How are the geostationary birds lined up with the moon? Your suggestion, signal properties apart, would not work for locations away from direct line of sight. Footprints of downlinks are only so big. Then the pesky moon moves. So how much fuel to keep the satellite on station with respect the one viewing point on earth (among other issues). That is for the small patch on earth where it might work?

it can and has been done.

That is easy to say but I think Tedward was asking for more precise details.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

You're talking about an undocumented geosynchronous satellite brought into space somewhere in the 60's with an undocumented launch, yet give nothing to back it up.

When we ask how something like keeping a geosynchronous satellite directly in the line of sight of a moving moon from all points on earth (remember, 30000km is a lot less than the distance to the moon...) you simply say "it can and has been done".

The question was HOW it was done.

We do have a "no handwaving" rule here...

Well then, explain how this alleged secret geosynchronous satellite was kept in line of sight of the moon from all places on earth all the time. And while you're at it, perhaps something to back up the existence of that supposed satellite?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Oh I would also like to ask where the bird was over. Fuel apart, does the moon travel in such a plane that it is helpful for this theory?

(just a second, I'm getting an extra stock of cola and tumble weed)

Even leaving orbital planes and the path of the moon out of the picture, you simply cannot have the satellite at 30000 km appear in the line of sight of the supposed position of the lunar craft from all positions on one side of the earth at the same time. It wouldn't work, it would be clear whatever is sending this data is not at lunar distance.

Unless of course, Let Me Enlighten U (LMEU) has a brilliant explanation that does make this possible and that I can't think of myself.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The ground stations tracked Apollo as it came above and went back below the horizon, rising and setting more or less simultaneously with the moon...I would be interested in knowing how they faked this with a geosynchronous satellite, which by definition would have maintained position at a specific longitude (more or less, with only small amounts of east-west motion) and would only ever be seen by stations on one half of the planet. Similarly, how did they fake the parallax effects for stations on the opposite sides of the planet simultaneously tracking the transmission?

Also, please give more detail on how a signal can trick a radio into giving a consistent delay, and how this is done with identical effect on receivers of different designs.

it was undocumented of course. it would also not be completely geostationary, but moving with the moon rather. they also had secondary satelites in high orbit. there's even word that multiple satelites were sent to the moon to replicate apollo's would be signals and telemetries.

Oh oh. Orbit has changed from geostationary.

May I repeat that handwaving is NOT allowed here.

-you have absolute no proof for a secret geosynchronous satellite
-you have even less proof for a set of "high orbit" satellites
-and even lesser proof for satellites going to the moon
-you haven't adressed how these satellites would carry the huge amounts of fuel required for this orbitally "challenging" maneuvres you describe.
-you haven't really adressed how, even with a number of sats, they fooled people into making them believe the signal was coming from the moon, as the difference still would be obvious
-you have an inconsistent story: with sats going to the moon, you don't need the geosynch and "high orbit" satellites you present as fact
-you haven't adressed how these satellites remained unnoticed, optically.

Again: handwaving is not allowed here.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

first of all, no satelite is ever truly geostationary. as for the motion of the moon as compared to "geostationary" satelites, they are similar enough as to be able to generalize the two. like i mention before, this elaborate setup consisted of multiple satelites at various distances, orbits and trajectories. this was and still is the most elaborate hoax of all time, nothing else compares.

They set up the signal to be interpreted as coming from space...

Explain how an antenna with a fraction of a degree beam width aimed at the moon can be fooled into thinking the signal didn't come from the direction of the Moon, for a period of

...it's all in the internal computing power of the reciever.

No, it's in the direction of the antenna. These are primarily analog systems. There is no "internal computing power."

...if the signal is created a certain way, it can give the appearance of having come from space.

I have direct experience with commerical and scientific satellite communication and control. There is no level of detail in this problem with which I am uncomfortable. Please therefore explain in detail your proposed system, then explain the evidence you can present which suggets such a system was actually built and employed for Apollo.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

we're already at about 3 suggested systems now Jay. Apparently, according to LMEU, they used a geosync sat, FACT. Or also some high orbit sats, FACT. Or also sats going to the moon, who knows, FACT. We will have a thin air crisis soon if people keep pulling stuff out of it at this rate.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

it was undocumented of course.

That doesn't mean you aren't required to provide evidence of its existence, not just vague assertions regarding its alleged plausibility. Are you admitting you have no evidence that any such thing was built and used?

it would also not be completely geostationary, but moving with the moon rather.

Please explain how the descent orbit was calibrated in your proposed and "undocumented" system.

there's even word that multiple satelites were sent to the moon to replicate apollo's would be signals and telemetries.

TETR-A -- discussed on my web site. The largest dishes, in fact, could not track fast enough to keep contact with TETR-A and so had to use other items for training purposes. At no time was the training exercise of such appropriate fidelity that it could be used to fool MSFN receiving station operators. I know some of these operators personally. Kindly do not bluff.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

we're already at about 3 suggested systems now Jay.

True. Apparently to "enlighten" means "to make it up as one goes."

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Please explain "never truly geostationary". The ones I fire up to usually are and it is painfully obvious when I am off pan by a fraction of a degree. They are kept on station though. Now, max elevation for Parkes is around 51 degrees. For a geostationary that is. Where does the moon fit in?

