when the original story didn't gain momentum by then, and traces of the original
> > source (by Baysinger himself) have been erased on the internet.
> >
> > So, Moroney, update your 50 years old info about "There were AMATEUR radio operators listening in to the moon traffic."
> Ummm, there hasn't been any moon missions since 50 years ago, so there
> are no additional listening in on moon traffic to include.
>
> Not counting anyone listening in on unmanned missions, but that is
> nowhere near as interesting, and these days the signals are probably
> encrypted anyway.
> > Just ONLY ONE being historically registered by the ARRL in a global survey, and I smell a fish over it.
> A minimum of 2 from just your references.
> >
> > I agree with Vye on the technical impossibility (1969) to achieve such thing with ham radio.
> Meanwhile, the amateurs doing moonbounce/EME ignore Vye. Good thing
> that they don't know what they are doing is impossible! Good thing that
> Baysinger didn't know what he was doing was impossible, too!
> > The numbers on SNR, attenuation, receiver sensitivity over noise threshold, antennae tracking, etc.,
> > don't fit real possibilities for amateurs (even professionals) in that epoch.
> >
> Yet you gave two references for hams doing just that.

Stop twisting words and meaning of phrases. It's not my opinion. I just quote, without changes, from two
different sites.

The guy is trying to be sarcastic and funny. I also didn't like how he explained it.

Also, the two guys that say that I mentioned, worked at two very different bands, four years apart. The
second one used a large parabolic antenna in the microwave band. Totally different approaches.

The use of the Moon as a reflector was popular by late '70s, using UHF bands (as per ITU, between 0.3 to 3 Ghz).
It was cheap by then, and the ARRL encouraged amateurs to try it, with detailed explanations.

This one will make you proud. It starts in 1960 in England. Nice article.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/

On 8/19/2021 1:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:03:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/18/2021 11:29 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

>>>
>>> I agree with Vye on the technical impossibility (1969) to achieve such thing with ham radio.
>> Meanwhile, the amateurs doing moonbounce/EME ignore Vye. Good thing
>> that they don't know what they are doing is impossible! Good thing that
>> Baysinger didn't know what he was doing was impossible, too!
>>> The numbers on SNR, attenuation, receiver sensitivity over noise threshold, antennae tracking, etc.,
>>> don't fit real possibilities for amateurs (even professionals) in that epoch.
>>>
>> Yet you gave two references for hams doing just that.
>
> Stop twisting words and meaning of phrases. It's not my opinion. I just quote, without changes, from two
> different sites.

That you quote it is implicit agreement with it in your opinion unless
pointing out something you disagree with.

I twisted nothing. I pointed out obvious conflicts.
>
> The guy is trying to be sarcastic and funny. I also didn't like how he explained it.

Why quote a bizarre joke like that?

JanPB wrote:

>> > Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have
>> > originated from the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of
>> > proof was even needed for non-schizophrenic adults).
>> Idiot. Imbecile. Wanker. Show the paper calculations and dimensioning
>> required before engaging in this kind of endeavour.
>
> This was all done by the Soviets who were, naturally, VERY interested in
> finding out about any "funny business". Can you imagine the news on the
> first pages of not only "Pravda" but all newspapers around the world if
> they found that the signals did not originate from Moon's surface?

He was talking about calculation, science and physics, and you come up
with 3rd party suppositions and believes. Are you truly this stupid?
Cause it looks like you are faking it, and therefore I can't decide.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>> Op 15-aug.-2021 om 08:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>> My former post was ill conceived.
>>> Yes, and they carefully explained to you what went wrong. So now you
>>> can spout a new batch of crap that, thanks to the new jargon you
>>> picked up there, again will be slightly better disguised.
>>
>> Listen, J.T. Kirk: I don't give a flying fuck about what you and others
>> think about me.
>
> Liar. If you don't give a fuck, you don't reply. [snip unread]

How to Test a Mass Air Flow MAF Sensor - Without a Wiring Diagram
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6eaOd3ihiE

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 7:14:10 PM UTC-7, Uètovaný Wattù wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> > Stop talking nonsense. The TV signals were verified to have
> >> > originated from the Moon's surface, for starters (as if this sort of
> >> > proof was even needed for non-schizophrenic adults).
> >> Idiot. Imbecile. Wanker. Show the paper calculations and dimensioning
> >> required before engaging in this kind of endeavour.
> >
> > This was all done by the Soviets who were, naturally, VERY interested in
> > finding out about any "funny business". Can you imagine the news on the
> > first pages of not only "Pravda" but all newspapers around the world if
> > they found that the signals did not originate from Moon's surface?
> He was talking about calculation, science and physics, and you come up
> with 3rd party suppositions and believes. Are you truly this stupid?
> Cause it looks like you are faking it, and therefore I can't decide.

