Comments by "Nate Herrick" (@VulcanJedi2006) on "AT&T Tech Channel" channel.

@rhysf.505 exactly Rhys! This should be a whole move even! where is Ken Burns!?? The lost amazing phone tech of 1969! but yeah--nothing
9
exactly D. Kay---just angry, defensive ad hom---and it's all guesswork. The responses are defensive people, making up stuff--and writing in all caps. Clearly they are triggered. Clearly this moon to earth phone call is not normal--and strange---and if it were so, there should be nice articles explaining it--but, there ain't. Just angry ad hom attacks from the NASA faithful. IDK all the answers--but any child could tell you NASA is not entirely honest.
6
@johnwoody9505 Circular argument--not a link to an article explaining these supposed repeaters and towers or other amazing 1969 tech--now lost. Post an reliable source article John Woody--not a thinly veiled ad hom. That is what D asked. Where is a NASA articles explaining the loss of 1969 repeater tech? post that! ???
5
@johnwoody9505 John--post an article explaining this amazing lost tech--that should be easy.
5
@johnwoody9505 Just post the article genius. Do you want me to send you an explanation on cutting and pasting?
5
the "smart" people say "towers" or "repeaters" --and scoff---but they don't post any article--anything--a link explaining this.
5
@johnwoody9505 Just post an article---ANY article--explaining this amazing 1969 ability for moon to earth--zero delay communication! I'd love to see ANY news outlet or credible source--explain it. You asking me about "parabolic" whatever is clearly a stupid question-when you know darn well I am not a scientist--and nobody has any idea who you are---just post a link! So everyone can read this obvious and clear idea you all post about here in a forum on youtube--LOL! Just post an article? Are you telling me---nobody explained this---in any news source--ever? IN frieeking 50 years! LOL! why is the ISS phone talks always delayed? !!!!LOL
4
@johnwoody9505 LOL! No--you have no answers---only defensive, thinly veiled ad hom! If you were truly educated, you'd know an article, from a credible source, is basic---nobody just makes a flip response in youtube and calls that "science" LOL--post an article----from ANYWHERE---and you are clearly just doing attack on education---ad hom--fallacy--and not something smart people do
4
@johnwoody9505 if radio comms are possible from moon--obviously they'd also be possible from ISS--there answered your question--but again--the PROPER--and credible way to answer this is a neutral party article--and NOBODY POSTS ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY! I LOOKED! LOL
3
@Bmetalful all the opposition can do is ridicule--which is clear signal they are on defense--their answer is usually "you are dumb and don't know the amazing wizard math I do" ---why say that? Just explain to us dopes--the amazing tech NASA had in 1969---now lost? they clearly know that is a lie. Or they'd explain it calmly without ad hom. The name calling is a clear sign they are defensive.
3
@trillrifaxegrindor4411 your name calling--and ad hom attack is NOT credible--that is something people do when they are on the defensive. It's a fallacy and red flag. Can you cite an article that states what you are saying---anyone can post in anger and ad hom on youtube---is there a reliable source to cite--that states these "links" are the answer? You writing THINK CAREFULLY in caps is not science or credible.
2
@TheTopMostDog or answer this--why are the ISS calls delayed--but this moon call was perfect-no delay? explain that and also a link to a reliable source would be preferred--over your thinly veiled ad hom replies--about how "simple" this is? <--ad hom --is a fallacy of logic--not science and something defensive people do
2
@TheTopMostDog so your answer is: the moon to earth call was a perfect line of sight ---but they never call at the proper time when we do the ISS call to CNN? really? again--cite this please
2
@TheTopMostDog saying "physics 101" is just an ad hom fallacy--not an answer--you might as well say--"you are too dumb to get it" and therefore we are all hoy plloy and might as well just take it on faith
2
simple--see dummies! You just route the call to mission control! easy as pie! get it you dopes! Did you fail math idiots? It's so simple! simple!
2
Dojocho the moon to earth signal was tower based? huh? what about these "repeaters" I hear about? towers? on earth? how would that help the moon call?
1
@TheTopMostDog Okay--so the call is clear because of the clear line--from the earth to sky to moon? what about the repeaters others mention? do those play a role? or just the clear sky line to the moon? do you have a link explaining this? an article? It sound like you are just guessing! I think you are just making this up--and you didn't actually read a credible source from anyone explaining this. Because--why can't we also use Satellites-to get a clear signal? it is straight up?
1
@caav56 do you a link to an article on this "receiver network" and why we can't access this tech anymore?
1
@TheTopMostDog Okay---can you post a credible article explaining the amazing tech of 1969 moon to earth? I'd love to read about how "repeaters" or whatever were able to make a clear, undelayed phone call to the moon--when the ISS can't talk without delay. And I'd love to read how this amazing trillion dollar tech was lost---and now we can't use it anymore. Please post a link to an article--I'm sure there are plenty of them and one should be easy to find.
1
Can all you smart people just be clear--without the ad hom attack? Trillion dollar repeaters using Satellites--made this crystal clear--without delay phone call to the moon? Is that right? Trying to get a simple answer for us simpletons. Can you post a nice article--explaining for simple folks--you know--the tax payers who funded NASA--a nice article explaining these amazing trillion dollar repeater phone lines you casually toss out? I'd appreciate the link.
