FLYING IN SPACE WITH A REAL FLY ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE STATION!!!

"How does one iradicate poverty?"

Besides the issues mentioned keep the population growth less than the economic growth and let all have part of that growth. Educate the population.

Just look at countries not able to support a big population and still having a big population growth. This is a bad combination unless the education is high enough to make a living using the intellect. This is how we went from being a poor country to becoming a wealthy country here (DK). All wars for hundreds of years were lost until the country got the small size of today. But the population was educated. All children had to go to school and the education was for free (paid by tax money). We had two main industrial revolutions. The last was in the 1950's. With almost no natural resources we went from being an agricultural and fishing nation to an industrial and IT nation with the politicians supporting sustainable energy. The import of fossil fuels nearly bankrupted the country after the energy crises. Now wind and solar power is the main power sources. Wind power is a big export article. There has been days where wind and solar power were the only power sources which proofed that those sources were stable enough to keep the grid going without fossil power plant backup. Of course the fossil power plants were ready to take over when needed.

Regards
Ole


 

---In [email protected], <schoonersolsticemoon@...> wrote :

 
Just imagine transistors, a component that NASA funded,  to possibly replace vacuum tubes. They seem to have caught on, as being something useful.
 How does one iradicate poverty?
 Good health is a fine start, wheather mental, or physical health.
 Free medicine, and health care is a good start. Dental issues should also be covered, too.
 If this sounds radical, what other way will solve the problem as quickly?
 Cheers Warren
 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature
 
 On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:04 AM, John Berry aether22@... [EVGRAY]
 <[email protected]> wrote:

   
 NASA actually returns $17 for every $1 funded to it. 


 
 On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:36 PM, george gray canowindracd@... mailto:canowindracd@... [EVGRAY] <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
   
 
 If they had used the money they wasted with NASA they could got rid of world poverty.
 

 George

 

 On Sunday, 3 June 2018, 19:17:22 GMT+10, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
 

 

   If they had the money they could probably build as big rockets today as the Saturn V rocket of the 1960's which is the biggest rocket type ever build.

With the same amount of money spent on researching Victor Schaubergers technology http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Viktor%20Schauberger.htm a much cheaper vehicle could probably be built. N. Tesla's antigravity vehicle that could stay in one place in the air during a storm is another research area. Who did he sell that technology to?! Did he even prove the concept before he died?!

Regards
Ole



 

---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <konehead@...> wrote :

 Hi Mick
 Could be mixture of top secret space vehicle shit like antigravity propulsion combined with massive photo fakery along with alien intrusions but stil got to moon and back a few times just not now they say.
 Everything is faked everthing is fucked and who knows truth but easy to see what is not true
 Kone

Ron, you say there is evidence, but I ask, for you to tell me what evidence there is and the best you come up with is a lack of blasting away of sand...
 

 John, it is good to see your updated view on world government, good work.
 

 Now I hope you can cash in on the excitement of the fake moon landings!
 

 First of all is the moon real?  It seems to be a busy little place with all sorts of alien and human actively going on... the NASA Apollo scene was just smoke and mirrors to hide the real goings on. So there is no need to debate the hoax. Same with 9-11, most people now the real cause, right?
 

 Ron
 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM

How it was done John....
 

 Quote: Langley, Houston etc.: Perfect "moon film" simulations

The standard book about the simulation centers [faking centers] is the book "Spaceflight Revolution" by NASA historian James R. Hansen (Wisnewski, p.289). 

[This is no conspiracy theory, stupid journalist, but Hansen describes first-hand facts].

According to Hansen the "moon theaters" at Langley are rehearsed in any detail like in a theater also with general rehearsals etc. (Wisnewski, p.273). At the end one cannot distinguish anything from a "real performance" (Wisnewski, p.274). So, there is only a little step to pretend simulated films as real "moon films", but it's a "big step for mankind". 

 Ron
 

 http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/17_simulation-centers-Langley-Houston-ENGL.html http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/17_simulation-centers-Langley-Houston-ENGL.html

Ole, 

 I know they alledge to use the moon as a reflector in EME but is it proven they are getting moon bounce or something else, is there an approx 6 second delay?  If so how is the moon bounce overcoming the free space path loss?
 

 Calculating with an 18 db gain antenna and 60 db reciver path loss is at about 160db for 250k miles so would require some serious wattage for a gain of 160 more than 10kw.  Even at 10kw how long could the batteries sustain that along with air conditioning at 250 degrees all day and heating for the freezing nights.
 