Just let it go. We went to the Moon, get over it.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

>> He was talking about calculation, science and physics, and you come up
>> with 3rd party suppositions and believes. Are you truly this stupid?
>> Cause it looks like you are faking it, and therefore I can't decide.
>
> Just let it go. We went to the Moon, get over it.

hardly, since you are confused like a LGBTQ+, I don't what happens in
your country. The discussion was merely not about the "wenting", but
rather the equipment and power necessary, the big antennas, orientation,
the *crystal_clear* Earth, 4 times larger than moon seen from earth, 66⁰
above the horizon, nowhere shown in those live pictures.

Speaking the witch, since they allegedly always landed in the Sea of
Tranquility, show the derivation of the angle of the Earth, here the 66⁰.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 2:19:11 PM UTC-3, Brain Deitke wrote:

<snip>

> hardly, since you are confused like a LGBTQ+, I don't what happens in
> your country. The discussion was merely not about the "wenting", but
> rather the equipment and power necessary, the big antennas, orientation,
> the *crystal_clear* Earth, 4 times larger than moon seen from earth, 66⁰
> above the horizon, nowhere shown in those live pictures.
>
> Speaking the witch, since they allegedly always landed in the Sea of
> Tranquility, show the derivation of the angle of the Earth, here the 66⁰.

Did you know that the "live TV transmission from the Moon" was done with very poor resolution and using B&W signal?

- Vertical resolution: 200 lines
- Video bandwidth: 500 Khz (about 90 pixels)
- Equivalent resolution in pixels: 200 x 90 (18,000)
- Color encoder: monochrome

Meanwhile, at USA, NTSC standard was used for aired TV (monochrome 1941 and color since 1954) had:

- Vertical resolution: 525 lines
- Video bandwidth: 4200 Khz on a 6 Mhz channel (video+sound) and about 449 equivalent pixels
- Color encoder: RGB color, compatible with B&W TV receivers
- Equivalent resolution in pixels: 525 x 449 (235,725)

In terms of equivalent pixels, the resolution was 13 times lower than a standard NTSC signal (in B&W).

The microwave link was a DIGITAL signal at 2.2 Ghz, encoded with 2-DPSK modems (Differential Phase Shift Keying),
at a rate of about 500+ Kbps, received and re-broadcasted with state of the art tracking dish antennae (huge ones).

Meanwhile, in that epoch, similar state of the art antennae were capable of detect faintest signals at about 25 Ghz,
originated in the CBR (Cosmic Background Radiation), 13 billion light-years far away. The received power was close
to 4.14.10^-22 Watts or -214 dbm. So, they had the technology for a full live transmission in NTSC, but NASA chose
not to use it.

Consider that a path loss (Moon-Earth) at 2.2 Ghz is about 170 db, there is plenty of room for a signal of about 5 Watts
to be received correctly: 37 dbm - 170 db = -133 dbm at reception.

On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 10:19:11 AM UTC-7, Brain Deitke wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
>
> >> He was talking about calculation, science and physics, and you come up
> >> with 3rd party suppositions and believes. Are you truly this stupid?
> >> Cause it looks like you are faking it, and therefore I can't decide.
> >
> > Just let it go. We went to the Moon, get over it.
> hardly, since you are confused like a LGBTQ+,

Get over it. Knock off this stupidity. Your hobbyhorse has lost.

--
Jan

JanPB wrote:

> On Saturday, August 21, 2021 at 10:19:11 AM UTC-7, Brain Deitke wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>>
>> >> He was talking about calculation, science and physics, and you come
>> >> up with 3rd party suppositions and believes. Are you truly this
>> >> stupid? Cause it looks like you are faking it, and therefore I can't
>> >> decide.
>> >
>> > Just let it go. We went to the Moon, get over it.
>> hardly, since you are confused like a LGBTQ+,
>
> Get over it. Knock off this stupidity. Your hobbyhorse has lost.

hmm, he "lost"?? Just because you heard others, from a remote country,
saying they believe in an obvious fake moon landing, for whatever reason??

But I can see your problem, now realizing being along your entire live,
the uneducated, incompetent, big mouth pile of shit you are. I think you
can establish that.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> The microwave link was a DIGITAL signal at 2.2 Ghz, encoded with 2-DPSK
> modems (Differential Phase Shift Keying),
> at a rate of about 500+ Kbps, received and re-broadcasted with state of
> the art tracking dish antennae (huge ones).

get the feck out of here, they said all paperwork was destroyed. Put the
link or shut-up. You don't know what you are talking about.