Slashdot Mirror


Operation Moon Bounce

linuxwrangler writes "Today marks the 50th anniversary of the first transmission of human voice via moon bounce. The voice was that of James Trexler and the technique became an important method of communication for the military that was used until the advent of the communications satellite. It is still a popular activity for ham radio operators."

103 comments

  1. Packet #1. by SIGALRM · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... transmission of human voice via moon bounce ...

    But then there is always the problem of...
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
  2. Packet #2. by SIGALRM · · Score: 5, Funny


    ...latency in the transmission.

    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:Packet #2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A whole few seconds.

    2. Re:Packet #2. by f8ejf · · Score: 3, Funny

      I never thought I'd spill coffee through my nose with anything regarding EME. Well done! 73 de F8EJF

    3. Re:Packet #2. by overloadhz · · Score: 0

      If I only had mod points... that's one of the funniest... no, *THE* funniest, FP I've ever seen. GJ!

    4. Re:Packet #2. by Jacer · · Score: 1

      That was the most brilliant display of Karma Whoring ever, holy wow. I laughed my ass off.

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    5. Re:Packet #2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that Funny mods don't actually add to your Karma. Mod those two posts "Underrated"!!!

    6. Re:Packet #2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that funny moderations no longer have an effect on karma :-(.

      Bad Taco!

    7. Re:Packet #2. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      And I thought .. buffering .. listening to MP3s .. buffering .. with RealAudio was bad .. buffering .. normally!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    8. Re:Packet #2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny mods don't actually add to your Karma

      Really? How do you know this...? I'm not doubting you, just was curious where you found this info?

    9. Re:Packet #2. by aaronrp · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not excessive latency -- it's short-term data storage. For longer-term storage, use Marsbounce.

    10. Re:Packet #2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the moderation FAQ, here:
      http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml

      Note this is a fairly recent change.

    11. Re:Packet #2. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      The joke's on him! He doesn't get karma for funny mods ;)

  3. Move over VOIP.. by harlingtoxad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Moon Bounce is the new wave of telecommunications!

    --
    Gravity is not just a law, it's also a good idea.
    1. Re:Move over VOIP.. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      From the looks of these antennas, we're going to need a bigger Pringles can!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Move over VOIP.. by Throtex · · Score: 1

      I was expecting a higher frequency of puns like this one.

  4. Satellite! by chrispyman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, so that's why we call the moon a natural satellite!

    1. Re:Satellite! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, its nappy time Johnny, we'll talk about this later :D

  5. satellite communications by RTPMatt · · Score: 2, Funny

    the technique became an important method of communication for the military that was used until the advent of the communications satellite

    Well, i believe this made the moon a communications satellite. but im just a nit-picker ;)

  6. *boing* *boing* by DeeBs · · Score: 0

    Got my hopes up, for a second I thought the article might be about a sweet new amusement park ride.

    "Step right up folks, the new, the amazing, Moon Bounce! Yes thats right, our state of the art ride shoots you off the surface of the Earth, slamming you into the moon, and bouncing you back, hopefully unharmed. Only 5 tickets per ride, but you must be at least 4 feet tall to participate"

    1. Re:*boing* *boing* by SamsaraTC · · Score: 0, Troll

      Got your hopes up? Between the article title and your subject, I thought it was about butt sex. Y'know, the romantic kind, like: "Hey, honey, since it's our anniversary, what do you say we open that bottle of wine your Mom gave us, light some candles, and spread rose petals on the bed for a little moon bounce?"

  7. Even better by f8ejf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Laser EME (moonbounce) without using the moon retroreflectors!

    73 de F8EJF

  8. Gee, but I thought... by lofi-rev · · Score: 1

    these were moon bounces?

  9. Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amateur Radio Enthusiasts do CW (morse) communications using moonbounce, not voice. Given the path loss (c.a. 240dB) and power constraints on amateur stations voice is er.. difficult? (Michael: go look at Trexler's antenna spec!)...

    1. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " Amateur Radio Enthusiasts do CW (morse) communications using moonbounce, not voice."

      [ ] You know W5UN, or (if you are old enough) K1WHS

    2. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by sploxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, CW *and* voice.
      I know a ham (I also have a ham license, but not the neccessary money for the equipment) who demonstrated this a few years ago and it was just amazing!