 But back to the analog video, this I know like the back of my hand.  I can tell you from personal experience when slowing down to 10 frames per second with a time base corrected analog setup that can record and playback with variable speed sync it looks like stop action very jerky.
 

 Looking at the video it is shot at a higher frame rate than normal to make it look slowed down, opposite of slow scan.  The astronots are galloping sideways to make their gate look different.  
 

 Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary.

Warren, 

 I do not believe that a Satun 5 contrivance had the fuel available to go to the moon and return.  No way.
 

 What did Hitler say the bigger the lie the more it would be believed.  We did by the way have a bunch of nazis running the moon program.
 

 When Von Braun made the careful calculations in the 50s he said it would require three rockets and a space station in order enough fuel would be available to get there by rocketry. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

 

 Somehow based on the "results" of the Apollo missions this would have him in error by about 50 thousand concerning fuel requirements and engine power.  So from 55 to 69 our rockets suddenly became 50 thousand times more efficient or Von Braun the head of the program was an idiot.  I don't know, they still were hydrazine fueld engines, hmm...  He did make an awesome model for Dr Strangelove though.
 

 Or staying on the 250 degree moon for 3 days in tin foil oven with battery powered air conditioning uh huh.
 

 No doubt the astro-nots were brave souls but the story is too flimsy and full of holes to believe.  As a child I saw the 69 moon landing and asked my dad why the flag was waving if there is no atmosphere.  In the original clip it sure looked to have some breeze ruffling it rather than a spring top bouncing as they show now.
 

 But most of all just the video is prima facie evidence of a big lie. You are a ham operator how did slow scan TV provide extra frames?
 And 10 frame per second looked smoother than 30/60 NTSC interleave, what? what? what? If the original footage was shot at 10 frames the movements would have been jumpier than the first silent movies.  Or if one recalls what the first webcams looked like over dialup then one would have a good idea, even a Faroujda line doubler would not have smoothed the motion.  We did not have video morphing technology then and even now it requires rendering time so then so where did the extra fucking frames come from on an alleged live feed?
 

 All the original tapes from the time were lost or recorded over by NASA by their own admission.  The most amazing part of the 20th century recorded over. Uh huh...
 

 Everything was bounced off the geo sattelite they first put up to emulate communications from the moon.
 Most was shot on a sound stage or in Flagstaff outdoors where they made an exact mockup of hundreds of craters to mimic the sea of tranquility exactly at scale.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7W-SAd6mak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7W-SAd6mak
  So much evidence of swarmy mimicry and special effects operations.
 

 "Building a camera that could survive the crushing g forces of liftoff and then function in near-weightlessness on the moon was only part of the challenge for Lebar. The portion of the broadcast spectrum traditionally used for video was sending vital ship data to Earth, and there was no room left for the standard black-and-white video format of the era: 525 scan lines of data at 30 frames per second, transmitted at 4.5 MHz. So Lebar helped devise a smaller "oddball format" – 320 scan lines at 10 fps, transmitted at a meager 500 kHz. Tracking stations back on Earth would take this so-called slow-scan footage, convert it for TV broadcast, and beam it to Mission Control, which would send it out for the world to see."

The videos of the 60's and 70's were pure analog. Digital video https://wiki2.org/en/Digital_video first appeared in the late 1970's.

Here are two articles explaining the technology used in the moon landings:
https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera
https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_11_missing_tapes https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

The first video recordings were made on 1 inch 14 track audio tapes. This was the raw slow scan signal. The raw signal was also sent to a 10 inch monitor where it was filmed by a video camera using 30 fps for broadcasting.

 https://wiki2.org/en/File:Apollo11A_jpg 

 
 
 
 Photo of the high-quality SSTV image before the scan conversion
 
 
 
 https://wiki2.org/en/File:Apollo11b_jpg 

 
 
 
 
 The degraded image after the SSTV scan conversion


The images are from the last link above.

Regards
Ole
 

---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Warren, 

 I do not believe that a Satun 5 contrivance had the fuel available to go to the moon and return.  No way.
 

 What did Hitler say the bigger the lie the more it would be believed.  We did by the way have a bunch of nazis running the moon program.
 

