Russia & India to send joint manned mission to Moon

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...
...skipped

I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above

When was
it launched?

A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
every time there would be much less than that.

Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
actually happening.

Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only.

I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:

Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston

The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.

Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
me on? Right? Little naive boy...


Ambush you? Not at all. Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine.
I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax"
proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that
they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
anything original, but no, no luck.

In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that
forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and
signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not
possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon
probe would not have been sufficient. See
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/...7/APOLLO17.htm for an
example.

It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back. If the
signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.

John Beadles wrote:
The trend is that
they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
anything original, but no, no luck.

In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable
....snipped...

John -

You're missing the point.

The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
rules of scientific evidence and logic.

They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
cover-up.

They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
do will convince them otherwise.

If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.

Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.

A Reformed Tilter

"No Spam!" wrote in message ...
John -

You're missing the point.

The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
rules of scientific evidence and logic.

They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
cover-up.

They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
do will convince them otherwise.

If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.

Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.

A Reformed Tilter

No, I understand and agree completely. Nevertheless, I think the
argument must occasionally be fought. Not to convince the hoaxer, but
to expose lurkers to the counter arguments. I know there are many
hoax debunk web sites which can serve this purpose; however, in my
experience, they tend to argue directly against the "evidence"
provided by the hoax proponents. My observation is that the indirect
evidence (political environment, technical capability, etc.) did not
permit an hoax to be performed. So, every once in a while I'll
address one of these posters to see if they have anything new,
identify counter arguments for the lurkers and to use the opportunity
to sharpen my admittedly scholarship.

(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...
...skipped

I hope you can forgive me for skipping lots of nonrelated crap above

When was
it launched?

A good question. I do not know. There were several official NASA
automatic and "manned" Moon missions. In fact one successful
landing of automatic probe with rebroadcaster was enough to
for the Appolo program. BTW this explains rate of success for Appolo
missions. Given Appolo 13 was a sort intertaining TV program
the rate of success was 100%. If they had to land rebroadcaster
every time there would be much less than that.

Yes, there were several such missions, but I fail to see how one such
successful one would have sufficed to fake the rest. How could this be
done? Please give me some detail so we can look for fingerprints of it
actually happening.

Kidding? How I can give you details? I can give you a prompt only.

I would send Radio/TV signal in the way:

Huston - Studio in Nevada - Moon rebroadcaster - Huston

The funny side that even time delays would be just fine
not to speak that the signal does come from the moon.
The later is for radio enthusiasts all over the world.

Hm... tell me the tue. this is what you wanted to ambush
me on? Right? Little naive boy...


Ambush you? Not at all.

Hm. little lie create big distrust.

Rather, it's part of a pet project of mine.
I've been reviewing the arguments of the "Moon landings were a hoax"
proponents and have identified a general trend. The trend is that
they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
anything original, but no, no luck.

I disagree. of course they cannot. Have you seen Copperfield
who has stolen a train. Can you present exactly how he did all
that in complete details? But we know it was a trick. The same
with NASA moon landing. Ask yourself why do you believe NASA
could land man on the moon? Two reasons mainly 1) NASA, a big
government organization told you that. 2) you have seen some
movies on TV. That's all basis for that believe. If you stop
blind believing in NASA words and start asking your own
questions (about space radiation protection for beginning)
you may immideately find your own contra argument.

Also if you are a fair thinker you must agree dispite of
all NASA "evidences" only one credible evidence that it was
indeed faked will crash all the NASA system of Moon landing
arguments. Only one is enough to crash all this mountings of
lie.


In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable in that
forign nationals were able to track the spacecraft in flight, and
signals heard from the vicinity of the moon were doppler shifted, not
possible with a stationary transmitter. A previously landed moon
probe would not have been sufficient.

My mistake, I forgot about those. Ok I cancel my claim that only one
transmitter would be enough to fake all Apollo missions. Two transmitters
per mission was necessary. Are you satisfied?

See
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/...7/APOLLO17.htm for an
example.

It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back.

Easy? Show please. It is easy to show the opposite.
it did, using of course the scheme presented.

If the
signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.

Who said it was "recording from a lunar bound lander". Are you prefer
to dispute with your own false arguments, as many NASA defenders like
so much? Frankly I think than many so called moon hoax sites
in internet full of false arguments are sponsored by NASA. It is easy
to fight with their own false claims and sink the grains of true
in the seas of false claims and contra claims.

As for communications I think it was life between studio and mainly
unaware personnel in Huston control center but the signal went via
lunar trasmitters (including one installed in Apollo return module).
That's scheme correctly reproduce all variable delay times, doppler
shifts, indepedent tracking and so on and so far.

Michael

(Michael Petukhov) wrote in message . com...
(John Beadles) wrote in message . com...


It is also easy to show that the responses between the flight crew and
ground control did not show the time delay that would be present if
there was a voice relay from the ground to the moon and back.

Easy? Show please. It is easy to show the opposite.
it did, using of course the scheme presented.

If the
signal were the result of a recording from a lunar bound lander, the
ground controllers would have had to have previously prepared scripts,
therefor all the ground controllers would have had to be in on it.

Who said it was "recording from a lunar bound lander". Are you prefer
to dispute with your own false arguments, as many NASA defenders like
so much? Frankly I think than many so called moon hoax sites
in internet full of false arguments are sponsored by NASA. It is easy
to fight with their own false claims and sink the grains of true
in the seas of false claims and contra claims.

As for communications I think it was life between studio and mainly
unaware personnel in Huston control center but the signal went via
lunar trasmitters (including one installed in Apollo return module).
That's scheme correctly reproduce all variable delay times, doppler
shifts, indepedent tracking and so on and so far.

Michael

Michael,

I'll answer this, but it'll take me a day or so because the answer is
going to be extensive. I attempted to send out a msg on this topic,
but I think I accidentally hit the send button before I was finished.