      He has a lot of equipment and some agreements with the goverment for increased output power.
      So he was able to do a few kW (5?)@2.5GHz on a 9m fully steerable dish and voice/SSB modulation if I recall correctly.
      Now, the first beautiful thing was seeing the lights fade in sync with the voice because of the high power requirements of the transmitter :)

      The response from the moon was clearly readable but noisy, this is very impressive if you calculate the minimum loss (in dB) that is just given by the geometry...

    3. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by Rob+Carr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amateur Radio Enthusiasts do CW (morse) communications using moonbounce, not voice. [Note for Non-Hams: SSB is "Single Sideband" (a form of voice communication) and CW is "Morse Code" (the old "di and dah.")] A few years back, I'd set up my 2m SSB/CW unit with a high gain directional antenna and listen in on EME. Most of it was, as you point out, CW, but occasionally there'd be some voice in there as well. Occasionally, you'd even hear an SSB station communicate with a CW station. I don't know why copying the CW portion of a SSB/CW conversation is hard, but for me it's far more difficult than pure CW.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    4. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. The typical ham has a 9m dish around somewhere. Check under that pile of QSTs.

    5. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " I don't know why copying the CW portion of a SSB/CW conversation is hard, but for me it's far more difficult than pure CW."

      It's likely you are not used listening to SSB over a longer period of time. Switching between SSB and CW on the receiving side is extremely difficult, because you need to adapt your "internal" filters from very low bandwidth to rather large bandwidth.

      I can listen to CW for hours and hours, but listening to SSB is extremely tiring and makes me want to throw away the headphones after a couple of minutes. Well, I drew the consequences and have lived without a microphone on my rig for the past 20 years or so.

    6. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      sorry but most moonbounce I watched performed was AM voice. One gentleman sucessfully sent a packetradio broadcast via EME.

      Out of the 50 EME sessions I sat in on in the past 20 years, only 2 were morse code. the last one was an ongoing experiment at doing EME at low power but long transmission times. and yes it was sucessful at doing EME at only 100 watts ERP.... data transmission only though.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by dougmc · · Score: 1
      AM? Why?

      I believe that AM requires about six times the power as SSB to make a transmission that is of equal readability (sorry, I'm not sure what the proper terms would be.) So why did you choose AM? -- seems to me that SSB would have been a lot easier, either letting you lose a lot less power, or giving you more `effective' power to get through with?

    8. Re:Voice via Moonbounce *NOT* by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Actually voice over the moon with the right conditions is done all the time. Somewhere I have some recordings on the 2m band where this was done - and you can clearly make out the audio.

  10. 47 GHz EME by pingus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At my local ham radio club, a guy just gave a talk about how he is attempting to implement a 47 GHz EME system. Is is interesting because of the technical challenges. Only a few other people actually operate 47 GHz stations. The travelling wave tube that most use was originally used for military work, for a project called Milstar. Interesting that at the time none of the traffic was coded to their satellites because it was considered intristically safe because it would be very hard to build a station for it.

    Some operators do use voice, but have to use big time QRO (high power) stations because the path losses are so huge. Then with new DSP methods, voice communications can definetly work.

    1. Re:47 GHz EME by MuguLover · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny you should mention that. The first 47 GHz moonbounce echoes have been reported as being observed yesterday. This was done by a Russian (Sergei RW3BP) living in a block of flats in Moscow using a 2.4m offset dish and high power. He had to use DSP techniques to detect his signal.

    2. Re:47 GHz EME by pingus · · Score: 1

      Interesting, as the person who gave the talk was working closely with Sergei on this project. Also I believe he was working with a few guys in Canada, VE4MA and some others. It was likely our speaker and him who made the contact. DSP really makes a world of difference.

  11. More info by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:More info by Richard_L_James · · Score: 2, Informative

      Group photo of the 1st HAMS to do Moon Bounce - The dish used came off British Telecom's "Post Office" tower in London. If you wish to see it yourself then come along to FRARS's HAMFEST on Sunday 8th August 2004. More moonbounce photos here.

      FRARS still has some of the leading experts in communications - including M0EYT / Paul J. Marsh who is currently just out in the middle of a field working 10Ghz.... Paul's probably on IRC as well right now so I will see what I can do to highlight this discussion to him in a minute.