 When Von Braun made the careful calculations in the 50s he said it would require three rockets and a space station in order enough fuel would be available to get there by rocketry. 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY

 

 Somehow based on the "results" of the Apollo missions this would have him in error by about 50 thousand concerning fuel requirements and engine power.  So from 55 to 69 our rockets suddenly became 50 thousand times more efficient or Von Braun the head of the program was an idiot.  I don't know, they still were hydrazine fueld engines, hmm...  He did make an awesome model for Dr Strangelove though.
 

 Or staying on the 250 degree moon for 3 days in tin foil oven with battery powered air conditioning uh huh.
 

 No doubt the astro-nots were brave souls but the story is too flimsy and full of holes to believe.  As a child I saw the 69 moon landing and asked my dad why the flag was waving if there is no atmosphere.  In the original clip it sure looked to have some breeze ruffling it rather than a spring top bouncing as they show now.
 

 But most of all just the video is prima facie evidence of a big lie. You are a ham operator how did slow scan TV provide extra frames?
 And 10 frame per second looked smoother than 30/60 NTSC interleave, what? what? what? If the original footage was shot at 10 frames the movements would have been jumpier than the first silent movies.  Or if one recalls what the first webcams looked like over dialup then one would have a good idea, even a Faroujda line doubler would not have smoothed the motion.  We did not have video morphing technology then and even now it requires rendering time so then so where did the extra fucking frames come from on an alleged live feed?
 

 All the original tapes from the time were lost or recorded over by NASA by their own admission.  The most amazing part of the 20th century recorded over. Uh huh...
 

 Everything was bounced off the geo sattelite they first put up to emulate communications from the moon.
 Most was shot on a sound stage or in Flagstaff outdoors where they made an exact mockup of hundreds of craters to mimic the sea of tranquility exactly at scale.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7W-SAd6mak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7W-SAd6mak
  So much evidence of swarmy mimicry and special effects operations.
 

 "Building a camera that could survive the crushing g forces of liftoff and then function in near-weightlessness on the moon was only part of the challenge for Lebar. The portion of the broadcast spectrum traditionally used for video was sending vital ship data to Earth, and there was no room left for the standard black-and-white video format of the era: 525 scan lines of data at 30 frames per second, transmitted at 4.5 MHz. So Lebar helped devise a smaller "oddball format" – 320 scan lines at 10 fps, transmitted at a meager 500 kHz. Tracking stations back on Earth would take this so-called slow-scan footage, convert it for TV broadcast, and beam it to Mission Control, which would send it out for the world to see."

Quote: 

 This big "Lunar Module" has never been tested in a flight and also has never landed at any spot because with only one main engine it's not possible to keep the vehicle in a firm position. The centroid is so high that the vehicle would incline at once. 
 

 Ron

quote: The little employees in the Apollo program have nothing to say (Wisnewski, p.279-280). There is military secrecy. There are secrecy paragraphs in the contracts, and eventually also an oath, with heavy threat of punishment  when treachery happens (Wisnewski, p.280). 

 Anyone who talked too much was "offed" Gus Grissom, etc
 

 From 1964 to 1967, 10 NASA Astronauts died "mysteriously"
 

 Ron

Ole,

Yes because the Russians did not have Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick to
makes sure everything appeared to work.

Please show me the math how 20 watts of energy had enough to overcome
the free space path loss. The radio telescope was 26 meters at 5ghz I
think it was, this provides a 60 db gain advantage as far as my math
goes.  Can you show me in RF engineering math how this would work with
the FSPL of over 250 thousand miles?

I guess this guy did not need a radio dish to hear the moon transmissions:
http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

The cameras on the moon were allegedly 10 FPS slow scan.

https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2

https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/

watch him walking backwards, one can see the extra frames beyond 30 FPS
this is supposed to be slow scan ten frame I say no way!  At 1/6 gravity
men in the best training condition of their lives should have weighed 60
lbs with the suits on which should allow for 4 foot jumps easy.  The
fact no one seems to jump higher than a foot and a half is a dead give away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4