1
here is only "exhaustive" explanation I can find so far--it sounds like snarky responses here! LOL "So how do you call the moon? According to the AT&T Archives, "Simply, the call went from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to Houston, where it was routed into space via Mission Control, through the capsule communicator, or CapCom, astronaut Bruce McCandless" II."://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/How-did-President-Richard-Nixon-place-a-phone-14108185.php
1
and also--the reddit thread is closed to comments! LOL! the only anything I can find supporting all this GUESSING from the the NASA loyalists are one blurb from local newspaper--literally a snarky one paragraphs response of "quite simple you dopes" and this NASA pdf--that clearly only a small few could possible fathom. So---in other words--trust them.
1
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2gnav/eli5_how_could_richard_nixon_call_the_moon_but_we/
1
People are saying "line of sight" but that is not true---it's not a line of sight issue--it was a relay of towers---Target880 2 points · 9 months ago That is not correct. If you use stelarium and set the correct date and time you can see the the moon is quite low on the horizon and even invisible in some location. It was below the horisont at the Mission Control Center in Huston, Texas and for all of the US east of that. So Nixon would not been able to see the moon when he called it he had been outside. NASA had a network of transmissions station on ships on land and even on aircraft for communication to Apollo. They was connected by cables on earth and radio links both on earth and via satellites. So the goal was to be in contact all the time. Most was only used when it was close to earth and only 3 location had large 85 feet dished used for communication when the was on or around the moon. They are located in United States (California), Spain (Madrid), and Australia (Canberra) and are today part of NASA Deep Space Network . They are 120 degrees apart on earth so any location in space close the the ecliptic is visible for at least one location. So NASA could communicate with them all the time the was on the surface of the moon. The You find information of the network at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660018739.pdf If you look at stelarium the moon is high above the horizon in Canberra when the call was made so the most likely way that the call was connected was regular phone lines to Houston Texas and then the ground base communication network to Canberra where it was transmitted to the moon. According to https://honeysucklecreek.net/people/dinn.html the Deputy Station Director of the station confirm that it was Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station i Canberra that transmitted the signal to the surface of the moon while Gladstone in California transmitted to the command module in orbit. Honeysuckle Creek is 20 km away from the current Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex used by NASA and the antenna used for Apollo has been moved there. So the communication to the surface of the moon was from Australia with a 85 feet(25m) antenna not from the US.
1
I don't see why this series of repeaters--this tech would be lost? Or why it would even by a trillion dollars? The signal was not direct--it was from Down Under--and the moon was not visible during Nixon's call. The direct line thing is bunk by any measure---so the answer is relay of signals--and underwater lines and a receiver in Australia. Nice story---where is the link? where is the nice article explaining this? can't find it! don't see it! you'd think the media or Ken Burns would LOVE to explain this amazing flawless technology--a phone call with no delay--but alas all we have is snarky explanation from closed threads on Reddit and NADA!
1
all we got is defensive people on YouTube--convinced NASA isn't lying ----no reliable article---just one old--black and white paper--with loads of strange charts and graphs
1
@johnwoody9505 "Gone quiet" because, you are not, a guy on youtube--a credible source. If you were educated--you'd know that. Cite an article. Most of us have "gone quiet" because we don't need, or are driven to convince you---we are here to listen, to you convince us, and citing a nice, news article, from a reputable source--is BASIC! LOL! Like easy--and 101--freshmen year stuff--that any---proven fact or science--can easily produce with a few clicks! LOL! BYe! You are clearly a NASA cultist--not interested in truth. Until someone produced facts--and credible sources--you will not convince anyone--with insults and ad hom fallacies---basically telling people "You are too dumb to get science" which isn't science or educated response! LOL bye bye
1
@Axel Smith why the name calling smart guy? Ad hom is a red flag for being defensive.
1
@Bmetalful If you were smart, you'd not resort to name calling--and ad hom fallacy of logic. People on defense talk that way.
1
@johnbrown9802 angry ad hom is not science
1
@TheTopMostDog It's not complicated? They used repeaters? But--they can't do that here on earth? Now you insult---ad hom. Why do that unless you doubt this? Repeaters---can you cite an article about these amazing repeaters and how they are no unavailable?
1
Here is the bottom line, NASA true believers: it's up to you to convince the growing, ever increasing population of doubters--which will only continue. You will not change anyone's mind with snarky name calling---lol! You must find credible articles to post--written by respected journalists--who explain this lost phone technology--! But--alas, there isn't anything. Nothing written in 50 years? I find one blurb about "Mission Control did it!" And that is it. Wow. Just amazing wow. You can keep telling yourself you are a genius--and everyone is stupid who questions NASA---but the skepticism will keep growing, Your snark and defensiveness will only further the growing army of NASA doubters. They are CLEARLY hiding something. Obviously--the phone call is weird and odd--for you not to admit that--is a huge red flag for any thinking person. And labeling anyone who questions, with "Flatearther" labels won't help either. That is clearly being weaponized---and being used to divide us, and slander anyone who questions the NASA and government narrative. This isn't what founders envisioned. This isn't sustainable. You can't just keep being snarky--and expect a stable society. The truth shouldn't be this defensive. The expectations for space travel have been pushed for decades now--and the population is getting restless. Any thinking person from 1962, or a sci fi reader or NASA fan, from 1965 would be shocked to see: no moon bases, no camera in space, no Mars journey--and no flying cars. Something is fishy. The Red Hot Chili Peppers said it best, "Space is the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement." To not acknowledge this--disappointment--is a red flag.
1