  12. Phone by Ms.XingTianCai · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, the first cell phone in action...

    --
    As a computer, I am amused by the faith you have in technology.
  13. it's not as easy as it sounds by quelrods · · Score: 4, Informative

    Moon bounce isn't something that one can conjure up at will with the flip of a switch. The amateur radio stations doing moonbounce have uber high gain directional antennas and pump 1.5kw (1500 watts), maximum legal power, into them. What you get back is a signal so faint that you then use various pre-amps and notch filtering to pull the signal out of the noise. I was fairly certain moon bounce on ham bands was limited to CW (contious wave aka morse code.) (Morse code takes a very minimal amount of bandwith and thus the power is focused instead of scattered across a large portion of spectrum.) iirc when the government did moonbounce they would pump something more to the order of 500kW.

    --
    :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:it's not as easy as it sounds by MuguLover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are right for the lower frequency bands, but once you start moving up above 1000 MHz then EME is possible with much more modest systems. For example on 23cms (1296 MHz) you can work CW EME with 100W and a 3m dish, if you are peering with someone like HB9Q or HB9BBD then you can use a lot less than that.

      The introduction of digital modes like JT44 and JT65 (using FFTs, correlation and strong FEC) has made a big difference and has made EME available for people with much smaller gardens and purses. Unfortunately there are a number of EME operators who insist that a digital mode somehow isn't "real" or that the contacts count for less. This is a shame and gives newcomers the wrong impression of a fine part of the hobby.

      I intend to get active soon with a marginal system for CW work but more than adequate for the more advanced data modes.

      For info about more reasonable microwave EME systems see G4CCH and N2UO

    2. Re:it's not as easy as it sounds by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      Oh. So no chance of rural communities connecting to the net through a broadband moonbounce link then.

      Damn, so much for that patent...

  14. Talking backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they bounce the signal on the moon would it not be coming back reversed?

    Seriously? (no, not really ;-)

    1. Re:Talking backwards? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Onay utbay ouyay avehay oblemspray ithway igpay atinlay omfray imetay otay imetay.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    2. Re:Talking backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it will invert left/right (ie. Kerry will sound like Bush, and vice versa). If only we could get some of the major news media to use this method ;)

    3. Re:Talking backwards? by juggledean · · Score: 1

      It will if it is circularly polarized

  15. Moon bouncing by PKC+Jess · · Score: 1

    Although we may not think about it that much, we owe a lot to the moon for all the things we bounce off it or take whats bounced off it.

    The light reflected from the moon provides large people to be able to see with increased accuracy at night (full moons obviously esecially)

    We bounce lasers off of it as was recently discussed on /. to help prove general relativity.

    We bounce radio signals from the moon for use in communication. (although to a lesser degree of course)

    And although the future is quite fuzzy, I'm sure we'll be bouncing things off that dry old rock for (hopefully) centuries to come.

    I tell you, the human ability to use the moon for so many things (useless and not) astounds me.

    1. Re:Moon bouncing by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The light reflected from the moon provides large people to be able to see with increased accuracy at night

      wait a minute! you are telling me that small people can see in the dark unaided????

      I knew there was a reson to not trust them!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Moon bouncing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      We bounce lasers off of it as was recently discussed on /. to help prove general relativity


      Testing Relativity with Laser Ranging to the Moon K. Nordtvedt, Jr.
      Department of Physics, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana
      Received 11 December 1967; revised 29 February 1968

      Now CowboyNeal has been slow in getting some stories posted on the main page, but this is ridiculous!

    3. Re:Moon bouncing by SlipJig · · Score: 1

      Not to mention many other reasons to like the moon, here and here...

      --
      Read my keyboard review.
  16. Hand written proof! by Lasuuco+Tulkas · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally! Proof that people in the 50's had handwriting as bad as my own!

    1. Re:Hand written proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But his paper is lacking "Read and understood" signatures :P

  17. Moon Bounce for imformation storage by BoxOfCuriosity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read a SF book that used the moon bounce technique to store data. They had markers on the moon for navigation (just reflectors in the rock) People would use a transmitter on earth to send a burst of data to the moon and let it bounce back then retransmit it without storing it. just a loop. You could fit a certain amount of data in the lag. They used it on farther objects to get longer delays. Kind of a strange idea. Box

    1. Re:Moon Bounce for imformation storage by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      send a burst of data to the moon and let it bounce back then retransmit it without storing it. just a loop. You could fit a certain amount of data in the lag. They used it on farther objects to get longer delays. Kind of a strange idea.