On 6/3/2018 6:09 PM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] wrote:
>  
>
> Hi Mick;
>
> The 10kW was from the Earth transmitter. The 20W was from the
> transmitter on the Moon. On Earth two radio telescopes were used to
> pick up the weak signal.
>
> According to the Wikipedia article
> (https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera) 30fps color cameras were used
> on every mission starting with Apollo 10. The first manned mission to
> land on the Moon was the Apollo 11. Thus this must have been shot with
> a 30fps color camera.
>
> "Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded
> and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even
> if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary."
> There was also a mission where the crew almost died without even
> landing on the Moon. It went even worse for the Soviet space program.
> All of their Moon rockets failed. Number two of their moon rockets
> crashed at the launch site and made one of the largest artificial
> non-nuclear explosions in human history
> https://wiki2.org/en/N1_(rocket). <https://wiki2.org/en/N1_%28rocket%29>
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :
>
> Ole,
>
> I know they alledge to use the moon as a reflector in EME but is it
> proven they are getting moon bounce or something else, is there an
> approx 6 second delay?  If so how is the moon bounce overcoming the
> free space path loss?
>
> Calculating with an 18 db gain antenna and 60 db reciver path loss is
> at about 160db for 250k miles so would require some serious wattage
> for a gain of 160 more than 10kw.  Even at 10kw how long could the
> batteries sustain that along with air conditioning at 250 degrees all
> day and heating for the freezing nights.
>
> But back to the analog video, this I know like the back of my hand.  I
> can tell you from personal experience when slowing down to 10 frames
> per second with a time base corrected analog setup that can record and
> playback with variable speed sync it looks like stop action very jerky.
>
> Looking at the video it is shot at a higher frame rate than normal to
> make it look slowed down, opposite of slow scan.  The astronots are
> galloping sideways to make their gate look different.  
>
> Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded
> and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even
> if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary.  
>
>
>
>
>

Ole, 

 Have you ever edited analog vidoe tape?
 

 Do you know what time base corrected 10 FPS analog video looks like?
 

 

 Also what is the free space path loss of RF at 5 ghz from 250 thousand miles, how many watts would be required pushing an 18 db yagi even with the 60 db gain of a 26 meter dish at Canberra?

Speaking of antigravity and secret gov ops .I saw one coming out of Georgia
going into Alabama at Alma I was looking West sun was setting and there was
a big jet taking off a some air port ahead of me I was just looking at that
jet when I saw it .a cock pit in frount of me like 100 ft away flying
across the highway the only reason I saw it was because of the cockpit dash
lights illuminated the cockpit up a little .it was flying and invisible no
sound nothing .it was just happenstance that I saw it.I asked at flying j
up the road what was up and they said I was officially spooked .he laughter
and said that the government was working on some secret project at that
abandoned nation guard armory .and people get spooked due to them landing
in the grassy island between the roads .there was a Chinese scienctist that
was working for the military on boisman ? Condensates that just vanished
.from the public .her work involved antigravity it made a believer out of
me . I think I'm going to invest in coat hangers !.big demand NASA's
running low .
On Jun 3, 2018 2:50 PM, "[email protected] [EVGRAY]" <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Ole,
>
> Have you ever edited analog vidoe tape?
>
> Do you know what time base corrected 10 FPS analog video looks like?
>
>
> Also what is the free space path loss of RF at 5 ghz from 250 thousand
> miles, how many watts would be required pushing an 18 db yagi even with the
> 60 db gain of a 26 meter dish at Canberra?
>
>
> 
>

Hi Mike,

"The Apollo S-band spacecraft transmitters produced 20 watts; an uplink transmitter produced 10 kW, a ratio of 27 dB."
Source: https://wiki2.org/en/Unified_S-band https://wiki2.org/en/Unified_S-band

The S-band was developed for broadband communication to the Apollo space ship.

The brother of a friend of mine was the first Danish radio amateur to communicate with somebody in Australia by making a helical antenna and using the Moon as reflector. I don't know the power of the transmitter or if it was one or two way communication or what frequency was used. This must have been twice the distance of the communication between the Earth and the Moon.

Regards
Ole
 

---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Ole, 

 Have you ever edited analog vidoe tape?
 

 Do you know what time base corrected 10 FPS analog video looks like?
 

 

 Also what is the free space path loss of RF at 5 ghz from 250 thousand miles, how many watts would be required pushing an 18 db yagi even with the 60 db gain of a 26 meter dish at Canberra?

NASA actually returns $17 for every $1 funded to it.