Next, how are satellites kept on station further out? How many and why did no one see them leave. By your reckoning, even if it was possible, they would have shed loads of fuel on board. You cannot sneak them up with a rocket powered by rubber bands.

Need to come back to the receivers. Last time I did an analogue transmission my receiver demodulated the received signal, nothing more. It is a lot different to todays TV that uses compression and needs computing power AND great chunks of memory to decompress the signal. MPEG can be very memory hungry.

No handwaving. You can't simply beg the question and say it was "elaborate enough" to have solved all the problems.

Please describe all these spacecraft. List who built them. Say where and when they were launched. Give orbital elements for all the spacecraft involved and show how theses orbits produced all pertinent observations from the point of view of MSFN, the Soviet Union, and amateur trackers, including all radio-carrier controlled spacecraft maneuvers.

this was and still is the most elaborate hoax of all time, nothing else compares.

Insufficient. You promised to enlighten us. All we're getting from you is the supposition that some grandiose, undefined operation "must" have been undertaken. Enlightenment comes when you show us what was done and support it with evidence, not when you vaguely suppose that some "elaborate hoax" occurred.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

i know its hard to comprehend, but the hoax was developed and executed with assistance from aliens. aliens have mastered space/time relativity. they assisted in formulating satelites which can give the impression that they are at greater distances (or vice versa) by bending space. which is what i was getting at when i said the signal can be formulated to appear as if coming from somewhere else. that mixed with bending space can trick even the most knowledgable communications expert, let alone amateurs.

i didn't want to throw this in earlier because i know all your preconcieved notions. my plan was to bring all this to light and enlighten you gradually. be it as it may, i think you are all making progress and i can see the hunger for the truth. i get the impression that you are mostly all not satisfied with what you have been told is the truth. don't you feel like something is missing? that's because there is, now open your mind and let the truth pour in.

I'm aerospace engineer. I've studied Apollo. I've worked with apollo engineering data in the space agency for professional reasons. So have others here. We do not feel something is missing in the official Apollo story.

If there is something wrong with Apollo, show us evidence of your alternative explanation. Back up your claims. You're obliged to per the board rules.

It's way too easy to just claim things without backing them up. i say apollo happened as nasa told, because i say so and i don't use caps. so there.

See? You wouldn't accept that neither, would you? Evidence please. The only thing I feel missing here is evidence for any of your claims.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I need a bag of pop corn.

why are you on this board if you worked first hand with apollo? are you searching for the truth which you felt you weren't given during your working days? just curious hmmm

As I said, I do not believe something is "missing" about the official Apollo story. I do feel the truth was given to me. The engineering data of the F-1 fitted my own observations perfectly. Stop diverting.

I'm on this board because I'm interested in aerospace, have a lot of friends here, and can sometimes be of assistance to give some scientific/engineering answers to people having questions or remarks about spaceflight.

Now, your evidence please.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

[Aliens] assisted in formulating satelites which can give the impression that they are at greater distances (or vice versa) by bending space.

Speculative hogwash. I'll assume this is your admission that you cannot actually spell out the satellite constellation that was used, or describe in technical terms the means by which it achieved its result.

Sorry, that's an appeal to magic. Rejected.

my plan was to bring all this to light and enlighten you gradually.

No. Your "gradual enlightenment" consists simply of piles upon piles of speculative hogwash for which you have not one shred of proof.

i get the impression that you are mostly all not satisfied with what you have been told is the truth. don't you feel like something is missing?

No, I don't. I'm a professional space-farer, and you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

are you searching for the truth which you felt you weren't given during your working days?

I'm here to correct the misconceptions promulgated by ignorant handwaving.

Do you have any argument that doesn't involve magic satellites and invisible aliens?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Appeal to magic. I've missed that one. The last time I used it implicitly, it was to tie together mathematical proof constructions on exams when I knew how it started and how it ended, but not the part in between.

Now, Let Me Enlighten U, it's not that we're unwilling to believe your story, nor are we rejecting it per definition. But what we demand in order to believe any story, is EVIDENCE for that story. Once you give proper evidence, we will believe you.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The "appeal to magic" is the same underlying fallacy as begging the question. There really is no definitive taxonomy of poor reasoning, so nuances both of concept and nomenclature apply. Typically the characterization of "appeal to magic" is applied when the proponent argues that some particularly sticky problem was "somehow" solved by means of unlimited access to resources, without giving details.

Here the alleged space aliens are the deus ex machina that appears to rescue this particularly ill-formed theory from every hole in which it would otherwise fall. How do the satellites work? Our proponent is sure he doesn't know himself, but simply supposes that the space aliens knew -- and that's all he needs.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

(I meant "missed" as in "it's been a long time since I've seen it being used")

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Why couldn't the aliens have just helped us with a successful Moon landing?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Okay, I see.

LMEU, if you're going to use space aliens as the catch-all explanation for how things allegedly got faked, you are going to be asked to provide proof of the space aliens and the testable properties of those aliens that apply to your claims.

You don't get to handwave out of your burden of proof. When I am told I'm about to be "enlightened," I presume that means I'll be walking away with more information, not simply a load of speculation that raises question its proponent can't answer.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You've seen in Roswell how well the Aliens master the "landing" part. If I were NASA, I would have let them interfere no further than the faking part indeed. Smart move, that was. Wink.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.