      It's nothing strange nor is it science ficton, it's called a delay line memory and it was used in early computers

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Moon Bounce for imformation storage by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      IIRC, there also was some software to store data in invalid DNS requests and incorrect ping queries (with data).

      Im pulling numbers out my ass here, but I think you could store 100KB of data using a t-1 and associated latency (of course, contacting far around world).

      --
    3. Re:Moon Bounce for imformation storage by kc0dxh · · Score: 1

      Now, of course, we just use transporter buffers. The only trouble being that you sometimes have to jiggle the handle a few times.

      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

  18. Military Applications by identity0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I haven't finished reading through the article, but I remember reading about this in one of James Bamford's book about the NSA, "Body of Secrets" or "The Puzzle Palace". Basically, when you bounce a directional radio beam off the moon, it can't be intercepted by anyone except those near the place on Earth where the beam bounces back to. This would allow Navy ships at sea to send a message from the open ocean, to the moon, then to Washington without having the message picked up by the Russians. Pretty neat trick, actually.

    The reason this was in Bamford's book was that the USS Liberty, the Navy eavesdropping ship that was attacked by the Israelis in 1967, had this type of system on board and it was its primary method of communicating with the NSA people in the US. Unfortunately, the system was unreliable, and the hydraulics or pnumatics controlling the directional antenna often broke, making it unusable. Partly because of this, the ship never got the message to stay away from the conflict zone and was bombed. That's how I remember it, at least.

    Maybe that's the danger of relying too much on bleeding-edge technology.

    Anyone here heard of other stories of this technology?

    1. Re:Military Applications by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      for such a message as "stay away from that location" is hardly topsecret, they could have just used normal encrypted radio links. Were they using todays .com managers to decide that?

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    2. Re:Military Applications by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      when you bounce a directional radio beam off the moon, it can't be intercepted by anyone except those near the place on Earth where the beam bounces

      Except it's bullshit, because (1) the beam is hardly directional enough to aim at a location precise enough on the moon to bounce back exactly at a certain point on earth over twice the earth-moon distance (even a well collimated laser makes a big miles-wide splotch on the moon at that distance), and (2) the returning signal is mostly *scattered* back, just like laser light hitting some non-reflective object doesn't come back as a beam, and so you'd be hard-pressed to control the return path anyway.

      You know, there's a reason why Bamford's writings are considered a lot closer to fiction than to history.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Military Applications by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      There is a time window when the moon could not be seen from any part of the former Soviet Union. Moonbounce communication during that time window were actually pretty secure, unless there were Russian ships around that could intercept the signal. Since these ships would have had to be equipped with high gain antennas that cannot be disguised easily, these ships were known to the US, together with their location, thus making it possible to calculate a time window during which secure transmissions were possible.

    4. Re:Military Applications by fl00ty · · Score: 1

      My dad was a communications tech on board a sister ship of the Liberty (USS Gerorgetown http://www.ussgeorgetown.com/gthistory.htm ) and from what I remember him telling me about it, they had more problems with the ship than the Tresscom system, because they used were old surplus ships. He spent a lot of time off the coast of Cuba listening to the local "news". I think he thought it was pretty cool and important because he would always tell us stories about that period of time, and didn't really say much about his time at Ft. Meade or Pearl Harbor, but then again he probably couldn't say too much workin for the NSA....

  19. And the words of that first bounce were.... by ro_coyote · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "FIRST POST!!"

    1. Re:And the words of that first bounce were.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it far more likely to have been some kind of GNAA press release.

    2. Re:And the words of that first bounce were.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Surely you meant:

      "F.....r.....i.....s.....t.....P.....o.....s.... .t.....!.....!"

    3. Re:And the words of that first bounce were.... by Konowl · · Score: 1

      Um.... I laughed when I read this, so I thought I'd take a glance at how it was modded.... why was it modded as Interesting? It was FUNNY, but not interesting...

    4. Re:And the words of that first bounce were.... by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      When I see stuff like that, I assume it is just because some mod wants the poster to get at least a little bit or karma for a funny post.