On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:36 PM, george gray [email protected]
[EVGRAY] <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> If they had used the money they wasted with NASA they could got rid of
> world poverty.
>
> George
>
> On Sunday, 3 June 2018, 19:17:22 GMT+10, [email protected] [EVGRAY] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If they had the money they could probably build as big rockets today as
> the Saturn V rocket of the 1960's which is the biggest rocket type ever
> build.
>
> With the same amount of money spent on researching Victor Schaubergers
> technology <http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Viktor%20Schauberger.htm> a
> much cheaper vehicle could probably be built. N. Tesla's antigravity
> vehicle that could stay in one place in the air during a storm is another
> research area. Who did he sell that technology to?! Did he even prove the
> concept before he died?!
>
> Regards
> Ole
>
>
>
>
> ---In [email protected], <konehead@...> wrote :
>
> Hi Mick
> Could be mixture of top secret space vehicle shit like antigravity
> propulsion combined with massive photo fakery along with alien intrusions
> but stil got to moon and back a few times just not now they say.
> Everything is faked everthing is fucked and who knows truth but easy to
> see what is not true
> Kone
>
> 
>

Hi Mick;

The 10kW was from the Earth transmitter. The 20W was from the transmitter on the Moon. On Earth two radio telescopes were used to pick up the weak signal.

According to the Wikipedia article (https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera) 30fps color cameras were used on every mission starting with Apollo 10. The first manned mission to land on the Moon was the Apollo 11. Thus this must have been shot with a 30fps color camera.

"Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary."
There was also a mission where the crew almost died without even landing on the Moon. It went even worse for the Soviet space program. All of their Moon rockets failed. Number two of their moon rockets crashed at the launch site and made one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history https://wiki2.org/en/N1_(rocket). https://wiki2.org/en/N1_(rocket)

Regards
Ole
 

---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Ole, 

 I know they alledge to use the moon as a reflector in EME but is it proven they are getting moon bounce or something else, is there an approx 6 second delay?  If so how is the moon bounce overcoming the free space path loss?
 

 Calculating with an 18 db gain antenna and 60 db reciver path loss is at about 160db for 250k miles so would require some serious wattage for a gain of 160 more than 10kw.  Even at 10kw how long could the batteries sustain that along with air conditioning at 250 degrees all day and heating for the freezing nights.
 

 But back to the analog video, this I know like the back of my hand.  I can tell you from personal experience when slowing down to 10 frames per second with a time base corrected analog setup that can record and playback with variable speed sync it looks like stop action very jerky.
 

 Looking at the video it is shot at a higher frame rate than normal to make it look slowed down, opposite of slow scan.  The astronots are galloping sideways to make their gate look different.  
 

 Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary.

Ron, I have not updated my view on the world Government, that has always
been my view, or, for as long as you've known me.

On that we are on the same page mostly.

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:34 AM, [email protected] [EVGRAY] <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Ron, you say there is evidence, but I ask, for you to tell me what
> evidence there is and the best you come up with is a lack of blasting away
> of sand...
>
> John, it is good to see your updated view on world government, good work.
>
> Now I hope you can cash in on the excitement of the fake moon landings!
>
> First of all is the moon real?  It seems to be a busy little place with
> all sorts of alien and human actively going on... the NASA Apollo scene was
> just smoke and mirrors to hide the real goings on. So there is no need to
> debate the hoax. Same with 9-11, most people now the real cause, right?
>
> Ron
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3axPn65MGM
>
> 
>

Hi Mick

"Yes because the Russians did not have Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick to makes sure everything appeared to work."
According to the documentary on the Russian space program they failed going to the Moon because their visionary chief engineer died and the one taking over wasn't up the the skills. Besides they didn't have enough funds for the task. Instead they learned how to live in space with their space station until it was hit by a rocket bringing supplies. The supply rocket was guided like some kind of computer game without knowing the distance as the USSR was split up and the Ukrainian company delivering the automated guidance system became too expensive for the space program.

"Please show me the math how 20 watts of energy had enough to overcome the free space path loss. The radio telescope was 26 meters at 5ghz I think it was, this provides a 60 db gain advantage as far as my math goes.  Can you show me in RF engineering math how this would work with the FSPL of over 250 thousand miles?"
I don't know the math for that without having to spend a lot of time researching. Sorry I don't want to spend time on that. Several sources mention that the communication was on the S-band (2-4GHz). Actually it was the lower end of that band.

