On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:33:38 +0930, "The CO"
wrote:

Oh just remote view the astronauts and you'll find out everything you want
to know. The Russians did. As a matter of fact the Russians were remotely
viewing the astronauts on the Moon in 1969.

Geez.


"dtr" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:00:49 +0930, "The CO"
wrote:

That sounds interesting. I seriously doubt any 'radio hams' were
playing about with
S band 30 metre dishes and high gain amps on NASA frequencies.

Monitoring NASA transmissions is a world-wide hobby among space
enthusiasts,
even today. There's tons of web sites listing the frequencies.

Quite. But no hams were monitoring S band direct traffic from the moon
missions in 1969.
It's trivial to intercept vox traffic from LEO, hams do it every day.
I've done 1200bps packet with the Mailbox on MIR using a $50 FM txcvr, a
converted
C64 modem and a 1/4 wave groundplane made literally from straightened
out coat hangars.
This however will *not* let me listen in to conversations from the moon.

Want more? Ok. Please explain how they managed to hear *both* sides of
the conversation.
Seems to me the best they could have done (assuming they had the
equipment, which they did not)
would be to monitor the *downlink*. Short of bugging the uplink feed, I
fail to see how they could
intercept the vox uplink from a DSN dish half a world away.
Not even a good attempt at bull****.
Any Texans amongst your brethren would be ashamed of such a poor effort.

AFAIK no hams *ever* listened in to the traffic sent direct from
the moon. For a start off, the moon was not in LOS to the US during the
moonwalk,
the signal was relayed from the Parkes radiotelescope in *Australia*. I
*guarantee* you
that if any Aussie ham had managed to 'listen in' direct to astronauts
*on the moon* in that
day and age that *alone* would have made newspaper headlines here. It
didn't happen.
Hams did not have the equipment to monitor direct transmissions from the
moon in 1969.
I watched the moonwalk 'live' on television here btw. We all got time
off from school to
go home and watch it. Which was good, I was bleary from being up at 5am
to watch the
landing live. I watched the whole thing then fell asleep on the
loungeroom floor during a
repeat of it...

Here's one:
http://www.grove-ent.com/nasa.html
People like to spy on NASA to see what they're doing. Most people who
are
interested in space and discovery don't trust what NASA has said in
the past
and are certain NASA has lied to them about extraterrestrial presence.

Most people? Please produce evidence for this claim.

Ok, let's get something straight here. I don't dismiss the concept that
there is life
out there somewhere. Space is vast.

However...

I firmly do not believe that aliens:
1) Visit us in secret or that we are under 'surveillance'.
2) That any govt/NASA/CIA/FBI/MI5/KGB/ASIS/ASIO or similar spook
alphabet agency
has done secret deals with aliens.
3) Some astronauts have reported sighting objects that were not
positively identified.
4) No astronaut that went to the moon *ever* claimed to have met aliens,
there or elsewhere.
5) The segment quoted about about someone listening in to the direct
feed from the
astronauts on the moon is a *lie*. Amateurs/Hams did not have the
equipment to do
so in 1969.

after reading the astronauts statements it doesn't take a rocket
scientist
to discover that NASA has never come clean on what they found in space
and
NASA has in fact gone way beyond rationality to debunk what their own
astronauts found in space and on the moon.

Wild claim. Your only 'evidence' is unverified and unverifiable claims
by *3rd parties*.
"He said/She said" etc.
When Neil Armstrong stands up on CNN and says he shook hands with a Grey
Alien
in a crater near Tranquility Base I'll listen. Since that did not and
will not happen,
I see no danger of your claims ever being accepted as anything but
wishful thinking.

This is pure fictional bull****, nothing more.

NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...

The author of this penny dreadful attempt at science fiction can't even
get the terminology or procedure correct. Where did he learn radio
procedure?
CB?

K00K.

Don't be so hasty to jump to conclusions. I seriously doubt all of
the
astronaut and cosmonaut testimony is kooky.

Nor do I. But several of them are quoted well out of context or are
giving
opinions not based on personal observation. There is a lengthy piece in
your post that is clearly expressing the opinion that there is life on
other
worlds, which is not an unreasonable premise.
There have been sightings of unidentified objects by astronauts in
space,
but nothing that has been demonstrated not to be of earthly origin.
There is *opinion* and there is *verified and verifiable fact*.
As someone else said, it's not a question of voting.
600 years ago everyone 'knew' the Earth was flat because the
bible said it had 'four corners'. This is demonstrably false but
almost *everyone* believed it at the time.

Come up with an alien or a genuinely demonstrably alien artifact or
spacecraft and you can prove your claims. Until then, they are just
another bit of noise in the sea of wierd ideas from wierd people.

In fact our astronauts risked
their lives to explore space and now the agency who sent them is
discrediting their own people.

Wild claim. Proof please. (NB. Websites that have circular references
to other similar websites
are not 'proof'.) Physical evidence please. Find me something on a
NASA website discrediting their
astronauts for something they have said in this vein and I'll look at
it.

That's a terrible slap in the face to
honorable, highly trained men who risked all so that the rest of us
could
learn.

Misquoting and twisting statements by those same men could also be
construed that way.

Bottom line is that you despoil any possible validity any of your
statements might have by
including obvious fraudulent falsehoods like the 'hams listened in'
rubbish.
Generalistic statements supporting the concept of life elsewhere are
equally irrelevant.
Even astronauts have opinions and in general I share the opinion that
it's at least possible
that there is life (intelligent or otherwise) elsewhere.


The CO