    5. Re:And the words of that first bounce were.... by d474 · · Score: 1

      Apparently the modder bounced his mod off the moon and it came back a little fuzzy...

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  20. What about artificial moons? by Decaff · · Score: 1

    Is there any record of the unauthorized use of artificial satellites to bounce signals?

    1. Re:What about artificial moons? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Check this one out:

      http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Echo.html

    2. Re:What about artificial moons? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      sorry, you were asking about unauthorized access, Echo (to my knowledge) was used by its owners only.

    3. Re:What about artificial moons? by mikeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was widely rumoured that in the mid-to-late seventies some of the geostationary TV satellites got hijacked for various purposes. By 'widely rumoured' I mean that my ham radio boozing buddies talked about it quite a lot and several of them were broadcast technicians who used satellite up and downlinks at work. I have no first hand proof but they alleged that early geostationary satellites were simple transponders - if you pushed stuff up on the uplink frequency with the right amount of power and in the right direction it came back on the downlink. A popular trick was to slip a signal just to the side of the audio subcarrier at a modest level and then use it to send data or chat to friends. That is not easy to spot unless you look hard at the downlink spectrum.

      This might all be speculation or not - I'd love to know. Maybe it's an urban legend.

    4. Re:What about artificial moons? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

      Google for "Captain Midnight", the guy who hijacked the HBO uplink.

  21. Rick Brant did this in 1947... by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    and in the fifties I read all about it in "The Lost City," a Rick Brant Electronic Adventure, by John Blaine. (Pseudonym of Harold Leland Goodwin). Like Tom Swift, but more up-to-date and nerdier. This is based on many-decade-old recollections, but they end up stranded on a mountain ledge in Tibet with a hand-crank generator. As I recall the book mentions that they need to crank quite hard to power the filaments in the vacuum tubes. It's Morse Code, of course, not voice. I seem to recall that the radio waves are described as being in the radar wavelength range, but it's really been a long time and I'm into very unreliable memory here.

    I wish I could remember why they need to go to Tibet to test the equipment. Probably because If They Didn't, There Wouldn't Have Been Any Story.

    Rick's father is a dignified scientist. Rick and his father are always accompanied by lovable sidekicks Zircon (?) and, um, can't remember his name exactly, it's not "Chowdah" but something like that--an Indian (not a native American, but a person from India) who speaks amusingly broken English and makes comic errors due to his entire knowledge of the Western world having been obtained from a copy of the World Almanac.

    There seems to be quite a bit more about this at this website

    1. Re:Rick Brant did this in 1947... by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Hey, I loved the Rick Brant books since first finding them in the 6th grade. Great adventure imagination fodder for 10 year olds ;)

      Rick's project in "Smugglers Reef" even inspired me to build an infrared nightvision system using surplus stuff from Edmunds Scientific and an old tv set for the HV power supply.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  22. Mirbounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I believe Mir (the former Russian space station) has been used as a passive reflector.
    Z

    1. Re:Mirbounce by Clueless+Moron · · Score: 1
      MIR had a 2m ham packet station on it that was commonly used as a digipeater. That is, you sent it a 1200bps AX.25 packet and it simply repeated it for you.

      Because of heavy contention, it was mostly "hello world" messages, but fun nevertheless. I used it myself. MIR was so cool...

    2. Re:Mirbounce by annisette · · Score: 1
      I agree, the MIR was remarkable, very "movie" worthy.

      I did a paper for english class and we could choose our subject. I chose the MIR and short read several articles, especially about the fire on board, apparently it was a wee bit more serious than the public was led on to believe.

      When the 02 canister went there was a very few moments to react. The cosmonaunt-commander (sorry forget the name) was one of the sharpest in the the space biz and made some amazing command decisions in a very short time.

      Same with the collision with the supply capsule, too bad the cosmonaunts were hammered when they returned.

      the MIR will be a reference for space survival for years to come, and lets not forget Apollo 13

      --
      I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  23. It's all fun and games .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until someone slashdots the Moon.