On the camera and scan technology used back then:
"For Apollo 11, an RCA scan-converter was used, which operated on an optical conversion principle. The pictures were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a Vidicon TK22 camera was pointed at the screen. As each frame of the 10 frames per second picture was received, it was displayed on the monitor. The camera was gated to scan a single field at the EIA (NTSC) rate of 1/60th of a second, that is it did not take a picture until the 10-inch monitor had completed displaying a full frame. The output of the camera was transmitted and simultaneously recorded on magnetic disc. The disc recording was then played back a further five times and transmitted. While the disc recorder was playing back, the monitor screen was blacked out and the next frame started displaying. The monitor had enough persistence that it retained the picture, and RCA built special circuits to adjust for any loss of brightness between the top and bottom of the picture. In this way, a 30 frames per second (60 interlaced fields per second) TV was produced - with only one in six fields being live. "
Source: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html. http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/tv_from_moon.html

The video does look like it is being scanned quit slow with all the overlays seen when the astronaut is jumping. The same part of his helmet is scanned at different places when moving downwards. He moves faster than the lines are scanned. Thus the same moving parts are scanned at different places before the next frame is scanned..

"The fact no one seems to jump higher than a foot and a half is a dead give away."
But how do we know that they couldn't have jumped much higher? The hight they jump seems to be done without much effort. Were they asked to jump as high as they could? He should probably bend much more down before jumping if he wanted to jump higher.

Regards
Ole
 

---In [email protected], <mkjekyll@...> wrote :

 Ole,
 Yes because the Russians did not have Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick to makes sure everything appeared to work.

 Please show me the math how 20 watts of energy had enough to overcome the free space path loss. The radio telescope was 26 meters at 5ghz I think it was, this provides a 60 db gain advantage as far as my math goes.  Can you show me in RF engineering math how this would work with the FSPL of over 250 thousand miles?
 I guess this guy did not need a radio dish to hear the moon transmissions:
 http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

 The cameras on the moon were allegedly 10 FPS slow scan.
 https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2 https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2
 https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/ https://www.wired.com/2007/01/nasa/
 watch him walking backwards, one can see the extra frames beyond 30 FPS this is supposed to be slow scan ten frame I say no way!  At 1/6 gravity men in the best training condition of their lives should have weighed 60 lbs with the suits on which should allow for 4 foot jumps easy.  The fact no one seems to jump higher than a foot and a half is a dead give away.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4

 
 On 6/3/2018 6:09 PM, onielsen@... mailto:onielsen@... [EVGRAY] wrote:

   Hi Mick;
 
 The 10kW was from the Earth transmitter. The 20W was from the transmitter on the Moon. On Earth two radio telescopes were used to pick up the weak signal.
 
 According to the Wikipedia article (https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera https://wiki2.org/en/Apollo_TV_camera) 30fps color cameras were used on every mission starting with Apollo 10. The first manned mission to land on the Moon was the Apollo 11. Thus this must have been shot with a 30fps color camera.
 
 "Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary."
 There was also a mission where the crew almost died without even landing on the Moon. It went even worse for the Soviet space program. All of their Moon rockets failed. Number two of their moon rockets crashed at the launch site and made one of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions in human history https://wiki2.org/en/N1_(rocket). https://wiki2.org/en/N1_%28rocket%29
 
 Regards
 Ole

 
 
 ---In [email protected] mailto:[email protected], <mkjekyll@...> mailto:mkjekyll@... wrote :
 
 Ole, 

 I know they alledge to use the moon as a reflector in EME but is it proven they are getting moon bounce or something else, is there an approx 6 second delay?  If so how is the moon bounce overcoming the free space path loss?
 

 Calculating with an 18 db gain antenna and 60 db reciver path loss is at about 160db for 250k miles so would require some serious wattage for a gain of 160 more than 10kw.  Even at 10kw how long could the batteries sustain that along with air conditioning at 250 degrees all day and heating for the freezing nights.
 

 But back to the analog video, this I know like the back of my hand.  I can tell you from personal experience when slowing down to 10 frames per second with a time base corrected analog setup that can record and playback with variable speed sync it looks like stop action very jerky.
 

 Looking at the video it is shot at a higher frame rate than normal to make it look slowed down, opposite of slow scan.  The astronots are galloping sideways to make their gate look different.  
 

 Somehow six missions to the moon and back and every mission suceeded and everyone lived, just the unlikelyhood of that is staggering even if one rocket had more stages and the fuel necesary.

My mistake John. Good to hear we are some what on the same page.
 

 Ron