The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

[zen@freedbms.net (Zenaan Harkness)]

On 12/18/15, David I. Emery <die@dieconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500
>> 	Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier.
>> 	Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar
>> 	resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you
>> 	can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my
>> 	knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more
>> 	information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object)
>> 	to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without
>> 	any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
>
> 	It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably
> insane...
>
> 	Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from
> the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the
> geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)...
> and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct
> transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface (which
> creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified
> S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the
> path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting
> points.
>
> 	And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the
> angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground
> antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted
> from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon - which
> eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the
> antennas used.
>
> 	To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in
> multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy
> spacecraft  to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.
>
> 	And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio
> signals from these missions, but so did various professional
> intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with
> substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks
> (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very
> well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.

Sounds very impressive science - is this documented somewhere, like
some old magazine, so we can get someone to find a copy and scan it in
for the world to see - something with empirical doppler calculations/
verifications for example?
Zenaan