It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Considering a tower like this was 3km's northwest of the Parkes observatory, could it have provided simulated data, video etc. if the power was set high enough to saturate the Parke's dish regardless of which direction it was pointing? Thereby fooling the operators. Fooling them to believe they were actually receiving Apollo transmissions when in fact it was simulated data and video.
source: www.honeysucklecreek.net...
Originally posted by ppk55
edit: in regards to JW's new videos above I have another question ...
Considering the Parkes and Honeysuckle stations had a collimation tower nearby for testing purposes...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3a59edf6dd2.jpg[/atsimg]
Considering a tower like this was 3km's northwest of the Parkes observatory, could it have provided simulated data, video etc. if the power was set high enough to saturate the Parke's dish regardless of which direction it was pointing? Thereby fooling the operators. Fooling them to believe they were actually receiving Apollo transmissions when in fact it was simulated data and video.
source: www.honeysucklecreek.net...
Originally posted by theability
Ok now let me get this straight, the Parkes Dish is pointed at the moon [AT THE MOON!], but your trying to tell me this little tower is sending simulated signals to the main dish array at the Parkes observatory?
Located on a nearby mountain ridge to the west was a tower, known as a Collimation Tower, with special equipment and antennae to simulate a spacecraft, so the main antenna could be pointed at it to run tests on all the transmitting, receiving and processing equipment. Before every pass all the equipment was checked out on the Collimation Tower. If a problem appeared while tracking a spacecraft, the station could quickly check out all its systems by going to the tower and running tests to confirm whether the problem was in the station or in the spacecraft.
Originally posted by theability
Now my big question is, if the dish isn't pointed at this tower three KM away, then how are the signals getting in that extremely huge dish that is POINTED AT THE MOON????
What happened at Goldstone? This has been a matter of conjecture ever since the day of the broadcast. The dish at Goldstone was 64 metres in diameter like the Parkes dish, so it should have had the best signal of all since the LM was in the main beam of the antenna. The fact that Goldstone wasn't scheduled to be receiving the TV pictures in the first place may have contributed to the problems.
Nonetheless, what appears to have happened is that the video settings were all preset to the expected signal levels, and the problems began when they realised the signal was much more modulated than expected. As the transmission began, two things were evident: the picture was upside-down and it had a very high contrast. Apparently someone at Goldstone had forgotten to set the inverting switch on the scan-converter's front panel. Since their picture was going out live, the operators were reluctant to throw the switch until prompted to do so by Houston TV.
Bill Wood, the lead video engineer at Goldstone, explained that the high contrast may have been a result of the picture running into clipping. Clipping results when the video signal is stronger than expected. Normally, TV pictures have a voltage fluctuation of 1 volt peak-to-peak. If the signal is greater than this, then the top part of the signal is chopped off, or clipped. This has the effect of stretching the contrast in the image; the darker areas appear black and the lighter areas appear white. There is very little shading in between. Bill explains:
Originally posted by theability
For being a video expert that you have claimed repeatedly
source
Located on a nearby mountain ridge to the west was a tower, known as a Collimation Tower, with special equipment and antennae to simulate a spacecraft, so the main antenna could be pointed at it to run tests on all the transmitting, receiving and processing equipment. Before every pass all the equipment was checked out on the Collimation Tower. If a problem appeared while tracking a spacecraft, the station could quickly check out all its systems by going to the tower and running tests to confirm whether the problem was in the station or in the spacecraft.
Cassegrain designs are also utilized in satellite telecommunications earth station antennas and radio telescopes, ranging in size from 6.3 metres to 70 metres. The centrally located sub-reflector serves to focus radio frequency signals in a similar fashion to optical telescopes
Originally posted by theability
And it does look like fraud is still illegal in Australia!
Very interesting find,
what you have basically provided is unmitigated proof of the realism and reach of the simulation.
As I stated before, every aspect of Apollo was simulated.
Originally posted by theability
The people who made the thing are not going to allow random signals to enter from all aspects of space and cause interference.The thing was shielded from unwanted radio waves and function
Parkes Observatory operations scientist Mr John Sarkissian explains how sources of radio energy such as mobile telephones, electronic equipment and aircraft interfere with the telescope's observations
Originally posted by theability
your quote is from a recent entry IE circa 2000+. in 1969 there wasn't a mobile phone in the world.
Originally posted by ppk55
Seems it might not be as shielded as you thought.
Originally posted by ppk55
So if they can't shield the dishes from mobile phone signals in 2010, how could they have hoped to shield them against this monster in 1969? Bit bigger than a mobile phone huh..
Originally posted by WWu777
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin turns out to be fake.
www.telegraph.co.uk...
Also, here is conclusive proof that the mainstream media lies and fabricates stories deliberately.
It seems the Sydney Morning Herald jumped on my attendance, as on October 6 they released an article alleging that I was an antagonistic gate crasher who needed to be removed by security. These allegations are both false and libelous.
www.smh.com.au...
When leading Apollo Hoax researcher/demonstrator, Bart Sibrel confronted Mitchell about the Apollo fakery, he was booted out. www.youtube.com...
Mitchell’s son can be overheard asking the father, “Want to call the CIA and have him waxed?” As Sibrel sped off after also being threatened with being shot, by one of the Michells, no reply is heard.
NASA did not react to the first e mail, sent 5th September 2010. Today, 10th October 2010, a second e mail with the same question will be sent by two youtube users AwE130 and stalkervision.
Originally posted by Phage
Originally posted by FoosM
To summarize, Apollo could have launched to the moon without anybody onboard.
Exactly what were the astronauts used for?
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior.
The EOR plan was one of several which was rejected, including LOR.
edit on 10/2/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)