Very good but that does not explain the secret transmission frequency that was not available for public consumption. My guess is that they used different coded language on the other frequency/ies that will never be posted on their website.
Quoting: Curio 519279Oh, please. In other words, it doesn't mater what evidence I can provide, you'll just say "well, maybe it was secret stuff that nobody has heard of".
Or alternatively it's made up nonsense created by someone with no knowledge of the program. Why do you automatically reject that as a possibility? On the one hand, we have an enormous corpus of knowledge, all internally consistent and externally verifiable, and on the other, we have a written transcript that contains nonsensical terms and has nothing in support. Why do you automatically reject anything that refutes the unsubstantiated claim?
Why would they use different language than that publicly used ad nauseam in all broadcasts, the terminology that they had intensively trained in day after day for years until it was an ingrained reflex? Surely if things were critical they would stick with the terminology they knew. Also, why would they need to use nonsensical "code" words rather than the clear technical terms if it was a "secret" transmission that nobody else was listening to? That's like suggesting that surgeons, when nurses aren't around, refer to kidneys as "beanie blobs" or similar. It makes no sense, and just shows that you are determined to remain credulous in the face of clear refutation.
In terms of the language used, it is also possible that a poor translation was used or garbled over time. The key message is the same though.
Quoting: Curio 519279In other words, you'll try to come up with whatever justification you can to continue to believe in something that has nothing to show it is anything other than something made up by someone who has never been near a rocket in their life.
It's not just the fact that the language is all wrong, but that it shows complete ignorance of how spacecraft operate. I keep coming back to the "orbit scanning" bit, because that's one of the most obviously wrong. The LM had no capacity to "scan" orbits, whatever that means - they received data from the ground that contained all the information the LM computer needed to launch safely and rendezvous with the CM in orbit. The fact that the supposed transcript has the LM launching at a time of its own choosing is clearly wrong - the launch had to be timed down to the second in order to end up in the correct rendezvous orbit. And as I said, the people in Houston would never have to ask "are you underway", they would know.
However, the final answer lies with the astronauts themselves as the witnesses.
Quoting: Curio 519279No. If there was any doubt that the transcript wasn't made up then that might be a defendable statement, but in the face of all that is wrong with it that is just an abdication of responsibility to defend your belief. It's like if a "transcript" is found of JFK snorting cocaine with Castro in 1967 - you can't just wave off the fact that it is clearly false given external evidence such as JFK's death several years earlier by saying "only the tow of them can verify it". That's just fallacious. External clues are all we need to reject the transcript.
That' and the fact that other amateurs who listened in on the Apollo 11 footage heard nothing like what is claimed in your transcript. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?
