Calling occupants....

[smartcooky]

However, yer average HB will know nothing about radio transmission (if they did then they would be using such a ridiculous argument), which means that they will handwave away the explanation.

In those situations, I am often torn between deciding whether or the HB concerned is handwaving away the explanation because

a. it doesn't fit with their carefully constructed and distorted world-view, or

b. they are too stupid to understand it.

 

[Zakalwe]

In those situations, I am often torn between deciding whether or the HB concerned is handwaving away the explanation because

a. it doesn't fit with their carefully constructed and distorted world-view, or

b. they are too stupid to understand it.

It's often the case that these options aren't mutually exclusive. Many times they hold a distorted world-view because they are stupid. For example, Dak-Dak and Allan Weisbecker.

[bknight]

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 allegedly on the moon and alledgedly in lunar orbit. He never confirms that he ever tracked it when it was allegedly on the moon. 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 all the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received signals from a diversity of Apollo missions, but again only when the crafts were allegedly in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received a handful of signals on the alleged flight home.

This sort of thing absolutely infuriates me. How they can twist things to suit their own limited knowledge, when a little bit less effort in a different direction would educate them well enough for them to understand the wonder of the entire thing.

Others have shown arguments that you may use to debunk this type of belief.  Myself, I think the most convincing part is that the antennas must be pointed toward the Moon to receive signals, no matter how/when the spacecraft travelled to the moon.

[Ishkabibble]

Not exactly. The hoax nuts contend that because Baysinger and others didn't *continuously track the missions to and from the moon* means that they didn't go anywhere other than to LEO.

Now you see, the very fact that they would state that shows that they are completely ignorant of Larry's account and of the dynamics of tracking an object in LEO.

Larry used a corner reflector, which is a directional antenna. He had to keep pointing it AT THE MOON to get reception as the moon drifted across the sky (and out of the main lobe of his antenna). Tracking an object in LEO is a far different prospect. The moon tracks across the sky at about 15°/hr while an object in LEO tracks at a few degrees per second.

VHF is "line-of-sight" at the frequencies being used (250 - 300 MHz), and an object in LEO only remains "line-of-sight" (above the "local radio horizon") for a minute or two, but Larry was listening to the Apollo 11 lunar surface transmissions for at least five minutes.... that would be impossible for a ground based receiver if the transmissions were originating in LEO!

^^All of which is a perfectley sensible explanation.
However, yer average HB will know nothing about radio transmission (if they did then they would be using such a ridiculous argument), which means that they will handwave away the explanation.
Another approach would be to tackle the loaded question that is in their central assumption- that is, that there must have been a continuous tracking of the craft from the Earth to the Moon. That is a ridiculous proposition. If my friend brings me back a picture of him standing on top of the Empire State Building from his recent trip to New York, then why on Earth would I claim that the trip was hoaxed unless he provided evidence that his plane was tracked the whole way from our local airport to the States, every foostep through the airport, every taxi ride, every subway journey- all were tracked. He would certainly be right to think that I was off my rocker, especially if he gave me souvenirs, videos of him eating bagels in Times Square, a ticket from a Broadway show that he had seen etc etc.

Precisely this is the refutation I personally  have used in the past. Ask a hoax nut if they've ever visited the mall, for example.  They respond in the affirmative. I say "How do I know that? I didn't see you drive on every street, make every turn, enter the parking lot, walk to the door, etc." Most of them either get it, or they want to get argumentative "That's not the same thing, I didn't have a multibillion dollar budget from taxes stolen from taxpayers and all this fake space hardware" etc. At which point, the thought "you must want to remain stupid" comes to mind. That's handwaving at its finest.

[Luckmeister]

Ask a hoax nut if they've ever visited the mall, for example.  They respond in the affirmative. I say "How do I know that? I didn't see you drive on every street, make every turn, enter the parking lot, walk to the door, etc." Most of them either get it, or they want to get argumentative "That's not the same thing, I didn't have a multibillion dollar budget from taxes stolen from taxpayers and all this fake space hardware" etc. At which point, the thought "you must want to remain stupid" comes to mind. That's handwaving at its finest.

And why do they refuse to educate themselves? I think with many, it's because other hoax believers is all they have that they can call 'friends' and that belief is all they have to give them any sense of self-worth. It's really quite sad.

[bknight]

And why do they refuse to educate themselves? I think with many, it's because other hoax believers is all they have that they can call 'friends' and that belief is all they have to give them any sense of self-worth. It's really quite sad.