  24. USS Liberty by zogger · · Score: 3, Informative

    they obviously had more than one kind of radio on board. The identity and their location was known to everyone concerned, israelis, the ship itself, and other US assets out in the med and elsewhere, along with various international HAMS who were monitoring what they could of the ongoing war taking place. The attack was delibarate, and designed to pin the blame on egypt (best credible analysis, IMO) in order to garner support for more US intervention and support for the israeli side. They went so far as to strafe survivors for hours in an attempt to kill all the witnesses. They didn't suceed, but to this day the attack continues to be excused as an "accident". The implications in todays politics are there, just extrapolate it as to how far a nation would go to get it's way in international affairs. I know this isn't an exact answer to your question with moon bounce radios, I just wanted to interject about radios in general and on the topic you raised of the attack on the Liberty. Here is a brief history of it for anyone:

    http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

    June 1993, Page 19

    This Month in History

    The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years

    By James M. Ennes Jr.

    Twenty-six years have passed since that clear day on June 8, 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 young men and wounding 171. The attack in international waters followed over nine hours of close surveillance. Israeli pilots circled the ship at low level 13 times on eight different occasions before attacking. Radio operators in Spain, Lebanon, Germany and aboard the ship itself all heard the pilots reporting to their headquarters that this was an American ship. They attacked anyway. And when the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime.

    There is no question that this attack on a U.S. Navy ship was deliberate. This was a coordinated effort involving air, sea, headquarters and commando forces attacking over a long period. It was not the "few rounds of misdirected fire" that Israel would have the world believe. Worse, the Israeli excuse is a gross and detailed fabrication that disagrees entirely with the eyewitness recollections of survivors. Key American leaders call the attack deliberate. More important, eyewitness participants from the Israeli side have told survivors that they knew they were attacking an American ship.

    Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

    Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

    Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

    The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.

    Key members of the Lyndon Johnson administration have long agreed that this attack was no accident. Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack," he insists.

    Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk is equall

  25. Operation Moore Bounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear, for 5-10 seconds my dyslexic self read this thread title as "Operation Moore Bounce" and I had an instant mental picture of Letterman dropping Michael Moore from the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater. "That'd be pretty f*in sweet!" I thought to myself.

    1. Re:Operation Moore Bounce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? your beloved spiderman movies had him as the assistant director.

      go look at the credits moron-man.

  26. Don't Forget the $100 Challenge by superid · · Score: 1

    The challenge mentioned here is still open, and remains so even after all the comments about how easy it must be that were made here

  27. What! No KTLA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KTLA were the first commercial radio station to bounce a signal off of the moon and back. I think it started "Hello World!"- now you know the rest of the story. The Government thought space aliens were arriving and the radio station got a lot of press, and I think that the FCC were peeved. It made all the newspapers.
    KTLA are/were out of Los Angeles, CA, and the stunt was in the '54 -'57 time frame.

  28. Project Diana by Seabass55 · · Score: 1

    Though 1954 marked the first voice bouncing off the moon the first transmission bounced off the moon was in 1947.

  29. It's A Sham!!! by Arren · · Score: 1

    The Gubberment has you all fooled!!!
    They really just bounced that first transmission off of a hollywood sound stage.....

  30. How about the next data storage medium? by Jeremy+Singer · · Score: 1

    How much data can you temporarily store as bits between here, the moon, and back?

  31. Fight Wars Only 12-hours a Day by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    technique became an important method of communication for the military

    Okay, shut down the war until the moon rises again.

    Let's see. Stealth fighter-bombers no moon. Communication yes moon. Bomb first, and talk about it afterwards.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  32. Not a Cell Phone... by Teechur007 · · Score: 1

    Um...wouldn't it be more properly categorized as a satellite phone?

  33. Popular? by cashcraft · · Score: 1

    Wow. I wouldn't really consider EME very popular. Also, isn't it mainly CW.

    To all you people commenting about telecommunications via the moon, its not all that funny. Its kina (really) cool that the moon can be used as a great big satellite. It paved the way for satelites of today. Also, we amateurs regularly evaluate our stations's radiated power, so the risk of cancer is very low.

    73 de KG6OSQ

    Check out the Amateur Radio Club of Alameda's Web site at www.ashcraftfamily.net/arca/.

  34. America will soon be destroyed! by Moqawama · · Score: 1

    America will soon learn what a mistake it was to invade our lands and kill our people. 37,000 have died in Iraq, and we will make your people pay ten times over! What happened on 11 September was nothing compared to what our holy warriors have planned for you, very soon!

    Death to America! Death to the invaders in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Palestine!