In my estimation, most have a lot invested in the hoax and to do an about face and admit error is too much for most if not all.

[ka9q]

Very much so, especially when you consider that those EVA suit transmitters would have only been designed to operate over a short distance of a few hundred metres. Maybe ka9q will have a better idea, but with suit power consumption at a premium, I think the transmitter output power is likely to have been just a few watts at the most, perhaps even in the order of milliwats!

About 300 milliwatts. He received Armstrong's suit transmitter but heard Aldrin as well because Aldrin transmitted to a receiver in Armstrong's PLSS, which added Armstrong's voice and telemetry and retransmitted their sum to the receiver in the LM.

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

[bknight]

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

Seems odd that NASA planned on a two manned lander with only one on the surface at a time.  The planners did a poor job of mission specs when they came up with that one.

[smartcooky]

About 300 milliwatts. He received Armstrong's suit transmitter but heard Aldrin as well because Aldrin transmitted to a receiver in Armstrong's PLSS, which added Armstrong's voice and telemetry and retransmitted their sum to the receiver in the LM.

A 300mW omnidirectional voice transmission heard over a distance of 384,000 km.... truly remarkable!!

[ka9q]

A 300mW omnidirectional voice transmission heard over a distance of 384,000 km.... truly remarkable!!

Yes, and the truly ironic thing is that had Baysinger tried to receive the signal that was intended to reach Earth, he would have failed.

The LM had only a single S-band transmitter. It could operate in two modes: PM (phase modulation) and FM (frequency modulation). PM was the normal mission mode. It had a strong carrier component that was used for continuous Doppler velocity tracking, with subcarriers for narrowband FM voice and PCM (digital) telemetry. It could also loop back a ranging signal when enabled. All these signals (except ranging) were narrowband, meaning that the receivers on Earth would not let in a lot of thermal noise, which is proportional to bandwidth. Several hams did successfully receive the Apollo S-band PM transmissions on later flights with backyard dishes.

But PM could not carry wideband video; that's what FM was for. FM has the property that if you go wideband, meaning that you occupy a RF bandwidth considerably wider than the information you're sending, you get a substantial increase in recovered signal-to-noise ratio provided that your received signal is stronger than a given threshold. Otherwise you get nothing. (This is why FM radio sounds better than AM, but degrades rapidly as the signal weakens.)

Eagle was transmitting FM and video during the EVA, and to get that wideband signal above threshold very large receiving dishes were required (see The Dish). Anything Baysinger could have built would have gotten nothing at all.

The transmitter in Armstrong's PLSS generated only 300 mW into an omnidirectional antenna, but it was narrowband AM and Baysinger was able to capture it with his homemade antenna. It was by no means strong, but it was definitely there. Had he tried to listen for Aldrin's transmitter (which was intended for Armstrong's relay receiver) he also would have failed because that transmitter used FM, and the signal would have been below Baysinger's receiver threshold. So he did his homework and picked the right problem to solve.

[bknight]

I assume that all this information was published  prior to the mission.  I know what assumptions do,however.

[Dalhousie]

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

Seems odd that NASA planned on a two manned lander with only one on the surface at a time.  The planners did a poor job of mission specs when they came up with that one.

Not really. Remember that all nine Gemini EVAs had one person outside with one remaining in the spacecraft.

[Dalhousie]

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

A trio of questions:

Was this the aim for all APollo EVAs initially, or just Apollo 11? (I find it hard to imagine an H or J mission with just one person outside)

When did the change from one person to two people on the lunar surface happen? 

Did post Apollo 11 EVAs also relay through the commander's PLSS?

[bknight]

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

Seems odd that NASA planned on a two manned lander with only one on the surface at a time.  The planners did a poor job of mission specs when they came up with that one.

Not really. Remember that all nine Gemini EVAs had one person outside with one remaining in the spacecraft.

Yes, but that was a very different circumstance.

[Dalhousie]

Why didn't the LMP transmit directly to the LM? Because the original spec called for only one astronaut to be on the surface at a time. When this was changed to two-man EVAs, it was easier to build a relay into one of the PLSSes than to add another receiver to the LM.

Seems odd that NASA planned on a two manned lander with only one on the surface at a time.  The planners did a poor job of mission specs when they came up with that one.

Not really. Remember that all nine Gemini EVAs had one person outside with one remaining in the spacecraft.

Yes, but that was a very different circumstance.

In what way?